tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-71160353278132530552024-03-05T02:26:10.172-08:00An Urban RamblerMusings of a newly minted City Planner.Brandenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04773092281736359503noreply@blogger.comBlogger157125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7116035327813253055.post-82948933636226080812014-01-05T17:08:00.005-08:002014-01-05T17:08:51.881-08:00Lack of experienceIn my last post, I talked about having to give up the idea of being a planner. The lack of experience was the big factor in the down economy.<br />
<br />
Proof that I am not quite over it, I am reading one of the books given to me for Christmas. In a book titled <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Those-Guys-Have-All-Fun/dp/B00BR4W8F8">Those Guys Have All the Fun</a>, authors James Andrew Miller and Tom Shales chronicle the timeline of ESPN's rise to dominance. In the 1970 and early 1980's, when ESPN was planned and implemented, there was a lot of uncertainty and doubt about whether the idea of an all-sports cable channel would succeed. Many of the things they did were ridiculed by the established media outlets.<br />
<br />
Many of the guys ESPN hired early were new guys who had little-to-no experience in running and producing TV. Most of them were hired because they were cheap, but they were also hired because they had a passion to make it work.<br />
<br />
Many of the things they did are common place today, but were told back then that people didn't want to do that. The established experience of the established media guys said viewers didn't want studio updates. They said viewers wanted to watch the game they were watching and not be interrupted. They said the camera should only follow the ball, whereas ESPN pioneered the cameraman following a player without the ball who would make an impact on the play.The establishment said viewers weren't concerned with what was going on behind the scenes. ESPN said things like the NFL draft would hold interest to the public.<br />
<br />
These young guys were hired by the execs because they were cheap, sure. But there were a lot of guys who were cheap that didn't get on with ESPN. The guys who were hired wanted to prove themselves. The execs gave them freedom to do what they needed, guided them when needed and took a station that experienced folks said were doomed and made it the dominant name in sports media.<br />
<br />
My point is, I think the planning industry is doing itself a disservice by not giving inexperienced guys a try. I understand why they value experience, but in the end, using ESPN as an example, does it make the candidate better? I can't answer that for every city/agency/company, but I can say that it isn't necessarily better. Sports fans today take for granted what ESPN pioneered in the early 80's by guys without experience.<br />
<br />
I'm not saying I would have revolutionized the planning industry. But I would have brought a similar passion to my job. I would have also brought a similar zeal for success. There are lots of inexperienced guys like me who would do the same. Keep in mind that Dallas/Fort Worth was spared from the worst of the recession. If I had these struggles here, I can't imagine what is going on in the harder hit areas. I just can't imagine what the planning industry will look like without a dearth of young guys coming in.Brandenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04773092281736359503noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7116035327813253055.post-86838492218603020652013-12-27T19:40:00.003-08:002013-12-27T19:40:27.138-08:00So this is itThis one will be a tough one for me to write. I'm doing this primarily for myself as a cathartic exercise. But I am also partially doing it for my more loyal readers, some of whom have wondered why I post less than I have had in the past. I view writing as a mental therapy and I just need to get some things out. This post may seem rambling at times as I have many disparate thoughts coming from many different directions.<br />
<br />
Let me add a fair warning, there may be language that I don't normally
say or write. I haven't cussed in this blog nor my other, so whatever I
write will be from the depths of the passion I have.<br />
<br />
I have failed. The top of this blog reads "a newly minted city planner." I received a masters, but never found the professional career path. For over three years, I routinely checked the job boards, entered the same information in different application software for different planning entities, applied for jobs I qualified for, went to the occasional interview, but never became a planner. My wife constantly told me I didn't fail. I still disagree. I tried and didn't succeed. By definition, I failed.<br />
<br />
Today I accepted a position with the Dallas Police Department. Starting late next month, I begin training to become a police officer. Ironically, it will be the first job where I will actually get some compensation for my degree. Sadly, it is for my Bachelors. As it stands now, my Masters has been a $25,000 albatross.<br />
<br />
I offer a brief timeline to give some context. I have a family. Part of the impetus for moving into an alternate career field is to provide for them. When we started family planning, the assumption was to get a good job out of college. There were some extra life issues that we dealt with that upped the timeline, so my first son was born in March 2010 several months ahead of the original thought. I finished studies the following August. There wasn't much job headway, so I started a second job in April of 2011. That provided enough income to make it work. Then in early 2012, we had unexpected news of a second son. I took a third income source, but it wasn't enough for both. We saved well, but it were going to run out before years end. I applied for DPD in case some of the opportunities that lay ahead of me failed. They did. By this time next year, I will be donning a police officers uniform. <br />
<br />
There were several factors that I have pinpointed that caused this outcome.<br />
<br />
My primary problem is that I lacked professional experience. Sure, I volunteered for various planning functions, like DART's D2 study and the Downtown 360 plan, but had no planning experience where I was paid for my efforts.<br />
<br />
I logged a minimum of 70 applications for open, entry level positions (I like to catalog useless data and stats, but admit I likely missed a few). Most were within DFW, but several were around the state and country. Of those, well over half never responded other than thanks for applying. I was just left hanging. Most of the rest responded months after the fact, well after I already knew I was out (thanks for reminding me I didn't get it). A small handful let me know in a timely manner that I wasn't going to get an interview or work there, and they were the most appreciated.<br />
<br />
Of those 70+, I interviewed for 7 positions. I know for a certainty that five of those ENTRY level positions were filled by folks with experience, including one internship that was filled by someone with experience. Yes, you heard that right. I did not get an internship because I didn't have enough experience. In another case, a person involved in the hiring process was obviously sheepish when I asked for followup. He was embarrassed that they hired someone with experience for an entry-level position. I can't speak for certainty for the other two, because I just don't know. I have my suspicion, but nothing else. <br />
<br />
That right there severely pisses me off. The planning industry is undervaluing itself. Folks with two or three years as a professional are being paid entry level salaries and doing entry level work. Meanwhile, true entry level people aren't doing squat but applying for the next job.<br />
<br />
My wife has heard this rant many times. If you want experience, ASK FOR IT IN THE JOB POST!!!!! Not only are you devaluing the planning industry, you are giving false hope to folks like me. Sadly, though the miracle of the internet, I know I'm not the only one struggling through this.<br />
<br />
The only classmates that I know who were able to get jobs were those who had no other personal obligations and could do low-to-un-paid internships. Some were living with parents, others with several roommates. I, on the other hand, had to support a wife and kids because I went back to school later in life. I had to have a full time job, while also going to Graduate School full time, while also becoming a first-time parent. There was just no way to do that and get an internship, unless it was paid. Paid internships were cut just as much as the planning staffs were (One classmate who got a professional gig actually told me that he didn't want to do planning as a career in an attempt to make me feel better...How that would make me feel better is beyond me).<br />
<br />
In some ways, I am really not surprised that experience means so much. In a profession that categorizes everything, how do you measure an applicants worth? Worth ethic, desire, passion, motivation are all unmeasurable attributes. Even knowledge can be, though I do offer up my 4.0 Masters GPA as some type of measure, though it certainly doesn't cover it all. I'd put my writing and communication skills against anyone, but there really is no way to measure that. But experience? That is the easiest and really only one that is 100% completely measurable. And mine was 0.0. <br />
<br />
Externally, I graduated at the worst time in the history of the planning profession. The deficiency in experience wouldn't have been an issue were the times more consistent with the previous twenty years. The cuts to parks and libraries received a lot of media attention but cuts to planning were just as severe. There are over 60 municipalities in the DFW region. If each laid off between 1-6 planners (I know one city eliminated the entire department), then us entry level guys never stood a shot if they were ahead of us.<br />
<br />
In a down economy, I don't blame these experienced planners who were
laid off for getting any job they can. They are probably more like me than those few students I mentioned who were getting a job. They had a family, kids or other obligations and needed a source of revenue. It doesn't make it any easier for me, but at least I can sympathize.<br />
<br />
There are many in the profession who are openly questioning what the future of planning looks like. New blood is not coming in, especially at the rate of retirement and attrition. <br />
<br />
I am also dismayed with my University. Other than a professor who did everything he could, I felt the School of Urban and Public Affairs at UT-Arlington took my money, gave me a degree and sent me on my way. There was no prep while in school for getting a job. There was no career development folks to guide the process, offer tips or resume critiques. The best SUPA could do was have a e-mail service that published open jobs, but that's available only to students. I heard of few times about networking, but that was it and it wasn't in depth, just a casual mention. I had a fairly large network and absolutely nothing positive happened - I'll mention a little of that in a moment.<br />
<br />
Even outside of SUPA, UTA fell flat. I asked Career Services for help with my resume in the beginning. They gave a few vague pointers that I had seen on Yahoo!'s front page. I revamped what was an absolutely awful resume and asked them to critique that. Crickets. I tried again and got nothing. I felt like a cheap date. UTA took my money and showed me a good time and then the door. Didn't even pay for cab fare.<br />
<br />
So to the professor, Ard Anjomani, thank you so much for all your help. I just wish it wouldn't have been in vain. I'm only using his name because I truly felt he did everything he could to help. He deserves some praise. To most of the other professors, thank you for providing a mentally stimulating environment. To the rest of UTA that I dealt with, shame on you! Shame for taking my money and running. I needed you and instead I got nothing.<br />
<br />
Even some of my fellow classmates deserve shame. Many of them were already employed in the field while working on their Masters, beneficiaries of a better economic climate. On in particular still makes my skin crawl. In a lapse of moral judgement, I fed him answers for his thesis-substitute test. Had he not passed this test, he wouldn't have graduated. I can't say for sure the<b> many</b> answers I provided were the difference in pass/fail, but I do know I studied and he didn't. He passes, moves to a different, higher paying job in another city, bolstered by his experience and Masters Degree. Eventually, that city has an opening and when I call asking for a good word, he tells me there is nothing he can do because he is on the hiring committee. Just thinking about still pisses me off. There are other examples networking failure, but that one...that ...my ire will never subside.<br />
<br />
And Alumni Association, stop calling me asking donations. Even if I could afford to give you something, I don't feel I owe you anything. I have two degrees from you. My Bachelors I actually used in radio, though the U in now way advises against getting a Communications or Journalism Degree. The traditional media industries are shrinking and dying, yet their enrollment is increasing and they don't mention a thing about job prospects. However, I got the degree and worked in the field.<br />
<br />
With SUPA, I couldn't even get work in the industry. In my naivety, I truly thought I could take a 4.0 in a Masters program and get a job.Maybe I deserve some shame too.<br />
<br />
Irony, I still love my Alma Mater. At least as an undergraduate, I felt an attachment to UTA. I actively follow the U's sports teams, as evidenced by my <a href="http://themaverickrambler.blogspot.com/">second blog</a>, and still feel a positive emotion toward UTA. But it in no way shape or form has anything to do with earning a Masters. I still seethe when I think of how they use their students, or more accurately, their wallets. Or, considering the ballooning crises surrounding student loans, their credit worthiness is the most accurate.<br />
<br />
When I told a close friend I might become a police officer - he is one himself - he expressed reservations about me joining the police department. His primary concern was that the profession is a hard one, and those without the passion may struggle.<br />
<br />
There may be some truth to that. But I believe in loyalty and paying it forward. All levels of the department, from the folks who processed our paperwork, to the test takers, to the background detective, busted their ass to try and get me in. Were it not for a legal issue with my name, they would have done all of that in time for the academy that began the first week of November. In fact, thanks to my current employment, DPD officers have been recruiting me for years. After failing so long at attaining a planning job, it feels good to be wanted. I will NEVER forget that. That creates a passion and drive to succeed and honor that.<br />
<br />
It is clear the planning profession has no desire to include me. I don't have any pretense that I would have been a superstar planner along the lines of Peter Calthorpe, Janet Sadik-Kahn or Daniel Burnham. But I can guarantee you, any planning agency would be hard pressed to find a member of their staff more dedicated or driven to succeed than me. Instead, that drive now goes to DPD. And it is the same drive they have shown towards me.<br />
<br />
But I won't lie. It hurts. Failing to become a planner really hurts. I don't normally fail. Most times, I just try harder until I figure out how to succeed. Prior, my one other big failure was not making radio work. With little chance of advancement and a huge likelihood of instability, I left the radio industry and its $7/hr, weekday night, market #5 broadcasting position. I just couldn't make it work professionally. It was creating a strain on my personal life (BTW, the $7/hr I earned as recently as October 2006, isn't even minimum wage now). That<i> was</i> my biggest failure. However, spending $25,000 for a piece of paper and not getting into the industry is now my biggest. I couldn't make either work and both still hurt.<br />
<br />
As it stands now, I am just channeling that hurt into making this work. I really don't know how to describe the feeling that I finally will be able to fully provide for my family. I will enjoy the new challenges and am ready to tackle it head on. I am really excited about the future and am very much looking forward to January 29, when academy starts. In fact, I have already spent Christmas money and gift cards on items I will need for it.<br />
<br />
As for this blog, I don't honestly know what is in store. I still love transportation, urban design and development. I still want Dallas to achieve a critical mass of cohesive, consecutive urban neighborhoods. I can foresee a time when the pain wears off and I will post again. What I will type would be Dallas-specific, as the posts about planing in general won't have any meaning to me anymore.<br />
<br />
I don't know when, but that's the best I can offer my group of loyal readers. Until then, thank you so much for following me and giving me an outlet these last three years, since I didn't get that with a professional job to actually practice it in.Brandenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04773092281736359503noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7116035327813253055.post-30243075415665450322013-10-24T07:14:00.000-07:002013-10-24T07:14:08.378-07:00Dallas Does Bike Lanes IIRoughly a month ago, I <a href="http://anurbanrambler.blogspot.com/2013/09/dallas-does-bike-lanes.html">critiqued the bike lanes</a> on the ground in downtown Dallas. While there were some things I liked, I was overall unhappy with what has been put into place.<br />
<br />
On Wednesday, the annual ride to City Hall took place, and several council members were there as well as the man in charge at Public Works of putting the infrastructure in place, Jared White. When I voiced my concerns, I was generally pleased with the reception. Some of the lane changes and the separated lane at Main under the freeway he acknowledged weren't perfect.<br />
<br />
As he explained to me, it was a learning process that the City was doing. There will be changes, though none in the near term, but that the lessons learned would be applied to the currently-fund-but-not-implemented bike infrastructure projects in the near term.<br />
<br />
He also was similarly discouraged about the lack of enforcement when vehicles stage in the lanes on Jackson and Wood. He lives near there and sees that happening and is hoping for better enforcement. He also acknowledged the lanes run though sewer grates, recessed man-hole covers and other obstacles and will work to resolve those at some point. <br />
<br />
While I still think that Dallas would have benefited from having a cyclist plan and implement the projects, I am at least a little encouraged that they recognize there is room for improvement in the way we go about adding bicycle infrastructure.<br />
<br />
<br />Brandenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04773092281736359503noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7116035327813253055.post-10872323711872886212013-10-11T05:37:00.000-07:002013-10-11T05:37:45.768-07:00Am I Scott Griggs?Short answer no, but listening to the Economic Development Committee this week might have given someone who reads this blog a different impression.<br />
<br />
I have mentioned the <a href="http://anurbanrambler.blogspot.com/search?q=Victory+Park">urban design flaws of Victory Park</a> before. One of the items before the EDC this week was the latest proposal by the owners of Victory Park to turn it around. I won't go into details since I only know the generics, turn Olive into a more pedestrian-friendly street, widen sidewalks all over and get rid of some one-way streets in favor of two-way. Sounds good, but without concrete proposals or blueprints, I just can't comment with certainty. Victory Park in its generic form sounded good, but the devil was in the details.<br />
<br />
But I offer these quotes from Griggs.<br />
<br />
"If you want these water-colors (artist renderings) to be a reality, you have to stop focusing on the events and focus on everyday life."<br />
<br />
"You can't have events drive the every day. We want to build a
successful community in an urban environment and to do that you need
life between buildings on a day in, day out basis."<br />
<br />
Victory Park is "one of the biggest failures of urban design ever imaginable."<br />
<br />
No link to the Katy Trail "is going to be a regrettable mistake."<br />
<br />
Griggs also noted the poor relation to Victory Park and the DART light rail station. <br />
<br />
He wasn't the only one with attention directed towards the flaws. I think we are finally getting council members who get urban areas.<br />
<br />
Adam Medrano questioned city staffers on why bike lanes were absent in the redo plans. His council district covers the area.<br />
<br />
Lee Kleinman, similar to Griggs, noted there is a lack of everyday needs for the area. He also made mention that arena-anchored areas tend to fail, something I have said <a href="http://anurbanrambler.blogspot.com/search?q=stadiums+economic+development">many times</a>, particularly on the economic development front.<br />
<br />
It is really refreshing to see Council members ask the hard questions and point out the obvious, rather than take the developers word and hope for the best.Brandenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04773092281736359503noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7116035327813253055.post-86247874118964969092013-10-05T19:57:00.005-07:002013-10-05T19:57:42.217-07:00Just Not Enough ParkingI guess it has been a while and it is inevitable that it gets the spot light again at some point. Friday, Steve Brown of the Dallas Morning News ran an article <a href="http://www.dallasnews.com/business/commercial-real-estate/headlines/20131003-next-challenge-for-downtown-dallas-where-to-park.ece">lamenting the lack of parking</a> in downtown Dallas, particularly as new developments take the place of surface lots.<br />
<br />
Can I scream please? It is the same tired line. Let me repeat something I have said here over and over. There is not a lack of parking downtown. There are near 100,000 public and private parking spaces spread across all land-uses in downtown. There are roughly 30,000 surface parking spaces and another 30,000 in stand-alone garages.<br />
<br />
What downtown has a true lack of, and something that will never, ever change, is convenient parking, especially when the city outlaws convenient on-street parking options.<br />
<br />
When the wife and I were watching the old Dallas TV series, I always laughed when one of the Ewing's or Barnes' would pull up to their office tower at Renaissance Tower or One Main Place and amazingly find a parking space on the street or in the drop-off zone. They'd get out, shut the door and enter the office building. Of course they would have been towed in real life, but they'd always have the ability to park freely and conveniently. Downtown Dallas will never have that.<br />
<br />
All throughout the column, Brown mentions the reason for the lack of surface parking. That right there is a red flag. Surface parking is the biggest use of land in downtown, yet accounts for only a third of the total parking supply. If every surface parking space is eliminated, the total parking supply is reduced by that amount to 60-70,000 spaces. And that's if there isn't any replacement, which rarely happens.<br />
<br />
Brown himself makes no mention of transit as an option. He does offer the following quote:<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: orange;">And extra parking was a key ingredient to get worldwide engineering
firm Jacobs to consolidate its North Texas offices in downtown. The
California-based firm leased more than 80,000 square feet in the Harwood
Center on Bryan Street.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">But first, the building owner and Dallas economic development officials had to line up extra parking in a garage next door.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">“That and DART moved the needle for Jacobs,” said Cushman &
Wakefield senior director Matt Heidelbaugh, who represented the tenant.
“Proximity was very important for ease and security.</span><br />
<br />
I understand corporate offices are finally moving away from needing increasing amounts of space for the same amount of workers. I am quite happy with the trend. However, most of the '80's towers still have abundant amounts of parking in an attached garage. Also, the vast majority are on a DART line or within two blocks of a DART station. I see Brown making no mention employers subsidizing a transit pass, only subsidizing parking, or in the case above, the city helping the subsidization of parking. No mention of the work to make biking a legitimate commuting option anywhere in the column.<br />
<br />
The other thing Brown completely ignores is that as new development takes the place of the surface lots, they will include more parking than what was there, so there is a net increase of total parking spaces. However, those lots just aren't as convenient.<br />
<br />
Brown also makes note that the new suburban projects have two to three times the parking of downtown office buildings. They have to, THEY ARE IN THE <b>SUBURBS</b>! Many of those new office buildings are in cities that are designed for the car and have no transit service. How else are they going to get people there? It also this design that ensures the suburban projects will never have any external activity and makes things like Legacy in Plano a nice idea that doesn't quite make for an urban area.<br />
<br />
I have said it countless times. Downtown Dallas will never out-suburb the suburbs. It can never make it convenient for the car. It can, however, out-urban them. The suburbs will never be able to offer authentic, walkable urban areas like historic city centers can. Downtown Dallas leaders would be better off playing to those strengths, rather than complaining about the lack of parking.<br />
<br />
It wasn't until the end that we got the idea that maybe it really isn't a terrible issue.<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">An apartment development planned on land surrounding the historic
Dallas High School on Bryan Street and a cultural center in the works at
Griffin and Woodall Rodgers Freeway will occupy more surface parking
lots. Although they remove parking, these developments are good for
downtown, almost everyone agrees.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">“It is a very good problem to
have,” said John Crawford, CEO of the economic development group
Downtown Dallas Inc. “Ten years ago, this wasn’t that big a deal.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">“As we look at taking away these surface parking lots, we are looking at other options.”</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">Crawford
said the city of Dallas is developing plans to build an underground
parking garage below the planned 3.5-acre Live Oak Avenue park.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">And Downtown Dallas Inc. and city officials are working with other building owners to find additional parking.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">“Parking,
both in perception and reality, has been a problem downtown for a long
time,” Crawford said. “As we have rebuilt our downtown, it’s become even
more a consideration.”</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white;">Let me rephrase this. It is a good problem, we are replacing parking, perception of parking is bad. The real answer is that there will never be enough convenient parking options and what is currently there suppresses the desirability of the surrounding area. In essence attractive areas become less attractive to visit the more convenient the parking becomes. Since there can never be enough convenient parking options, alternative modes have to be considered. Without it is like trying to diet by drinking excessive amounts of soda.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white;">I am glad to see Crawford acknowledge that the problem may not be that big. Dallas has leaders that have always thought capacity solutions are the answer to the problem, more parking, more freeways, more lanes, etc. Until Dallas gets decision makers who think otherwise then this will always be a problem. The solution to parking problems isn't more parking spaces, but rather changing the approach to parking.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;"></span><br />
<span style="background-color: orange;"></span><br />
<span style="background-color: orange;"></span><br />
<span style="background-color: orange;"></span><br />
<span style="background-color: orange;"></span><br />
<span style="background-color: orange;"></span><br />
<span style="background-color: orange;"></span><br />
<span style="background-color: orange;"></span><br />
<span style="background-color: orange;"></span><br />
<span style="background-color: orange;"></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;"></span>
<span style="background-color: orange;">“Corporate America is downsizing its space needs, and the densities of
workers in offices is going up,” said Greg Langston, managing director
of commercial property firm Avison Young’s Dallas office. “With some of
these buildings — particularly those built in the 1980s — there is
nowhere left to park.”</span><br />
<br />
I think ultimately, I absolutely abhor this kind of article because there is always a quote like this. It is patently false and just continues the stereotype that there is nowhere to park to those who don't know. I introduce some maps that I made a few years ago to dispel that there is nowhere to park downtown. While there may be some minor errors from time, they are still pretty accurate. <br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCKy_Pzcdy7WIc0XtjiTJ8OGCXESthU2rXJpLAO3_7zGrOvoRZMgWQjfXooI_3AMjaTnmzLh22IlcxuCv75DdyLx-aUEESyHFa0hDv-jc6_-rxWE5b4qXG032fJLHarFrjRI0_IGrSzjI9/s1600/DTD+surface+parking.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCKy_Pzcdy7WIc0XtjiTJ8OGCXESthU2rXJpLAO3_7zGrOvoRZMgWQjfXooI_3AMjaTnmzLh22IlcxuCv75DdyLx-aUEESyHFa0hDv-jc6_-rxWE5b4qXG032fJLHarFrjRI0_IGrSzjI9/s400/DTD+surface+parking.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">There are over 100 distinct surface parking lots downtown.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhla1sKrltKM9xjjWKeYigNdvBxt5j_y10S-mh27bwaLj9z8KJAsWCnF6BHtHf2Eof41_f6DqD8Ud1G3hj1zAsJGFEwwYMf6NCl4ZgCfJ32KxicPiWAbUYM2Iez_ORJzF0R2MZjUru8WYnt/s1600/DTD+Garages.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="390" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhla1sKrltKM9xjjWKeYigNdvBxt5j_y10S-mh27bwaLj9z8KJAsWCnF6BHtHf2Eof41_f6DqD8Ud1G3hj1zAsJGFEwwYMf6NCl4ZgCfJ32KxicPiWAbUYM2Iez_ORJzF0R2MZjUru8WYnt/s400/DTD+Garages.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">These are the stand-alone garages, which are approximately equal to the number of spaces in the picture above.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Looking at those pictures, does it look like there is nowhere to park? Those pictures do not include things like basement parking in the office towers or residential buildings. City Hall and the civic buildings in the Arts District, among others, have underground parking, but it isn't there on those maps. I could go on, but here's the main takeaway: Between all the office workers, residences and visitors, there are roughly 150,000 people in downtown daily. How can 100,000 spaces for a downtown that sees 150,000 people and is the nexus of the transit system not have enough parking?<br />
<br />
Truth is, it does not have a parking shortage. It has and will always have a convenient-parking shortage. But if the goal is to make downtown Dallas a true urban area, then it will always have that shortage, regardless of what the old guard thinks.Brandenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04773092281736359503noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7116035327813253055.post-15396008968306058562013-09-29T07:38:00.004-07:002013-09-29T07:38:51.479-07:00Success in ArlingtonIt has been hard for me to find information on the <a href="http://anurbanrambler.blogspot.com/2013/08/is-arlington-on-bus.html">MAX bus service</a> in Arlington that opened last month, but my Alma Mater's school paper was able to give <a href="http://www.theshorthorn.com/news/bus-system-ridership-surpasses-expectations/article_1a79babc-213a-11e3-8f04-001a4bcf6878.html">some information</a> on the early performance of the new express route from the TRE's Centrepointe Station to the College Park district at UTA and in downtown Arlington.<br />
<br />
<span class="paragraph-1">
</span><br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">The bus system, which opened Aug. 19, averaged about 227 riders
per day in its first week. The system averaged about 248 riders per day
in its third week.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">
</span><br />
<div class="p402_hide">
<div id="in-story">
</div>
</div>
<span style="background-color: orange;">
</span><span style="background-color: orange;">Arlington city officials are pleased with the numbers, said Alicia Winkelblech, Community Development and Planning manager.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">
</span><span style="background-color: orange;">“We estimated 250 riders per day at the end of
the first year, and we’re already hitting the low end of that year one
goal,” she said.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">...</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">The city council will receive ridership reports quarterly with the next report coming in January, Winkelblech said.</span><br />
<br />
So based on their metric, the express route is a success.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyrqf2G7GMo5ooaCqBbFmR7ZTVOrJvi9YFtNZryrCpOewYX7Gd2MsuaT5JgYtQKzMF7p1LzgG8rRBQ4mxlS5U_812Kdm_J45IzIXSRs6xMxTcRmXafpqnN7f7yjPWUd9J7JGBpRdR2f_Fb/s1600/CPC+n+Max.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyrqf2G7GMo5ooaCqBbFmR7ZTVOrJvi9YFtNZryrCpOewYX7Gd2MsuaT5JgYtQKzMF7p1LzgG8rRBQ4mxlS5U_812Kdm_J45IzIXSRs6xMxTcRmXafpqnN7f7yjPWUd9J7JGBpRdR2f_Fb/s400/CPC+n+Max.JPG" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The MAX stop at the southwest corner of UTA Blvd and Center St.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
I took the route and was pleased with what I saw. The timing wasn't perfect, though it was at least decently timed to not make the transfer times overly long. The main problem is that there are likely two transfers to make this work, one from the first mode to the TRE and the second from the TRE to MAX.<br />
<br />
The stop at College Park was clean, noticeable and convenient, at least if you are going to anything in the immediate district. Considering that the major reason I would use it would be athletic events at the arena, College Park Center, it would work really well for me. The average student has a small hike if they are headed somewhere else on campus.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbmlPKb0fTJGyMWpIywBh-2xwmSo9HEnoYxK9RM4_E0LXCP7lASuXXz4WmJfnAh_yTw9ssTFcFQKksFO94DxPW-E4XJRyxZI4V7NteuQLGRohWQhH2jXWxMKlfID12Z8a2GzDSDaIr7PH4/s1600/Max+stop.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbmlPKb0fTJGyMWpIywBh-2xwmSo9HEnoYxK9RM4_E0LXCP7lASuXXz4WmJfnAh_yTw9ssTFcFQKksFO94DxPW-E4XJRyxZI4V7NteuQLGRohWQhH2jXWxMKlfID12Z8a2GzDSDaIr7PH4/s400/Max+stop.JPG" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">A close-up of the stop.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
There are a few tweaks that would make the service a lot better. First, the University operates its own quasi-<a href="http://www.uta.edu/campus-ops/police/shuttle-services.php">bus service</a> that links parts of the disparate campus. Its primary function is to navigate students from the outlying parking lots to the main sections of campus. Increasingly, as the on-campus student population grows, it is developing into more of a bus service to circulate passengers within the service area, but it is still predominantly used by the commuters.<br />
<br />
Not one of the shuttles has a stop at this location. There are a couple that get close, but not directly at the new stop. Certainly ridership would increase if at least one of the main routes did.<br />
<br />
Second, I really feel that in order for this thing to take off, the transfer times have to be tightened. Coming from downtown Dallas, the hub of the DART system, it took almost two hours. Coming from the same spot, I could have drove in 25-30. I guarantee you, of those 248 average daily riders, almost all of them either don't/can't drive or are going someplace where there are external costs to motor vehicle operation, like paying to park. Otherwise, very few will take the service. About 15-25 minutes of that was waiting for the next transit mode to come.<br />
<br />
Part of the issue in tightening the times is that MAX is timed to try and meet TRE trains in both directions. Inevitably with commuter rail, whose headways are roughly one hour in non-peak times, that will mean one direction will wait longer than the other.<br />
<br />
Of course, that gets into a whole new debate about providing transit service in a low-density area such as ours, and I really don't want to dive into that again.Brandenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04773092281736359503noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7116035327813253055.post-89606809182090691892013-09-26T05:06:00.000-07:002013-09-26T05:06:43.056-07:00Dallas' Does Bike LanesFor those that know me personally, it may be a bit of a shocker to hear; I just have a hard time getting motivated blogging about Dallas' new bike infrastructure. I am really just weary of constantly sounding negative about the City's attempts to urbanize itself. I occasional feel that even though I am trying to give an objective, unbiased opinion, it comes across as overly pessimistic. Occasionally, something like Klyde Warren Park or Third Rail Lofts comes along that is very solidly urban and actually prove that I can like something Dallas does to its urban core.<br />
<br />
Sadly, the City's attempts at bike infrastructure downtown follow the same, tiring pattern.<br />
<br />
Allow some background information before I continue. In 2011, the Dallas Bike Plan was released. It was put together by the <a href="http://www.tooledesign.com/">Toole Design Group</a>, who is based out of Seattle and has offices nationwide. FULL DISCLOSURE: I was apart of the planning process of this report. For the most part, it was a solid plan. Like any planning study, there were some things I thought could have been better, but the whole was a really solid plan to move Dallas' biking infrastructure and culture forward.<br />
<br />
However, as is always the case, politics comes into play. First, Dallas staffers told folks that it was too expensive, that ordinances would have to change, that intensive public information and meetings would be needed (click <a href="http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2012/02/dallas_bike_lanes_it_wont_be_e.php">here </a>for an Dallas Observer account). Then, thanks to intense pressure, it was able to get done.<br />
<br />
That's the messiness of planning. Two very different planners could tackle the same issue and, with the same data and input, come to radical divergent conclusions. Add in the political process, either the will to get it done, or the desire to block it, or something in between and the reality that plans get half-implemented or just sit on the shelf is easy to see.<br />
<br />
When it comes to bike infrastructure in Dallas, it has been all the above.<br />
<br />
A plan done by a consultant is really the best-case scenario for a city. When the consultant turns in the final product, they are done with it. Should the municipality like it, they can then set the wheels in motion to get it implemented. If they don't, they can put up the required road blocks. And, in most cases, they decide to implement the politically pleasing ones while ignoring the ones that could be harder to explain to the constituency or donors. Again, it has been all of the above with Dallas.<br />
<br />
Add in the bonus that the infrastructure implemented was done by someone who doesn't ride a bike, and the downtown portion severely underperforms.<br />
<br />
There is at least one positive from the changes downtown, and those are actually the least intrusive and expensive. Several streets have had a bike emblem painted in right lane. While some don't like this, I can at least support it. It helps to illustrate to drivers that bikes do belong on the road.<br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUqavZ0_iQe-_GRMwabt_1ftu3PY1wpexwx_bSERYEvz36JdYTh4HGBOCxU80Vhg-lAJe6GqbHk7zkZMy6jM5G_YCECQDEz4LZS_P9Yb68AOVOfEVt-DdhgFmlgCjJQjbMCBNA99LU16kn/s1600/Bike+lane+2.JPG" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUqavZ0_iQe-_GRMwabt_1ftu3PY1wpexwx_bSERYEvz36JdYTh4HGBOCxU80Vhg-lAJe6GqbHk7zkZMy6jM5G_YCECQDEz4LZS_P9Yb68AOVOfEVt-DdhgFmlgCjJQjbMCBNA99LU16kn/s400/Bike+lane+2.JPG" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Main street bike emblem. The bike shares the lane with vehicular traffic. </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
There are some whose placement is suspect. Most of the time, they are directly in the middle of the street, and the ghost lanes painted at the intersection help to indicate the cyclist is supposed to ride over this portion. The problem is that, like motorcycle drivers, bike riders prefer not to ride in the center where the oil leak lane is. The traction is different and occasional debris and other substances can be flown in the air. Most will ride on either side. My personal preference is just to the outside of the slick, as it also lets drivers know that I am in this lane and they should pass in the next lane.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRK0QNcFizSckD-a5scYwnopTHjjfpP2AzZw8_4f1S7eHY6Ot7x9ZcaDXqKu5buReF6LsM-rk4oCxWf1afR0lWhS4D7lCaVV0BlfvotSN0W6LO5g8fviDL_8RZMwmhuMYhfeZehbu246QR/s1600/Bike+lane+3.JPG" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRK0QNcFizSckD-a5scYwnopTHjjfpP2AzZw8_4f1S7eHY6Ot7x9ZcaDXqKu5buReF6LsM-rk4oCxWf1afR0lWhS4D7lCaVV0BlfvotSN0W6LO5g8fviDL_8RZMwmhuMYhfeZehbu246QR/s400/Bike+lane+3.JPG" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Notice the darker part in the middle, indicating where oil drip has occurred, is right in the middle of the bike lane.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDhchRD1PUzXQ1oguZ8tXroy-iy9lnfz5eIyA_orN1JFZp_-wawYGO-ZrUsK3-52RTFKYPv9FNonKpSavWfKANrojOo19zZH7OjWOmW-OinuaqmTDG9MdgH2Drj7kaL3bFCAYTQDs8FsGl/s1600/WP_20130903_001.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDhchRD1PUzXQ1oguZ8tXroy-iy9lnfz5eIyA_orN1JFZp_-wawYGO-ZrUsK3-52RTFKYPv9FNonKpSavWfKANrojOo19zZH7OjWOmW-OinuaqmTDG9MdgH2Drj7kaL3bFCAYTQDs8FsGl/s400/WP_20130903_001.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The ghost lane indicating the bike should ride in the middle.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
As I mentioned in the <a href="http://anurbanrambler.blogspot.com/2013/07/belo-garden.html">Belo Garden critique</a>, the lanes tend to change to correspond with the on-street parking. Cyclists will avoid changing lanes when it is unnecessary. Every time they change lanes, there is a chance, however, small, of getting in an accident. Doing it more than is necessary just adds too many small chances. Eventually, one of those will hit...literally. A system that automatically builds that in is poorly designed and/or implemented.<br />
<br />
Otherwise, I do like the bike markers in the street. It is just the rest of what has happened downtown I don't like.<br />
<br />
There are two bike lanes added to downtown, on the directly parallel streets of Wood and Jackson. The right vehicular lanes were removed and a buffered bike lane, resembling a cycle track, were put down. There is no discretion towards the existing part of the street, as they run over storm grates and drains, manhole covers and other obstacles.<br />
<br />
There is a problem with vehicles pulling over into the lanes on both streets. It happens all day, everyday on both streets.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLWwT-v7O_LI74JTq7hGw_BrYPvXe-58vkL2xFs3kNA2ddgvlHCJl6jaTR5mFjpMixCin0mt_-W21PhP_fnP3rCVph5YLnpm7Jkeg8oCW19anr6AH6e7T7eyxtfl_7ZpZ3a_ijSXMs4m3j/s1600/WP_20130808_002.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLWwT-v7O_LI74JTq7hGw_BrYPvXe-58vkL2xFs3kNA2ddgvlHCJl6jaTR5mFjpMixCin0mt_-W21PhP_fnP3rCVph5YLnpm7Jkeg8oCW19anr6AH6e7T7eyxtfl_7ZpZ3a_ijSXMs4m3j/s400/WP_20130808_002.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Three vehicles are in the bike lane on Jackson.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhexv3exp5_LSp1aiAS2pVcFSGfhjeGA6k07zu4wFAamUO0KWd-CJNtYeddZdgNhvJ2V7AyUOrbXJnVLIMUnAnRhIiFvrK6rCaJBEruhaJjJ7TJWpw-iY_Cu9hmB_DHKi3MNm6iobnTjpDW/s1600/Bike+lane.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhexv3exp5_LSp1aiAS2pVcFSGfhjeGA6k07zu4wFAamUO0KWd-CJNtYeddZdgNhvJ2V7AyUOrbXJnVLIMUnAnRhIiFvrK6rCaJBEruhaJjJ7TJWpw-iY_Cu9hmB_DHKi3MNm6iobnTjpDW/s400/Bike+lane.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">A maintenance is vehicle blocking the lane on Wood Street.</td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Both of those pictures were taken immediately when I arrived. I didn't have to wait for it to happen. This happens so much that even if cyclists do use the lanes, they have to keep going in and out of them. This is why most cyclists downtown will ride on Elm, Main and Commerce.<br />
<br />
Another wrinkle is the property on the north side of Jackson has a bus lane that prevents vehicles from stopping there. If a delivery driver needs to make a quick stop at AT&T's corporate headquarters, should they block the bus lane on Commerce, block the bike lane on Jackson or go all the way to the subterranean loading dock off of Wood? Technically it should be the later, but we all know they won't. Heck, I wouldn't if it was an in and out delivery. What about taxi drivers? Where should they pick up and drop off passengers? There is no suitable solution here.<br />
<br />
Bottom Line is that these two lanes are just in a poor location and then poorly designed on top of it. <br />
<br />
One of the things some of the bike improvements have done is something I consider akin to an urban sin, take away on-street parking. While the bike lane could provide the buffer between moving vehicles and pedestrians, nothing compares to a parked car. There is nothing like on-street parking. It gives every transportation user a benefit, even cyclists. Car drivers tend to travel slower next to parked which benefit riders too (just be careful to avoid opening doors).<br />
<br />
Main Street was already a bicycle-friendly street. They didn't have to do much. I really feel it was made worse in some cases. Another example is the Central Expressway portion.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKRUbrOPqz37ScbkAryAv47oFE8gKQlBPkLnjqM7WNl643gsov8gnlw-Jxbgok3kIFuyfyXHHwIMtrIPaAWAli-cAKFVQaOYDmKYDCcytTtLtVJE5JYKe2Zsqujjnl-WEGfNw7MfFkYBnN/s1600/WP_20130903_002.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKRUbrOPqz37ScbkAryAv47oFE8gKQlBPkLnjqM7WNl643gsov8gnlw-Jxbgok3kIFuyfyXHHwIMtrIPaAWAli-cAKFVQaOYDmKYDCcytTtLtVJE5JYKe2Zsqujjnl-WEGfNw7MfFkYBnN/s400/WP_20130903_002.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: #0000ee;">The bi<span style="color: #0000ee;">ke land coming from Deep Ellum under Central Expressway</span></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
Under the freeway between downtown Dallas and Deep Ellum has never been a pedestrian or urban utopia. What it did have was a decent street with infrastructure to support Deep Ellum. What I mean is it was basically a mixed-use area for cars; freeway above, parking at surface and on-street, it was also easy to use for pedestrians and cyclists as well.<br />
<br />
The addition of the bike lanes eliminated on-street parking, and though it wasn't extensively used, I have noticed that the cars traveling on this section seem to be going faster than before. I may be injecting my own bias in there, for what it's worth.<br />
<br />
From a biking standpoint, what was once an easy pass by the freeway exit has turned into something a bit more complicated.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-RjrKWLRfxgJ6eCjdZ1SORY1mB5Tr9utmZ-pp8cceIAzmaaGFc2nQX0NP7z2raRt_ZFBtIBDkaPDlwkX6PC4giYFpRdNF7lc0jZxap40r-dqoLo_qvhgnr0s1Hz7H1JIqh-YwX4PsYdbH/s1600/WP_20130903_005.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-RjrKWLRfxgJ6eCjdZ1SORY1mB5Tr9utmZ-pp8cceIAzmaaGFc2nQX0NP7z2raRt_ZFBtIBDkaPDlwkX6PC4giYFpRdNF7lc0jZxap40r-dqoLo_qvhgnr0s1Hz7H1JIqh-YwX4PsYdbH/s400/WP_20130903_005.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The bike lane past the Central Expressway exit on Main Street</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
According to state law, bikes are no different than motor vehicles in moving traffic. Prior to this lane, bikes could easily navigate the exit, just as the cars do. They had the full portion of the lane to maneuver if a vehicle didn't obey the yield sign. <br />
<br />
However, with the addition of that lane, along with the ghost lane markings, the margin of error on this portion for cyclists is much greater. Expecting a cyclist to move from the far right of the street, equivalent to where the shoulder and on-street parking was, to the far left in a short distance, expecting the drivers to see and act accordingly is a recipe for disaster. For this reason, many cyclists have not used this lane when on the street. They continue to use the street, like before.<br />
<br />
Any infrastructure design that increases the risk of cyclist injury is fundamentally flawed. <br />
<br />
There is also a slight irony to how the city approaches the lanes too. In a large portion of downtown Dallas, there is an ordinance that prohibits riding on the sidewalk. It isn't often enforced, but tickets have been written from time to time. The Southern boundary is Young Street from Houston to basically the freeway by Deep Ellum.<br />
<br />
The City closed the Houston Street Viauct for construction of the Oak Cliff streetcar. The detour is on the Jefferson Street Bridge, where the formerly one-way corridor has been converted to two-way and a bike lane connecting downtown to Oak Cliff was added.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimgdeXaRm5omJDzlzrhPgMTS-N9rV6WFhEqKHxIp6nyTxnEOSPz-x8ZY1W22sO8O1ao2_NUnHjazBk5Ut8PNy1jQA2gyN-2uNDOJUfAqGqoIPsmfyYgGcd2TXMx3UQ6Ic1tNp2CzmJ5GPb/s1600/WP_20130728_001.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimgdeXaRm5omJDzlzrhPgMTS-N9rV6WFhEqKHxIp6nyTxnEOSPz-x8ZY1W22sO8O1ao2_NUnHjazBk5Ut8PNy1jQA2gyN-2uNDOJUfAqGqoIPsmfyYgGcd2TXMx3UQ6Ic1tNp2CzmJ5GPb/s640/WP_20130728_001.jpg" width="360" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: #0000ee;">The end of the </span>Jefferson Street Bridge bike Lane.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjG3D7UOEb0os8s5YgztqJi6eEHFczXjeQq7JPWFTol6ekUkh17c6IThEQJ5fou2htc-FZQlRwTPIzEbBFAnB6IwsJDh7o37j1-uIQXLGW9fQTv_GVD_avxG7GHxwouTSSWK84QSRTW2oXK/s1600/WP_20130728_005.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjG3D7UOEb0os8s5YgztqJi6eEHFczXjeQq7JPWFTol6ekUkh17c6IThEQJ5fou2htc-FZQlRwTPIzEbBFAnB6IwsJDh7o37j1-uIQXLGW9fQTv_GVD_avxG7GHxwouTSSWK84QSRTW2oXK/s640/WP_20130728_005.jpg" width="360" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Self-explanatory<u><br /></u></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Where the sign instructs riders to get on the sidewalk and the half-block stretch to where the sign says they can't ride on the sidewalk is adjacent to Young, where the City decided it should be illegal for bikers to ride on the sidewalk. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
I am aware that in construction zones, detours have to be made to accommodate construction crews. I would have less of a problem with this if there weren't any obvious alternatives. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Market Street is a one-way north of Young. Why can't cyclists go straight? Why do they have to turn left for a half-block, then have to make a U-turn and go back over that same half block. I understand that making a left across two directions of vehicular traffic is dangerous, but to not have the same option as drivers going the same direction is silly to me. The left lane is already going to be vacant as northbound traffic is on the east side to allow for two-way travel. There is no harm in letting them go straight. It also wouldn't violate the law of the City that told them to turn. Many cyclist just cut through to the left anyway and either go straight or turn on Young. It is not the safest thing to do, but it is the more convenient option.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
It is these examples that clearly indicate that the person or
folks who planned and implemented the downtown bike infrastructure isn't
a cyclist. All too often, they either consult a manual to see what they
accepted industry standard is, or, more likely, the traffic engineer does consults the AASHTO manual, which is close to a one-size-fits-all approach. The irony is most cyclist, as was the case with
the 2011 Dallas Bike Plan, would willingly give their input. We'd rather
see it done to a higher standard the first time. But, as the evidence
on the ground shows, the input clearly wasn't sought.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Ultimately, this kind of planning will set back Dallas in the long run. If it doesn't make sense for people to use it, they won't. Then the "it's never used so why do we keep doing it" argument will surface and it becomes politically harder to do something that really can benefit everyone.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
There are other parts of Dallas that have better bike infrastructure. The following pictures were snapped on Bishop Avenue, a street that had way too much concrete when it was recently redone to accommodate bicycle infrastructure. </div>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmpOA9EHafOg6zHshrqYGaaqHbilElVFKmX8fHW3edQASNAAqqC6Z2TFztDxtE5jbEZB_qEXPbzonIopDYMa3vtXn2h1ifCdFhvYIHrRT3fqkse1cCRz_5_W5VlpGG81cmKQWY1zJNIG9W/s1600/WP_20130727_001.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmpOA9EHafOg6zHshrqYGaaqHbilElVFKmX8fHW3edQASNAAqqC6Z2TFztDxtE5jbEZB_qEXPbzonIopDYMa3vtXn2h1ifCdFhvYIHrRT3fqkse1cCRz_5_W5VlpGG81cmKQWY1zJNIG9W/s640/WP_20130727_001.jpg" width="360" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container"><tbody>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Notice the on-street parking on the right, bike lane in the middle and auto lane on the left.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQSAuGSwE4jOc5GQuqsI91XBaaIKkPLyQ79S3zwe5dvAUVhgGgxKyNdcHbBFTVr1lJRb5hdynEsCMwBGVSmaLpmgnf7nXSzdcgyJhZIPlBvXaGG3oiuHdG0mDbtOMHgnfzyEBlMNL1KyJx/s1600/WP_20130727_002.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQSAuGSwE4jOc5GQuqsI91XBaaIKkPLyQ79S3zwe5dvAUVhgGgxKyNdcHbBFTVr1lJRb5hdynEsCMwBGVSmaLpmgnf7nXSzdcgyJhZIPlBvXaGG3oiuHdG0mDbtOMHgnfzyEBlMNL1KyJx/s640/WP_20130727_002.jpg" width="360" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Between the parking cars, buses, intersections and turning vehicles, there are myriad points of potential conflict between drivers and cyclists on Bishop Avenue.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
While not perfect, there are plenty of potential conflict points with
motorized travel, it is a good example of how bike infrastructure can
work in Dallas. There will always be conflict points, no system can
completely avoid it, but at least here, unlike the lanes in downtown
Dallas, the myriad transportation options don't have to be in a
perpetual state of conflict.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
I am a guy whose primary transportation choice is bike. Ultimately,the downtown infrastructure has done very little for that kind of biker. I like the bike markers, but don't use the lanes, even when I am on that street. The design is so rough that it is hard to use as the designer intended. That just shouldn't cut it. I speak for lots in the biking community when I say what has been provided has not disappointed, and that is truly a shame.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Dallas has a very, very long way to go for it to make biking a legitimate urban transportation choice.</div>
Brandenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04773092281736359503noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7116035327813253055.post-27420486429631325852013-09-14T09:02:00.001-07:002013-09-14T09:02:15.878-07:00Social Cause of Arts District IsolationI commented on the Dallas Morning News' column from the architecture critic, Mark Lamster in the previous post. Today, I want to post a link about another, quite a bit more major, blog's re<a href="http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2013/09/hey_lamster_at_the_news_get_up.php#more">sponse to Lamster's piece.</a><br />
<br /><span style="background-color: orange;">In fact everything built since the museum has been based on
guaranteeing patrons that they will never have to set foot on a public
sidewalk when they come to visit. Hence, when you drive through the arts
district on most days now it has a certain dystopian aura, as if
somebody set off one of those bombs that incinerates all the people
without harming the buildings. Otherwise known as the sun, in Dallas.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">
</span><span style="background-color: orange;">So is that about pretentiousness? Don't be silly. It's about avoiding black people. We <a href="http://www.dallasobserver.com/2013-05-30/news/for-the-dallas-black-dance-theatre-a-cold-shoulder-from-attpac/" target="_blank">talked about this</a>
in May when I was writing about an attempt by the performing arts
center to shut out the one serious black cultural institution in the
arts district, the Dallas Black Dance Theater.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">
</span><span style="background-color: orange;">I told you the whole arts district was inspired by a so-called
consultant's study in 1977 finding that the art museum, then still in
Fair Park in black South Dallas, was in "a poor location for a facility
whose patrons came primarily from North Dallas."</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">
</span><span style="background-color: orange;">Ahem. Say what? What could that possibly mean? Oh, gosh we don't
know, do we? Well, we wouldn't want to say. In fact, for a big brash
ostentatious zhay erra city like that one on TV, the cat's just got our
tongue, don't it? We're just all knock-kneed squiggle-toes when it comes
to why rich white people don't want to go to South Dallas</span>.<br />
<br />
I won't comment on this other than to say Jim Schutze, who wrote the Dallas Observer's response, is a published author on race relations. I generally find him to be well-researched when it comes to his stuff.<br />
<br />
I bring this up because it illustrates just how difficult the planning process can be. How do you balance the wants and desires of becoming an urban area, with other, sometimes conflicting issues that have no quantifiable measurement? In this case, the desire of the creators of the Arts District to that of the social concerns of those who plan to use it?<br />
<br />
If I ever seem overly critical of Dallas' urbanizing attempts, it is because I come from the ideal of what urban areas should be. In cases like this, it can complicate that ideal. Which one is right is purely a matter of opinion.Brandenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04773092281736359503noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7116035327813253055.post-30950456974547848112013-09-07T07:52:00.001-07:002013-09-07T07:52:55.483-07:00Museum Tower and the Arts DistrictThough it reads like I might have, I didn't write the subject of this post. In the Dallas Morning News, Matt Lamster, the architecture critic, <a href="http://www.dallasnews.com/entertainment/columnists/mark-lamster/20130906-architecture-review-museum-tower-reflects-poorly-on-dallas-arts-district.ece">focuses on Museum Tower</a>, but touches on the Arts District too. Added bonus, Lamster is a professor at my Alma Mater, UT-Arlington, which has a recognized architecture school.<br />
<br />
The following are what I consider to be relevant points in the article.<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">The hot glare of contention has had the unfortunate effect of drawing
attention from what is rightly the building’s fundamental flaw.
Reflectivity issues, however serious, can be mitigated. But there’s no
easy way to alter Museum Tower’s essential nature as a gated vertical
community sequestered from the neighborhood that surrounds it.</span><br />
<br />
... <br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">It’s hard to imagine a less-urban urban building. Pushed back from the
street grid, Museum Tower stands at a remove behind stone walls, generic
landscaping and a barren, circular driveway. Think of it as an outpost
of the suburban bubble dropped into the heart of the city, where it does
not belong.</span> <br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">Just imagine what could have been: An engaging street presence with
retail options to benefit the entire neighborhood, its own inhabitants
included, and to encourage passage from the new deck park to the arts
institutions along Flora Street.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">One Arts Plaza, the gridded
mixed-use tower at Flora’s northern terminus, at least makes some effort
in this direction, as will a pair of towers in development along Flora,
designed by Dallas-based HKS. A plan for artists’ housing on a site
adjacent to Museum Tower should also improve matters. But those projects
are no cure for Museum Tower, which saps vitality from the street.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">On this score, the Nasher Sculpture Center, the principal victim of the
tower’s reflected rays, would do well to think about its own street
presence. The stone walls that shield Museum Tower were modeled on the
Nasher’s own ramparts. If the Arts District wants to be something more
than a bastion of privilege, it needs to come out from behind its walls. </span><br />
<br />
... <br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">The building was conceived as a standing sculpture, much like I.M.
Pei’s landmark Fountain Place, a model for Museum Tower. But Pei’s
prismatic tower is a far more rewarding form, a mutating, abstract
obelisk, and it is a wonder at the street, where its signature
fountains, designed by the seminal modernist landscape architect Dan
Kiley, remain a great urban amenity.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">Museum Tower, by way of contrast, is a rather banal stalk and offers nothing back in terms of public space.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">That
leads us to the barren driveway, minimally landscaped so pedestrians
might have an unencumbered view of the tower’s tapering 42 stories of
(brightly!) shining glass, its panels alternately fritted to add a bit
of animation. That facade slips up above the roofline, smartly occluding
mechanical equipment while emphasizing its verticality. The tower is
far less successful at the base, where it sits on a boxy pedestal that
has little relationship to the shaft, a problem that is especially acute
from its dreary Pearl Street backside — too much junk in the trunk, as
it were.</span><br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">Museum Tower boasts all the amenities expected of a modern luxury
tower and many, in addition, that seem intended more for marketing
brochures than for actual residents.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">Clubrooms and event spaces at
ground level, meant to promote community, will see light use at best.
Those same spaces should have been oriented to the street and programmed
to genuinely develop a sense of shared experience. Residents might be
happier with the convenience of a nice cafe or a grocer in the building —
let alone a pharmacy or a dry-cleaner — and the whole area would
benefit.</span><br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;"></span><br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">Such insularity is self-defeating and speaks to the building’s broader reluctance to engage with the surrounding community.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">It’s
one thing to have a kennel and pet-grooming station and another to have
a private dog run, when Klyde Warren Park has one of its own directly
across the street. Are Museum Tower residents really too precious to
walk their dogs — or have their minions walk their dogs — in public?
Even Jackie O. took her dogs out in Central Park.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">At Museum Tower,
exposure to the neighborhood is primarily visual, through the
fishbowl-style floor-to-ceiling windows that have been vogue in
contemporary apartment towers since Richard Meier ignited the trend in
the early aughts.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white;">...</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white;"></span><br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">It is, for example, difficult to square a building that boasts of
“private estates in the sky” with any serious notion of green living.
While environmentally friendly development should always be encouraged,
there’s no escaping the perverse irony that Museum Tower’s theoretically
sustainable facade is scorching its neighbors. That’s not sustainable,
in any sense.</span><br />
<br />
The only thing I would add is the similarities of Museum Tower to the four main performance venues. Aside from the reflective glare, they suffer the same anti-urban flaws that Lamster recognizes in Museum Tower. They have unneeded setbacks, useless landscaping, single-use designs, blank walls and attention-grabbing architecture that lacks urban substance.<br />
<br />
Lamster mentions that Museum Tower inhibits the Arts District from becoming the 24-hour vibrant community it was planned. The problem is, the Arts District itself does that already.Brandenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04773092281736359503noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7116035327813253055.post-77362635400882099052013-08-23T16:12:00.000-07:002013-08-23T16:12:59.793-07:00Humorist on DARTIf you don't know or have heard of Gordon Kieth, You are in a decreasingly smaller pool. He started out at Sportsradio 13010 The Ticket, a station I used to work for back in the day. Keith was known as a humorist. He didn't talk or know much sports, but was up to date on current events. Despite his occasional annoying, confrontational style, he was a likable guy as well. He has been at the station since the beginning, 1994.He has the ability (but doesn't always do it) to have a deep discussion with a side of laughter. In the last few years, he has been increasingly on TV and in print, branching out.<br />
<br />
Why do I bring this up on a planning-related blog? Well he commented on DART on the DallasNews.com page.<br />
<br />
http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/columnists/gordon-keith/20130822-gordon-keith-missing-the-bus-on-dart.ece<br />
<br />
While it isn't meant for an academic discussion, I bring it up for several reasons. One, it does come from a common man perspective. When he says:<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">The buses and trains don’t run frequently enough, far enough, quickly
enough, or close enough. DART can’t correct those problems until enough
people ride it. And enough people won’t ride it until DART corrects
those problems.</span><br />
<br />
it has the depth that shows there is more to it than he can get to in the column.<br />
<br />
There is only one thing I take excpetion to and that is:<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">There’s also a psychological reason beyond the practicality. Cars are
our independence. They’re our bubbles. They give us a justifiable
aloneness in a day filled with the needs of other people. They get us
door to door and leave when we want to. Texans are rugged
individualists. We like our horses hitched outside and ready to ride at a
moment’s notice. Life on another man’s schedule doesn’t sound much like
freedom, and nobody likes to share a horse. So we settle into our
commuting routines.</span><br />
<br />
If you read my blog enough, you will know why. If you don't, let me explain. People, regardless of race, culture or status, will do what is convenient. Here, we have made only one thing convenient. It has nothing to do with independence. Are you really independent if you have to rely on something, in this case a vehicle? Yes, they may provide you with isolation, unless you consider there are three million other cars in our region a driver has to share the road with in their solitude.<br />
<br />
So, I hope you take it for what it is worth and read it.Brandenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04773092281736359503noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7116035327813253055.post-4627487184795890682013-08-21T15:51:00.001-07:002013-08-21T15:51:53.670-07:00Is Arlington on the Bus?Small bit of transit news I have to relay and comment on, something that is near and dear to me. I love my Alma Mater UT-Arlington, which obviously happens to reside in Arlington, a city I happen to dislike. It creates a very big conflict for me. One of the big reasons I dislike Arlington is that for all intents and purposes, having a car is mandatory. <br />
<br />
That really hasn't changed, but the City, UTA and business leaders funded and worked up plans to launch a shuttle bus that runs from downtown Arlington, specifically near UTA's new arena in the College Park District, to Centrepointe Station on the TRE commuter line. That debuted on Monday. It runs weekdays, 6am to 10pm. Since Centrepoint is the fare boundary on the TRE line, riders need only one fare, regardless of destination.<br />
<br />
Website <a href="http://www.ridethemax.com/">here </a><br />
DMN story <a href="http://www.dallasnews.com/news/transportation/20130819-bus-service-a-first-for-arlington-gets-rolling.ece">here</a><br />
<br />
This continues a trend of area suburbs, without a full time agency providing service, contracting with Dallas Area Rapid Transit for some form of shuttle. With Mesquite, it was a commuter shuttle to the Green Line. For Allen, they want to funnel shoppers to their shopping centers. McKinney is a hybrid. Only Mesquite has gotten their service off the ground so far. As of this week, they now aren't alone.<br />
<br />
First, I want to say I am proud of my Alma Mater. They convened something akin to a sustainability council several years ago and were able to get a lot of things done to lower their environmental impact. One of their recommendations was a transit service of some kind. They operate a shuttle service within the campus, but there are no broader connections. I thought this particular point was going to rest in the report and stay there. But, to my surprise and happiness, they were one of the main driving points in getting this shuttle running. My campus is now like many of the Dallas County Community College Campus and has at least some form of rudimentary transit service. Kudos to them for finding a way to get it done.<br />
<br />
For this particular route, I really like it, especially when taken into context. Unlike the Mesquite route, this runs all day. Love it. Wish the frequencies were better, but they were timed to coincide with the TRE train, which is commuter and therefore a transit service with long headways, and that has nothing to do with this shuttle route. UTA is a school of 33,000, and since roughly 20,000-25,000 don't live on campus, it should have at least some using the service. Selfishly, I can now attend a weekday basketball game and not drive. Awesome.<br />
<br />
But, as was my problem with Mesquite, this is still just a piecemeal approach, and is still plagued with the same political stumbles.<br />
<br />
The rest of Arlington is still suburban-oriented. A car is still a must to be here and this bus doesn't change that, though there are plans for a stop in the sprawling entertainment district (I hope there is more than one, because the distance between the stadiums and amusement parks are great and a freeway even bisects the area. If it is just one, that will assuredly lower the ridership).<br />
<br />
A lot of Arlington leaders recognize the shortcomings, and say that this will help change the attitude of Arlington residents toward transit. They have voted against transit initiatives three times after all. However, I debate that.<br />
<br />
They voted against the 1980 Lone Star Transportation Authority, 741 for to 5,381 against but so did about 60 other area cities. Only four approved it. It was too vague and no details about service, governing structure or day-to-day managing made it very sketchy.<br />
<br />
In 1985, a serious proposal came through that would have had only Arlington bus service, with a light rail line on Cooper or Collins with a Commuter rail connection to Dallas. Other than the lack of regional connections, just one on a commuter line, I liked the proposal, but it was defeated, 4,507 for to 5,735 against.<br />
<br />
Then in 2002, a city-only bus proposal was put forth and it failed. In my opinion, it was so pitiful that I couldn't support it either. The vote totals were 7,716 for to 10,576 against.<br />
<br />
So, of the three rejections, a transit proponent like me would have voted against two of them. Does that make them anti-transit?<br />
<br />
Looking at the vote totals, the closest outcome was in
1985, when 44% supported it. That was also the best overall service proposal. With the change in
times and demographics, I seriously believe that a simple yes or no vote
to join either the Fort-Worth-based T or DART would be successful.<br />
<br />
I can't say for sure if this made a difference in the votes, but a local bus service isn't worth much if there aren't regional connections. In a region this size, very few stay within municipal borders. There are also economies of scale at work. Look at the northern DART suburbs as an example. One route can cut through Garland, Richardson, Dallas, Addison and Carrollton. That route would be far, far less effective if it was only in one of those. Making the citizens vote on a regional transit service will likely change enough minds that it would pass.<br />
<br />
In many ways, I think it may be the addition of something <a href="http://anurbanrambler.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-raw-deal-between-publically-built.html">I believe to be a waste of municipal dollars</a> and energy that is responsible for the
renewed focus of Arlington civic leaders, Cowboys Stadium (or whatever
the latest corporate name is for it). The auto traffic is so bad there that there is no choice but to realize the car is not the only piece here. <br />
<br />
There are a lot of reports that contain Arlington is the largest city in the country without transit and that Arlington is hostile to the idea of transit. I would say that is somewhat inaccurate. Arlington leaders are very receptive to transit, but they don't have a lot to work with. Their sales tax doesn't allow for them to join the T, which needs a half cent, let alone DART, which is a full penny. Within the framework of how North Texas provides transit, what are their options. Until just recently, they couldn't even contract for bus service like they do know.<br />
<br />
In the end, it doesn't matter if this helps change negative minds about transit in Arlington. If there isn't sales tax room, there can never be a vote, unless somehow a different funding mechanism is found AND agreed on by all parties. I don't think it is impossible, but the provincialism that runs rampant in DFW is no small mountain. <br />
<br />
For what it is, I think it is really solid. This is a route I will use, as will several more since it hits one of the denser parts of Arlington, specifically the University and its potential student population. It will require multiple transfers if they are Dallas bound, since Union is adjacent to very little.<br />
<br />
I'm often asked if something is better than nothing, even if it isn't perfect or near it. In this case, I would have to say yes.Brandenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04773092281736359503noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7116035327813253055.post-53367021819915293632013-08-06T09:24:00.001-07:002013-08-06T09:24:46.729-07:00Central TeardownI am ashamed to admit this, but what I am about to post was published in the Dallas Morning News in early June.<br />
<br />
http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/local-voices/headlines/20130606-j-branden-helms-downtown-could-use-one-less-highway.ece<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">The Texas Department of Transportation has its eyes on the roughly 1.5
mile stretch of highway between Woodall Rodgers Freeway and Interstate
30. Officials have presented nine rebuild or repair options. But some of
us favor a 10th option: demolition.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">As an individual with a
master’s in planning who isn’t actually working in the field, I
certainly am not the most eloquent spokesman for this project. That more
aptly belongs to Patrick Kennedy, who has written about this on his
blog and been the featured crusader in this paper on the topic. He even
has a website devoted to it, anew</span><br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">dallas.com.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">I, however, do
have a unique perspective. I have lived in downtown Dallas for seven
years and worked in the core almost as long. In all that time, I have
used the freeway only a few times.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">I have endured the long, lonely
walk between downtown and Deep Ellum far more often, and almost every
time have lamented the vast emptiness the freeway spawns between two
important Dallas urban neighborhoods.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">That is what this is about.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">Some
drivers do use this stretch of highway to get downtown, but most are
just passing through. Why are we sacrificing our urban neighborhoods to
continue to help Plano, McKinney or Lancaster grow? They are doing great
and don’t need Dallas to destroy its urban fabric to help them.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">Meanwhile,
something the entire region is facing a shortage of — a true, urban,
walkable neighborhood — is divided. Imagine if we developed the freeway
area. It could be transformed from something that requires money to
maintain into something that provides tax revenue.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">To some degree,
we in Dallas already know this. Look no further than Klyde Warren Park.
It has been hailed as a wild success exactly because it un-freeways the
area. Instead of dividing these neighborhoods, the park stitches them
back together.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">So if we can make that case that demolition can be a
good thing, why is it not even an option? The answer is really twofold,
but both lie in the planning process.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">First, TxDOT has built
highways for as long as its officials can remember. It is their first
responsibility. That works in outlying areas, where there are real
estate prices to consider when opening up new land for development. But
that doesn’t work for Dallas. What new land will be ready for
development if this freeway stub is redone?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">The other reason
demolition is not considered is how the planning process actually works,
usually with an objective listed. With this project, as with almost all
of TxDOT’s, officials start with how they can move as many cars as
possible for the lowest cost.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">Many of the options will require a
complete teardown anyway, so the project costs for this option would be
drastically lower. And certainly this option has the best return for the
city of Dallas and for cash-strapped TxDOT.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">Ultimately, the best
way to get TxDOT to consider this option is local pressure. The city of
Dallas has to care enough. Otherwise it would be a long and bruising
battle. There are those who are skeptical that a city that thinks with
its car would actually pursue freeway demolition as an answer to some of
its urban problems. I think it is possible, but those who are its
advocate have to be loud and convincing.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white;">As I alluded to in the article, there are better spokespeople than I. I leave you with the site.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white;">http://www.anewdallas.com/</span>Brandenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04773092281736359503noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7116035327813253055.post-34753147183062902142013-07-21T18:39:00.000-07:002013-07-21T18:39:43.567-07:00Belo Garden. I <a href="http://anurbanrambler.blogspot.com/2012/11/leave-of-absence.html">promised it</a> and as a man of my word (eventually) I will give forth. <br />
<br />
Belo Garden is the second on four major parks planned for the downtown area. It opened in May 2012 to great fanfare. Paired with Main Street Garden, Belo bookended the Main Street District, the heart of urban Dallas. The idea was to extend the activity of the Main Street District out, provide urban greenspace and encourage redevelopment around the parks.<br />
<br />
While Main Street Garden was designed to be a programmed park, chock full of activity possibilities and special events, Belo was intentionally designed to be passive and reflective. In many ways, they achieved their goal, and that is where a big problem with the park stems from. Downtown is not lacking of this.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAUSFtzTbVa1iqOrzj-w5bb8i0VWYwC5L88hAAQSCj80WFJ4ZVnZ2-1x6AyEfk5ovIhr1C02AJ20u_2-cDIOq-jSPr5C3-uYb25jboGRJk_t9VEhJ3g0n6NodxFkuBuA-uCKAuwMUEbF_I/s1600/Google+Maps_20130721-193441.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="184" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAUSFtzTbVa1iqOrzj-w5bb8i0VWYwC5L88hAAQSCj80WFJ4ZVnZ2-1x6AyEfk5ovIhr1C02AJ20u_2-cDIOq-jSPr5C3-uYb25jboGRJk_t9VEhJ3g0n6NodxFkuBuA-uCKAuwMUEbF_I/s320/Google+Maps_20130721-193441.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
In this Google maps above, aside from Pegasus Plaza, Main Street Garden and Klyde Warren Park (not pictured), all these parks have two common features: they were designed to be passive. Consequently, they have very few visitors.<br />
<br />
One reason I waited to post until many months after its opening was I want to
see how the space operates on a day-to-day basis. I had my suspicions
but wanted to see in real time. Sadly with Belo, I wasn't wrong. Except
for a few dog walkers, this park is empty most of the time. That is partly by design. A passive park that offers little activity
possibilities will do this.<br />
<br />
The most active portion of the park is a water feature that gets moderate
use during the weekend mornings in summer and the Pegasus Charter School
kids spend some afternoons here. It isn't uncommon to see kids running through and enjoying themselves. But otherwise, an empty, but pretty,
Belo Garden is the norm.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYDK-yG7PA6e89fBWUMMKJhPpssAGZ4BdHdoDR-fhLKdERrQe5qSQ15J9OhkNAGD3PO7i1DHhU8t9Hi1ClI3v9lKeUD_tTUo_dgo3hkEKoej9M7wF8iUYz4Cg1UzYSVzyRFKxMFKuLEg_b/s1600/IMG_4628.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYDK-yG7PA6e89fBWUMMKJhPpssAGZ4BdHdoDR-fhLKdERrQe5qSQ15J9OhkNAGD3PO7i1DHhU8t9Hi1ClI3v9lKeUD_tTUo_dgo3hkEKoej9M7wF8iUYz4Cg1UzYSVzyRFKxMFKuLEg_b/s320/IMG_4628.JPG" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The main active feature of Belo Gardens.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span id="goog_1727239859"></span><span id="goog_1727239860"></span><br />
The other part of the park where activity is possible is the tables and chairs on a course dirt surface on the east end of Belo Garden. Designed as a picnic area, it succeeds in drawing some folks here. But as is often the case, the powers that be think many who are using it don't belong. This friction that exists between the homeless and downtown Dallas is evident here as well. Add in the fact that many folks already have a negative perception of the homeless, regardless whether they are actually doing something negative or not, and is another point of contention for the park.<br />
<br />
I don't like that this animosity exists, but Dallas is a much more pretentious city than many of the true urban areas in the country. There exists a perception that Dallas' homeless population is also a bigger nuisance than these other cities and it has all the ingredients for a recipe in conflict.<br />
<br />
Unlike the grassy section in Main Street Garden, all the grassy areas in Belo are tree covered. While shade is almost a universally a good idea in public spaces in Dallas, in Belo Garden, it makes the space useless for anyone who isn't dog walking. Picnicking would be a possibility, but in summer, the ammonia smell can be overwhelming in parts of Belo. The trees are too young for hide and seek, too thin to climb, too clustered for throwing or kicking a ball and there are no benches in the immediate vicinity to enjoy the shade.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDtzjzsQ84FeFWllQWSOQhdT5mvASBpjdf8WgrsPS634ZL50vmfoG_Ok-BI4LOCEnV0nR2SBiHbbFzp_TxO9P8YuVRROtxgOQTODDZY9yUVhukov6UkqgmNPPgHQ9B9pFJJ4kk-siHOML7/s1600/IMG_4624.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDtzjzsQ84FeFWllQWSOQhdT5mvASBpjdf8WgrsPS634ZL50vmfoG_Ok-BI4LOCEnV0nR2SBiHbbFzp_TxO9P8YuVRROtxgOQTODDZY9yUVhukov6UkqgmNPPgHQ9B9pFJJ4kk-siHOML7/s320/IMG_4624.JPG" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Note the one bench you see in this picture is not near a shade-providing tree.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbz_qUTfH5lM6Qimg5wwHRcpLTgV2u5NoQjWVBDBqJVWBmdCAmnjw8P5q48FpVGYr622rFEHblERbmIKzj7RvwMJYqvCxOe9hEywXUAMjhAiLUdvlE5JKUGoqKZ8gWKTH4SCFodYGefyma/s1600/IMG_4627.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbz_qUTfH5lM6Qimg5wwHRcpLTgV2u5NoQjWVBDBqJVWBmdCAmnjw8P5q48FpVGYr622rFEHblERbmIKzj7RvwMJYqvCxOe9hEywXUAMjhAiLUdvlE5JKUGoqKZ8gWKTH4SCFodYGefyma/s320/IMG_4627.JPG" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">All grassy areas are similar to these.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Halfway down the park on the Main Street side is a hill. The main point of the hill is too minimize traffic noise. That is an admirable quality. The issue I have is the hill is so small compared to the rest of the park that it doesn't really do the job. Add in the fact that the higher volume of cars as well as the faster ones are located on Commerce Street and it is little more than a way to vary the terrain of the park.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0VoDJySE1G0qM0bSzU_WRv2qlUeBCLodF_fAqQlq2SujgmHI-616F_S8eelC5qKE50JzUEbfSgKbZxM8nVVYZ5s8Zq6b1VEo5pkYoqoEwD-DpihKAgx1fG2CJsBlpGIh6Wbn7O4CjMNqS/s1600/IMG_4623.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0VoDJySE1G0qM0bSzU_WRv2qlUeBCLodF_fAqQlq2SujgmHI-616F_S8eelC5qKE50JzUEbfSgKbZxM8nVVYZ5s8Zq6b1VEo5pkYoqoEwD-DpihKAgx1fG2CJsBlpGIh6Wbn7O4CjMNqS/s320/IMG_4623.JPG" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">This hill is better as a park feature than noise reducer.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
A true noise reducer, as well as pedestrian-comfort amenity, would have been to allow on-street parking on either side of the park along Main AND Commerce. Main is already a street with slower speeds. Coupled with the setback of One Main Place, the primary noise and echo effect are not the greatest from Main. It is Commerce, with its higher speeds, higher vehicle count and the Earle Cabell echo that really causes the noise. No hill or metered street parking on Commerce mean that noise hasn't been reduced by the hill.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJovGA-saqBQUxOZ15xOfd9OSvHQ51-gQNTti_v7OqnLRsP2lplF5ki_3-4rPDdvkTndphfHUs9c_Qyi4eYKO-O_yiyV7O-tjkVmX19yncMhEk7n4PFAAkNkVJAtSA1-aRhmG92DqNfPZU/s1600/IMG_4621.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJovGA-saqBQUxOZ15xOfd9OSvHQ51-gQNTti_v7OqnLRsP2lplF5ki_3-4rPDdvkTndphfHUs9c_Qyi4eYKO-O_yiyV7O-tjkVmX19yncMhEk7n4PFAAkNkVJAtSA1-aRhmG92DqNfPZU/s320/IMG_4621.JPG" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The bike marker and no parking sign are the final pieces of evidence that on-street parking was nixed. The noise-reducing hill is on the right.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Ultimately, it was this aspect that delayed my post on Belo Garden for so long. I kept hoping for something, like a different city department that was just late in the installation (or really re-installation, since both Main and Commerce had parking meters prior to Belo construction) of the meters and this wasn't overlooked. I rationalized they were on their way, since Main Street Garden was careful to include them in its design. Since the bike markers occupy the middle lanes of Main Street before arriving at Belo and after leaving the park, it then became obvious, with them on the edge of the street here that on-street parking is out. Sigh.<br />
<br />
I don't like this for several reasons. When I get to the bike lanes in downtown, I will say that switching lanes, which is what is happening on this stretch of Main, raises the risk for accidents. In this case, it also guarantees no on-street parking, one of the few things that benefit both car users and walkers. <br />
<br />
At least on Main Street, there is enough other urban activity and amenities going for it that it still has the feel of an urban street. Commerce Street is much less so and really could have benefited from the presence of on-street parking.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAUZ5wnxnaFW3XOHnkw5Fg48EaaaLweAwfFa2PJ_ilC4f32_bMjsZo6E8dXQemVOOwUe4gVgK9kWkRx4YMGjRCw0g_z-KLCncyxP8TsbOQz09JGkcBKpsp2mLj_mFO_1DW63DzxgNBUH45/s1600/IMG_4625.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAUZ5wnxnaFW3XOHnkw5Fg48EaaaLweAwfFa2PJ_ilC4f32_bMjsZo6E8dXQemVOOwUe4gVgK9kWkRx4YMGjRCw0g_z-KLCncyxP8TsbOQz09JGkcBKpsp2mLj_mFO_1DW63DzxgNBUH45/s320/IMG_4625.JPG" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Straight, narrow and fast, a bad combo for pedestrians. This Commerce Street view illustrates the lack of cover for anyone walking next to this speedway.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
One of the biggest <a href="http://www.dallasnews.com/news/community-news/dallas/headlines/20110422-residents-of-metropolitan-condos-end-dispute-over-wall-in-belo-garden.ece">controversies</a> during the planning phase of Belo Garden came between the park organizers and the Metropolitan condos, which are adjacent to the park within the same block. The Belo foundation didn't want a driveway, which borders the west side of the condo tower, to be directly adjacent to the park. Their solution was a wall, which the building then opposed.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLhRNyzlxIQ-UoqTJdTmTd0iWsYesKygUEuhYuLh5ltk-eMiQ38sCkJEk2jAnYIYkA-0OhZiQz1DiNvvsn3AevU4c-bx3Jm33xTX4JBap8eEWvqsHshiecR4oIIUTMfwmoy7v4zL9sazCb/s1600/IMG_4629.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLhRNyzlxIQ-UoqTJdTmTd0iWsYesKygUEuhYuLh5ltk-eMiQ38sCkJEk2jAnYIYkA-0OhZiQz1DiNvvsn3AevU4c-bx3Jm33xTX4JBap8eEWvqsHshiecR4oIIUTMfwmoy7v4zL9sazCb/s320/IMG_4629.JPG" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The wall between the park and neighboring condos.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
This is one of the few times where I see both sides and can agree with both too. On the one hand, I understand the condo owners wouldn't like the front view of their lobby to be a wall, when it could be greenspace. I also understand they wouldn't like to have to walk to the edge of the property to go around and enter the park. I also see why the Belo Foundation wouldn't want their intentionally-designed "peaceful" park to be next to a driveway.<br />
<br />
The sad thing is, both violate good urban design practices, which is why I really didn't take one side or the other. An urban building shouldn't need a driveway, especially when the property has to garage entrances on the north and south side. Why does there need to be a driveway on the west? From the park's perspective, building a wall, by definition divides things. Good urban areas are seamless and transition well from one to the other. In the case of this park, well, there clearly is an end point. Since neither side presented a good urban solution, I just didn't care, and ultimately, it is downtown that suffers.<br />
<br />
One of the main positives talking points of the park by the way it was designed is also a negative. The designers intentionally used native, drought-resistant grasses, which is a really good thing, but the placement segments the park. They are tall and dense enough to tell users don't pass through here (besides, there may be a present from a four-legged friend in here). And on top of it, they built it on the edges too and it segregates the park from the sidewalk, a major urban violation.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg07T9mTOTOQ6xTHzq0qZVGz2r4JMnxaC0AFz9di8JwsYodz_o0WgO2ZfJfO2LHlE3YZwKNmnpAe9O0sw8ctycEeYB_vNV60-2XoChATCVP67xm20Np4eJaiW-bKGA9XUcjkvO4zwXZ8iTl/s1600/IMG_4630.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg07T9mTOTOQ6xTHzq0qZVGz2r4JMnxaC0AFz9di8JwsYodz_o0WgO2ZfJfO2LHlE3YZwKNmnpAe9O0sw8ctycEeYB_vNV60-2XoChATCVP67xm20Np4eJaiW-bKGA9XUcjkvO4zwXZ8iTl/s320/IMG_4630.JPG" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Here, the grasses separate the picnic area from the rest of Belo. It happens in way too much of the park.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
At the very least, Belo has an intangible that no other park in downtown has, something of comedic value. I'll let the sign speak for itself.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIryCZSJkR_RL04iB209eE5NxYQa3hDuQ_OVWS-m1wNOGBWlmPUwlWKU75Cves83Giw0RxUZWxgcV09teycsWCMhHlkzCwBaJBsr-PJq4NZlu7tSur7mYCZooNLueGBE7eHBvUrXNSSJII/s1600/IMG_4631.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIryCZSJkR_RL04iB209eE5NxYQa3hDuQ_OVWS-m1wNOGBWlmPUwlWKU75Cves83Giw0RxUZWxgcV09teycsWCMhHlkzCwBaJBsr-PJq4NZlu7tSur7mYCZooNLueGBE7eHBvUrXNSSJII/s320/IMG_4631.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
I hate that I sound overly negative...again. But Dallas talks a good game about making downtown urban, or rather returning to its urban roots. But then produces what they have been doing for the last 50 years, which turned it from an urban area into an office park. Main Street Gardens is a good urban park, though it has flaws, its urban design, things like on-street parking, sidewalk width, pedestrian amenities, integration of sidewalk to park, etc., are really solid.<br />
<br />
Belo is not. The design separates the park from the sidewalk, isolates the pedestrian and offers the pedestrian little urban activity. Yes, it is better than the parking lot that was there, but downtown Dallas, especially in the Main Street core, doesn't need incremental improvement. It needs to, if not a home run, at least get an extra base hit every time. Belo is a walk.Brandenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04773092281736359503noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7116035327813253055.post-82755031792245681442013-06-18T12:58:00.000-07:002013-06-18T12:58:42.783-07:00The Physical Importance of WalkingPlanners, urbanists and those who advocate for walkable neighborhoods have done a really good job of giving overarching reasons why we need to increase the amount of walkable neighborhoods in our cities. One of the more obvious reasons why we need to increase them is health.<br />
<br />
While it seems obvious, more walkability means more healthy citizens, where they haven't done a good job is getting into the whys, though it is beyond the scope of what they do. So I wanted to get into some detail on that, just why more walking is better for everyone.<br />
<br />
Our bodies receive fuel from two sources, fat and carbohydrates. At its basic, the body converts fat into the energy it needs to operate. As I sit here and type this, as you sit here and read this, our bodies are burning fat, just to stay alive, as well as the small amounts of energy required to carry out those duties. Now, not very much fat is burned, so you can't claim to be working out by sitting.<br />
<br />
The thing about fat is that it requires a lot of oxygen to convert to energy. That's why as we sit here, we breathe. It is also why as we exert ourselves more, we breathe faster and heavier.<br />
<br />
It is at this point that our body switches to the second energy source. Carbs are a short-term energy source that do not require near as much oxygen to convert to energy. They are also not stored in any large quantities. If you have ever seen a bike race, the most popular being the Tour de France, they are constantly eating. The reason is to keep the carbs supply high enough to operate efficiently. <br />
<br />
We most associate physical activity and muscle use with increased breathing, but it can be other parts of the body. If a person is sitting out in the mid-August sun with no shade, their body may switch to carbs to operate the cooling system because it is having to work a lot harder and also keep the vital organs going. At that point, they will start to breath faster, even though they aren't moving.<br />
<br />
Unlike carbs, fat is able to be stored in very large quantities, in some cases beyond a reasonable health level. But the average person doesn't need large amounts of carbs, so the human body developed a system to store the energy we need. At some point, the body will convert carbs to fat and store the energy for future use.<br />
<br />
Now the point at which the body begins the switching to carbs varies, but generally speaking, the better physical shape a person is in, the longer it takes. In other words, a person in good shape can run longer before the body switches. It is also important to note that just because you start to breath faster, doesn't mean the body has started the switch. It just means it needs more oxygen right now. Someone who is huffing and puffing is virtually guaranteed to be burning carbs, but one who is at a slightly elevated breathing level is likely to still be burning fat, just more of it than normal.<br />
<br />
This is where walking comes in. The average person burns between 50 to 100 calories if they walk for 10 minutes and most people minus the exceptionally out-of-shape would burn fat to fuel that walk. If we lived in more walkable areas, going to run minor errands would not only accomplish the task, but burn fat, since that is likely the fuel source used at low levels of exertion.<br />
<br />
An extra ten minutes of walking a day, taken out over the course of a year, using a conservative 65 calories per walk, would burn a total of 23,725 calories. One pound of fat equals 3,500 calories, so walking an extra ten minutes a day would equate to a loss of almost seven pounds a year.<br />
<br />
Now imagine if that came out of doing day-to-day things, instead of having to find the time to walk. Replacing neighborhoods that require a car with one where it is one of many options has a huge health benefit. Just living in a more walkable neighborhood, and changing a lifestyle to match the neighborhood, would slim the waistline tremendously.Brandenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04773092281736359503noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7116035327813253055.post-44389937032140944112013-03-13T18:51:00.000-07:002013-03-13T18:51:15.049-07:00D2 in the DMNFrequent commentator Ken Duble and I did a dual column for the Viewpoints Section in the Dallas Morning News.<br />
<br />
Link here: http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/local-voices/headlines/20130308-j-branden-helms-and-ken-duble-where-should-a-second-downtown-dart-rail-line-go.ece<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: orange;">K<em>en Dublé and J Branden Helms live and work in downtown Dallas.
Both have strong opinions about where a second downtown rail line should
go. DART and city planners and experts have discussed this for years,
and they have a few options (though no funding yet). The map above shows
the options they are debating, but you can explore other alternatives
on the interactive map at <a href="http://www.dart.org/D2">www.DART.org/D2</a>. </em><em>Some
people, like Ken, want the rail system to help support major events,
tying the airports, major hotels and the convention center together,
creating a large multi-modal hub around Union Station. Others, like
Branden, want the system to be affordable and convenient for the
greatest number of daily commuters.</em></span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;"><strong>Branden</strong>:
If we want DART to be a true transit system, the focus has to be on
riders. Among other North American cities, the ones with the highest
ridership are the ones that focus on residents.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">There are two
options that will give users of the DART system the most destination
options: the subway under Commerce Street or the line on Young Street.
Commerce Street has the most density and most pedestrian-friendly urban
design of all the options to really boost ridership potential.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: orange;"><strong>Ken</strong>:
Concerning the alternatives you cite, Commerce has the highest
ridership, but it would be second only to the convention center hotel
route in cost. Young Street is the least costly, and it’s the only route
DART believes it could build without outside funding.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">Before
deciding where to lay a track, you must first decide what you want it to
do. Commerce would create a tight circle around one part of downtown,
but that area is already developed. We ought to anticipate growth, not
chase it. Let’s make the loop as large as possible and let streetcar
lines serve the interior.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: orange;"><strong>Branden</strong>: Ken, what you
say has merit, but my major concern with using development potential as a
factor is Dallas has a very poor track record of true transit-oriented
development. Due to a lack of development controls, existing
transit-oriented development like Victory Park or the Shops at Park Lane
are more accurately “transit adjacent.” There is no connectivity.
Neither development pumps any significant amount of everyday riders,
mostly due to poor design.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">Meanwhile, Commerce already has great
design and land uses. If a subway were put down, the density of offices,
residents and hotels along the route would add riders. The design and
density are already done.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: orange;"><strong>Ken</strong>: I share your
frustration with Dallas’ history of poor land usage around suburban
stations, but the issue before us is a route downtown. The entire system
now shuts down when there is a problem along the Pacific-Bryan track.
Also, providing a second track means DART could double its schedule.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">We’ll
lay the track someday. The question is where. This could be our last
rail line. Given the size of downtown, do we really want to lay a second
track three blocks away from the existing one?</span><br />
<span style="background-color: orange;"><strong>Branden</strong>:
I would say yes, if it moves the most riders. Why would we make folks
who work at the large office concentrations like AT&T or nearly
every resident downtown walk farther to use the new line or risk losing
riders with yet another transfer? Every major city’s transit agency has
major lines a block or three away, so this isn’t outside-the-box
thinking.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: orange;"><strong>Ken</strong>: While Commerce ridership
projections look impressive, many now catch the existing line three
blocks away, so they wouldn’t represent new ridership. DART currently
operates two bus transfer centers along the corridor, including the
poorly located East Transfer Center.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">The Union Station-convention
center option could replace both with a single multi-modal terminal at
Union Station, which could someday serve high-speed rail service from
Houston. The former Reunion Arena site has a mammoth but underused
parking facility in place. To focus on the West End is to bet the 21st
century will be much like the 20th. Is this a bet Dallas can afford to
lose?</span><br />
<span style="background-color: orange;"><strong>Branden</strong>: If the Orange and Green Lines will
run on the new track, and the Red and Blue on the existing track, then
it doesn’t matter their proximity — they run to different destinations.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">Ken,
nothing suppresses ridership like lengthy trips and transfers. A Union
Station alternative does both. Additionally, there is very little around
the station. So anyone who now uses the two routes that would run on
the new track will face the choice of a longer trip or a transfer to a
streetcar or bus. Many choice riders will choose their cars. I fear that
overall ridership could actually dip if Union Station is the chosen
alternative.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: orange;"><strong>Ken:</strong> It is out of concern for
lengthy transfers that I advocate a giant transfer terminal near Union.
Many low-income people, who have no choice but to use DART, make two
transfers both morning and evening. Some arrive and depart into one
transfer center and rely on light rail for transport to catch a bus at
the other. They would benefit from closing downtown’s West and East
transfer centers in favor of a mega-transfer center at the site of the
former Reunion Arena. It could serve high-speed rail, Amtrak, Megabus,
Greyhound, bus lines to Mexico, taxis, the streetcar, the Trinity River
Express and the light rail trains.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: orange;"><strong>Branden</strong>: Union
Station is too far removed from the rest of the urban fabric downtown
to be a quality transfer point. Transit service works better when it is
point-to-point, not a hub-and-spoke model. With little to walk to from
Union, transfers will become a must, therefore adding time and reducing
ridership potential. The walkable West End Station is by far the most
used station in the DART system and should be the central point. Moving
it all to Union would be a disaster.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: orange;"><strong>Ken: </strong>That
West End is the most used station right now is entirely due to the
transfer activity you dismiss. The Akard and St. Paul stations are
situated in similar points of density. What they lack is the West
End-Rosa Parks transfer feed. Were this relocated to the Reunion site,
then Union would be the busiest station.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">According to a Brookings
Institution report released last week, Amtrak boardings at Union grew
482.9 percent from 1997 to 2012. Even without high-speed rail, activity
is increasing at Union. The Oak Cliff Streetcar will add even more. We
mustn’t allow the present to limit our future vision.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white;">I don't want to speak for Ken, though he did express the same thoughts during the process. The format was restricting: we each got 5 responses, one after the other, at roughly 100 words per response.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white;">There are a few supplementary points I would like to add.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white;">Ken says that the line would parallel the current line. That is true to a point, but the lines aren't the access point, the stations are. Since he advocates for Union being the transfer point of the new line, by proxy, I am advocating that the West End Station/Transfer Center/Rosa Parks be the transfer point for the urban system.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white;">Therefore, you can't say the the West End Station is parallel, since that's the transfer point. Akard Station @ Pacific and Akard Station @ Commerce are three blocks apart. However, since Main and Akard is the center of urban life in Dallas, that is actually a plus. This would become the second busiest station on the Green Line if the Commerce alignment were chosen, after West End.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white;">After that, the stations drift further and further apart. St. Paul Station would be five blocks from a potential Harwood Station. Pearl Station would be over eight blocks away from a potential station on the Young alignment. It would be possible, but I don't think DART is planning a station for the Commerce option.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white;">Second, Commerce isn't all built out. There is lots of potential for development near the West End Station on the north, south and west side. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white;">Akard doesn't have anything immediately available, but there is potential on small parcels to the east and south. That is also why it would be such a highly-used station, because it is built out with pedestrian-focused buildings. Finally, the Harwood Station would have almost the entire southeast to redevelop. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white;">The Young Street option would also have greater. In fact, it would have more than either Union Station alternative, since it runs close to the middle of downtown, unlike the Union options, which are on the very edge until at least Young Street.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white;">However, I really dislike using development-potential as a selling point. Most Transit-Oriented-Development's in this country do not increase ridership in any large way. Modern development, spurred on by development codes and institutional controls, will always accommodate the car first. A look across the country sees this effect. From transit-pioneering Portland, to transit-heavy New York, new development, billed as TOD, is actual not pumping many riders into the system. What is doing that, is larger redevelopment of buildings and neighborhoods built before WWII. This also doesn't account for a lack of TOD guidelines from Dallas, which is why we see so many "TOD's" in Dallas do little for DART's ridership numbers.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white;">So, development could occur all along a Union Station alternative, and very little to moderate, at best, ridership increases would be seen.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white;">Commerce, on the other hand, already has a large collection of pre-WWII buildings, all ready to have a complimentary-transit component built. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white;">Finally, as far as transfers go, I do not dismiss them. Even the 800 lbs. gorillas of transit systems require transfers. The key for them, and what we MUST do, is minimize them as well as their impacts. A West End Station transfer point is much more conducive for urban travel than Union.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white;">I have said why, but I will try to do a better job of explaining. Within three blocks around West End Station is over 3 million square feet of office, 379 residences, two hotels, El Centro College and its 10,000 students, county offices and the retail/restaurant areas of the West End.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white;">If you live, work, visit, eat or shop, you have a reason to be there. Yes, there is a lot of transfer activity, but it isn't the majority of trips. It may seem like it, since people transferring linger longer, but that station attracts a lot of activity.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white;">Compare that to the East Transfer Center, where there is the Sheraton Hotel and a whole lotta nothing. Even the nearest rail station is a block, and a pedestrian-unfriendly one at that.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white;">In many ways, that's what Union Station will be like if it were a transfer point. Yes, one day there could be high-speed rail, but does that mean we inconvenience everyday riders with a longer trip and more transfers.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white;">With the West End, it is a possibility that the area is a final destination for riders. For the super, vast majority, Union won't be. For those where neither station is the destination, the West End provides the quickest route, as it runs through downtown, instead of around. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white;">Simply put, the West End is the quickest, most central point, and if transfers are the focus, then the West End makes sense, if the point is to minimize their adverse impacts.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white;">And yes, Amtrak bookings may have gone up, but the average is still less than 200 a day. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white;">Add that with the murky future of high speed rail in Texas, with funding completely unknown and TxDoT favoring a station at DFW. Did we make DFW a central transfer point in the DART system? No, because it doesn't make sense to do so. It is too far removed and Union is the same way on a micro scale. In essence, Union is to downtown Dallas what DFW is for the region. Yes, there are plans to make a transfer point at DFW on the Cotton Belt route, but it isn't the central point of the entire system.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white;">For me, it always comes down to this: those who use the system multiple times a week should be the focus. As it stands now, Union isn't even the central transfer point of the DART system, by a long shot, not even in the top 5. So why would it be forced to with the new line?</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white;">The last bit I have to offer is a case study from other cities. Foreign systems fit, but I will keep it in this country for simplicity's sake.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white;">New York has two major transfer areas. Midtown/Times Square and Lower Manhattan, though they are a misnomer, because just about every station is a transfer to another line. Both of those spots are in the middle of urban bustle, not the edge like Union would be.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white;">Washington D.C. has three major ones, all in the middle of the urban area. Their Union Station, the destination for every commuter and Amtrak rail line (including the only high speed rail line in this country), serves only one out of their five lines. The sixth, the under-construction Silver Line, won't serve Union either.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white;">And in a system very similar to Dallas', with similar veins of thought and time in the planning process, San Francisco's BART system operates a lot like the current DART transit mall now. All of the transfer activity is under Market Street, the heart of the financial/downtown area. It is also where MUNI and the cable cars run. Instead of a transfer point, it creates a transfer corridor.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white;">I have criticized DART for being a commuter system. The Commerce Street option would be a great step in swinging that pendulum a bit toward urban. The Young Street option would, though not as much. None of the other options would. In fact, it might even swing that pendulum more toward commuter.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white;">Now, try putting that into 5 different 100 words bits.</span>Brandenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04773092281736359503noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7116035327813253055.post-1757280685604995032013-03-07T16:20:00.001-08:002013-03-07T16:20:38.959-08:00SpammersMy blog has been inundated with spammers of late. At first, the filter caught most of them. I was okay with deleting the spam from my section if you weren't bothered by it. By today there were dozens of them on the page. I didn't want to, but the spammers have made me go to the lowest common denominator. From here on out, comments must pass a capcha test first. Sorry to have to do it.Brandenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04773092281736359503noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7116035327813253055.post-15854599092072568372013-02-24T17:04:00.001-08:002013-02-24T17:04:12.362-08:00Politics at Play in D2 Last Wednesday, DART hosted a public meeting on the progress of D2, the second downtown Dallas rail line. The planning effort faded when DART's finances were on shaky ground after the sales tax that funds the majority of the agency declined during the recession.<br />
<br />
DART planners narrowed the alternatives a few years ago to four options (seen in this <a href="http://www.dart.org/ShareRoot/about/expansion/D2PlanningCommitteeUpdate23jun09.pdf">PDF on page 4</a>). They all run on the surface through Victory Park, submerge in a tunnel just south of Woodall Rogers and have a station at Lamar and Pacific. From there, they take different routes before rejoining the current Green Line at Good-Latimer and Commerce.<br />
<br />
B7 runs in a subway under Commerce, B4 surfaces after the West End and runs in the old Santa Fe ROW by the current Aloft Hotel and proceeds east in the median of Young. B4a runs in the same Santa Fe ROW, but underground with a subway stop at City Hall before resurfacing on Marilla Street headed out of downtown. The final alignment was B4b, which stayed in a subway to the Omni, made a roughly 300 degree turn to City Hall and then headed out of downtown as B4a. <br />
<br />
Those four are still in the running, but thanks in large part to the Downtown 360 plan, DART was forced to look at Union Station, regardless of the fact that they already looked at in the preliminary rounds prior to the four finalists. I talked about that specific section in a <a href="http://anurbanrambler.blogspot.com/2011_05_01_archive.html">2011 post</a>. Ironically enough, much of what will come when I dissect the "new" alignments has already been posted there.<br />
<br />
The preferred alternative for many city officials now is the C3a option, here the line would run at-grade on the current ROW of the Green and Orange Line from Victory Station to Woodall Rogers, where it would submerge into a tunnel towards Union. It would turn east after Union and run in the subway under property owned by Belo. If Marilla were extended west, it would roughly run under it. It would proceed east under Marilla using the similar routing as B4a.<br />
<br />
Described as the poor man's version of the previous alignment, C3 has a similar feel. It too would run in a subway from Victory, but instead of having a station underneath the current platforms, it would veer east at the northern part of Reunion Boulevard/Young Street, surface between Market and Lamar Streets and proceed east in the median of Young.<br />
<br />
Finally, to appease concerns from First Presbyterian Church, planners are looking at elevating the entire portion of the B4 option, as well another option eliminating the station at Harwood Street. This was done to "protect" their garage. It could be a casualty of ROW requirements for any Young-running option. I don't think either of these option are viable. Elevated railways have
disappeared across the country in urban areas for good reasons. Minus a
few exceptions, the are basically extinct. And not having a station at
Harwood Street would be a terrible idea. What good is the rail line in
the neighborhood to increase coverage if there isn't a station for those
there to ride? <br />
<br />
For me, any favored alignment will depend heavily on ridership. For other folks, different factors could be economic development, geographic/neighborhood coverage, cost or owned properties. Neither of those reasons are better than the other, but is just a point-of-view.<br />
<br />
If we are talking ridership, the Commerce Street option is my favored alignment. It is closest to the dense section of downtown. AT&T is one of the largest employers in the region, and it is right on the alignment. Visitors are also more likely to ride the system than any other demographic and there would be a station at the 428-room Adolphus Hotel and the 330-room Magnolia directly adjacent to it. Within a block or two sits the 125-room Joule (they are currently expanding) and 169-room Indigo (at the Harwood Station), while the old Grand hotel is being redeveloped. The vast majority of residential buildings are in the Main Street core, of which this line is directly adjacent. The majority of offices are above Commerce Street, with the exception of AT&T, which is directly adjacent to a station, and Dallas City Hall. Add in the fact that Commerce, despite being too wide with too many one-way traffic lanes, is relatively walkable, it adds to the viability of the transit line. Simply put, this alignment is the most urban of all of them. If riders feel comfortable walking, then they will. Of all the options, this one is the most urban with the most compatible land uses and urban design. <br />
<br />
Coming in a close second for me is the B4 Young alignment. It lacks the urban vibrancy of the Commerce alignment, and therefore will detract from potential ridership right there. It is also further away from the big drivers of transit ridership.<br />
<br />
The first time around I was a bit more opposed, but because it splits the big employers of downtown (AT&T and Dallas City Hall) and it fits in with the fact that DART is a commuter system, I am a little less so now. That statement may confuse loyal readers, as I have railed against DART for designing a commuter system over an urban-style rail system (that's why I prefer the Commerce option), but that was before the streetcar became a serious option.<br />
<br />
There were rumors at the time, but there has been concrete progress on the Oak Cliff line since and the momentum to connect it to MATA in Uptown is growing. The streetcar has the chance to be the true urban transportation system. It currently runs in the heart of Uptown. Though the first phase of the Oak Cliff portion isn't the greatest, the subsequent phases will run through the urban heart of Oak Cliff (I also have more faith that the folks running it "get" urban design, and therefore will produce a great product). So the DART rail system will function as the commuter system and the streetcar could function as the urban system, especially if the downtown portion is routed properly. As such, the Young option would be a good commuter line. Coupled with the Orange Line, the North Central corridor and the Northwest corridor from Bachman Station into downtown would reach both the current transit mall and the new line. With B4, it would split the difference, providing adequate coverage.<br />
<br />
While I don't think it will produce as many riders as the Commerce subway would, the urban design, land-use and density just aren't there, it will do a decent job as a commuter option. Another big detractor for me is the lack of a quality pedestrian environment between Young Street and the walkable part of downtown. This would almost assuredly have to be addressed if this was the chosen alignment.<br />
<br />
From here, there is a big drop off between second and third. The Commerce option is like getting a hundred dollar bill, the Young nine ten dollar bills. My third choice is like getting two $20's.<br />
<br />
B4a is okay, but will lack for riders compared to the previous two. The only real draw is the City Hall Station, though even that is tempered by the possibility of closure after hours for security reasons. After that, there isn't much to attract any riders. The potential Farmers Market Station at roughly north of Canton and Ceasar Chavez is near some residential (though with huge suburban parking ratios) but that is it. The Farmers Market is actually several blocks to the south, on some of the most auto-dominated streets in downtown. The walk would be unfriendly and the current land-use and urban design won't help attract many riders. <br />
<br />
Of the original four, B4b is my least favorite (maybe worth $15). I am glad to see that city officials are backing away from this option (though maybe not, since they are favoring a worse one). The Omni will not attract many riders to the rail system. As I chronicled in<a href="http://anurbanrambler.blogspot.com/2012/07/orange-line-and-airport-connection.html"> this post</a>, across the country, regardless of the mode of rail, the airport stations carry a very small fraction of total system ridership. This was true in the bigger more traditional east coast cities, to the newer light rail systems similar to Dallas. This is likely that the regular everyday users aren't going to the airport and those using the airport aren't likely to take a load of luggage on a rail system. Those that do use the system are airport employees (and since airports are sprawled and decidedly low on the density scale, they don't use it in any high proportion) and some business travelers. Most of the riders the Omni will attract is employees, and since there are greater concentrations of workers in other parts of downtown, it just doesn't make sense. It suffers from the same problems as the Marilla option, but will take way more time for riders to go from point A to B (reducing ridership) and cost a lot more to build. <br />
<br />
Sadly, when adding either C3 option, nothing changes for me. Since their routing and station placements are so similar, the drawbacks are the same. If the other four were worth something, this feels like we have to pay something.<br />
<br />
My biggest problem is directly tied to ridership. With most alternatives taking a near direct path through downtown with a central transfer point at Pacific and Lamar. That point is in the middle of downtown. And being direct, it will have no adverse effect on ridership. The C3's will avoid the heart of downtown. Having a central transfer point is great, but Union Station should not be it. Even if all the redevelopment talk materializes, most riders will still be destined for other parts of downtown. So picture yourself an Orange or Green Line rider, with a destination that is the most common, the center to northern part of downtown. From the north, they have to travel from Victory to Union, transfer at Union, then take a train up to at least the West End Station. Because either station is a subway, the transfer will take a bit more time, C3a will be directly under the current Union platform, C3 will be on the other side of the building. The trip length for most riders will be at least ten minutes longer than any other option, and likely closer to twenty. For captive riders, they will take it no matter what, but for most choice riders coming from outside of downtown it will be a deal breaker. Downtown doesn't need rail service on the outskirts. It needs it to be where it is most convenient for riders, not developers.<br />
<br />
This is one of the critiques thrown at planners. They see Union as the location where Red, Blue, TRE and Amtrak trains meet, with a possibility of high-speed rail one day, and say that is where every other train line needs to be routed to make it multi-modal. West End works because there already is a great concentration of places to go for a great deal of people. It naturally morphed into a great transfer place because of what was already there. One can go in any direction and find places to go. The same can not be said for Union. <br />
<br />
As an added bonus, I will critique a loyal readers proposal.<br />
<br />
From Ken Duble in an e-mail:<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">My thought: rather than tunnel under Lamar and have two separate West
End stations, why not tunnel underneath the Omni -- a shorter and less
costly tunnel -- and use existing track between Union Station and the
West End, as well as the existing station, then send the line north into
the Victory area from there? Not only would this mean less track and
less expenditure, but it would make Union a transit hub.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white;">There's a something to this, but I don't think it is feasible. It keeps the West End as a hub but it doesn't solve the time problem of the C3 options. </span><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="background-color: white;">The core of downtown
workers, residents and visitors is still above Jackson Street, and
tunneling under the Omni ignores these key riders. I</span>t also doesn't relieve potential bottlenecks along the existing transit mall, which is a goal of the project. I don't know his exact routing from the Omni out, but there is a horseshoe effect here, Omni, Union, West End. That means added time, which will have an added effect on ridership reduction.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white;">Bottom line, there really is no way to serve Union without adding time and transfers for existing riders. I think if any Union Station alternative is chosen, there is a really good possibility that overall ridership of the existing Orange Line and maybe the Green could decline. I really believe the added time to take the rail system along with an unneeded transfer will really be a deal-breaker for some current riders.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white;">I really hope the process will be able shake off the political pressure Dallas officials are putting on DART to get this route. They look at the rail line like a freeway exit, but it doesn't work that way. Also remember there are a great many riders who do not go downtown, but just pass through it, like from Plano or Richardson to Las Colinas. Adding an extra 20-40 minutes round trip will be a deal breaker. It already is time consuming, which has put off potential ridership gains, as seen in <a href="http://anurbanrambler.blogspot.com/2012/08/orange-line-critique.html">this post</a>.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white;"> These are one-and-done proposition. Once the lines are laid, that is it. Here's hoping it is done right. If not, DART will still rank at the bottom of U.S. rail systems per mile. </span>Brandenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04773092281736359503noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7116035327813253055.post-54780693029555546772013-02-09T13:18:00.000-08:002013-02-09T13:18:12.567-08:00Freeway removalAfter getting multiple e-mails regarding an article published in D Magazine, I figured it would be worth a discussion. It is no secret that I am not a fan of the freeway ring around downtown. It has numerous negative consequences for the built urban environment.<br />
<br />
Well, Patrick Kennedy isn't either. That's no surprise to me, since his blog, <a href="http://www.carfreeinbigd.com/">http://www.carfreeinbigd.com/</a>, is one I follow. In fact, his was one of the<a href="http://anurbanrambler.blogspot.com/2010/09/first-post.html"> inspirations</a> to start my own. <br />
<br />
In <a href="http://www.dmagazine.com/Home/D_Magazine/2013/February/How_Dallas_is_Throwing_Away_4_Billion_Dollar_Investment.aspx">the article</a>, Kennedy states that TxDoT's approach to I-345, the unsigned freeway between I-30 and Woodall Rogers linking Central Expressway and I-45 is too limited. As it stands now, they are looking at two options, replacement or repair. Kennedy says a third option should be on the table, demolition.<br />
<br />
I-345 severs, Deep Ellum and downtown Dallas, creating a dead zone between the two. Kennedy makes the case (using land use economics that I am not as well-versed in) that using an outmoded form of transportation thinking, TxDoT is keeping downtown's (not to mention Deep Ellum) urban revival muted.<br />
<br />
The traffic impact of removal would be minimal, he argues, since it is a regional road, and there are freeways further out that are built and made to handle it and unlike downtown, their land use doesn't suffer because of it.<br />
<br />
I made a similar point <a href="http://anurbanrambler.blogspot.com/2012/08/neighborhood-needs-versus-regional.html">here</a> when I was talking about Julius Schepps in South Dallas. Regionalism is great, but the problem in Dallas, as well as all inner cities across the country, is that neighborhoods built before the freeways ran through them are the ones to make sacrifices, not the suburban neighborhoods that were built around the freeways. That is why stopping at I-635 or even Loop-12 makes sense. There is no neighborhood decay by the freeways running through them there, since they were built in tandem.<br />
<br />
The downtown inner ring road was built to take traffic off the streets of downtown. Back in that day, planners saw that many of the vehicles weren't destined for downtown, just passing through, it was still the nexus of the regional highway system. However, when it was built, two things happened that weren't expected.<br />
<br />
Fitting with the <a href="http://anurbanrambler.blogspot.com/2012/01/highway-robbery-how-induced-traffic.html">Induced Traffic Principle</a>, the new downtown freeways attracted more traffic than was already there. Inversely, downtown streets stayed as congested as ever. So the problem the ring road was supposed to solve, downtown congestion, was only made worse. Most of that traffic was generated from regional traffic, who now saw an easy way to get through the city to the other side. Today, four out of five cars that drive on the Downtown Loop aren't going to or from downtown itself, so 80% of the users aren't local. That would be fine on LBJ, where the freeway fits. If downtown and Deep Ellum receive little benefit, but have a long list negative externalities, then something needs to be reexamined.<br />
<br />
The second was the decline of the neighborhood. The required space needed for storage and use of the vehicles was astronomical and, like many other American cities that followed this chain of events, historic, functional buildings were torn down to make room for the cars. The continuity of city blocks were torn asunder as the once uninterrupted, pedestrian-friendly streetscape, much of which were lined with storefronts, was pockmarked by asphalt parking lots. These places were no longer the attractive places to visit and shop and instead, folks moved to the strip center or regional shopping mall (ironic since they were and still are patterned after the Main Street shopping seen downtown).<br />
<br />
Thanks in large part to their solid bones and clusters of businesses left over, America's downtowns were still viable business centers, but rarely anything else. The shopping was gone, as were the theaters and most entertainment options and residents fled to the fringes. Anything else left behind had to adapt to the new reality or fail, restaurants had to have business hours revolving around lunch, stores changed target markets or were inventive (Nieman Marcus was a pioneer in online retailing).<br />
<br />
In addition, the new infrastructure required massive amounts of land. Each freeway is roughly a block wide. The entire downtown freeway ring is over five miles (it would be shorter to go from downtown to Loop 12 than it would be to circle the loop) and passes over 50 blocks. The exit and entrances usually take up at least a block. Add in the parking requirements and it isn't hard to see that downtown is dominated by the car's infrastructural requirements.<br />
<br />
This is where I struggle with the concept of downtown freeways. Downtown is supposed to be the center of the city and region. Yet, it is dominated by a transportation system that whisks drivers by as fast as possible for the sake of a suburban development pattern that doesn't fit an urban area. Why is interstate traffic being routed through downtown? Why is the suburban interests taking a priority over downtown's?<br />
<br />
If we can make downtown a more vibrant active place, everyone benefits. The City benefits with an increased tax base and a greater tourism draw, city residents benefit by having a quality urban environment and public gathering space (the oxymoron here is that they wouldn't have an abundant supply of "convenient" parking, which they do now, but don't use because there isn't many reasons to go downtown). The region benefits by having the same thing.<br />
<br />
There are some groups (road building lobby, trucking companies, landscapers, etc.) that will see a negative impact from downtown freeway removal, but seeing as how they have little-to-no stake in the actual neighborhood, their concerns take a backseat to the neighborhood. You can even take out neighborhood and replace it with city and it would still ring true.<br />
<br />
In the end, everyone benefits from a vibrant city core. Having one that is gutted on the inside, but looks great at 70 mph as motorist cruise on by doesn't have the same effect at all. Demolition of I-345 would be great for downtown, Deep Ellum and Dallas.Brandenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04773092281736359503noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7116035327813253055.post-44802703129346556452013-02-09T09:40:00.000-08:002013-02-09T09:40:40.710-08:00Raising Kids DowntownSome of you may know, but for those that do not, I am a volunteer columnist for the Dallas Morning News Community Voices page that runs every Saturday. Several weeks ago I submitted a piece that ran a week ago. In it, I talked about the reason my wife and I decided not to eave for the suburbs, a uniquely American phenomenon when we have kids.<br />
<br />
http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/local-voices/headlines/20130201-j-branden-helms-urban-living-has-benefits-for-my-children.ece<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">As cities across the country have continued efforts to repopulate
their downtowns and urban areas, Generation Y and the millennials became
known as urban pioneers. Even before they could count on neighborhood
amenities like close grocers or dry cleaners, they moved to places like
Uptown, which was once devoid of urban amenities. Now the place teems
with life and activity.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">Downtown is following the same path. It
isn’t there yet, but in the six years I have lived in this neighborhood,
it has made much progress. My new neighbors are no longer urban
pioneers, except in one important way.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">Urban pioneers dated and
married. Some then had kids. Conventional wisdom dictates that they
would then get a house in a suburban setting. Certainly, some have
followed that path.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">But those who haven’t are the new urban
pioneers. I often feel like my family is part of a group blazing a new
path. I’m not going to speak for the others, but we have specific
reasons we choose to raise our two boys in an urban area.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">It’s not, as some anonymous Internet commenters have suggested, that we want to appear hip and trendy.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">One
of the biggest reasons is health. For a lot of reasons, kids today are
the fattest, unhealthiest they have ever been. Giving them an
environment where they can be active is very appealing to my wife and
me. We envision a future where the kids, when they get older, are able
to live a semi-independent life, where they do not depend on us to be
their chauffeur. In the process, they will burn calories as they go, or
so our line of reasoning takes us.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">We also hope some level of
exposure to people who don’t all look and behave the way we do will help
them, too. They will see rich and poor, all races, genders, religions
and everything between. We hope this understanding of their fellow
citizens will offer insights that others may not have.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">Even some
commonly considered problems in this regard have benefits. I grew up in a
small farming community in West Texas. Drug education basically
consisted of “don’t do drugs ’cause they are bad.” However, my sons will
see firsthand where drug or alcohol addiction can actually lead.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">My
wife really likes the idea of having many cultural facilities nearby.
The Arts District venues are within walking distance. Fair Park is an
easy train or bike ride away.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">Certainly, as in any parenting
situations, there are challenges. The schools zoned for our area leave a
lot to be desired, even for me, a guy who thinks that parents matter
far more than the school does in a child’s education. We are looking
into Montessori schools, magnets, charters and other options.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">There
are also fewer kids in the urban neighborhoods than in the suburbs.
More are coming to downtown all the time, but most of our kids’ play
time comes at their school.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">Now, we can debate all of the above,
but I think there is one important thing to remember about any decision
parents make. The best choice is the one they truly believe is best for
their children.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">If parents choose one lifestyle over another
without that focus, the children are in trouble. But if parents do what
they really believe is best for their children — no matter where they
choose to live — then the children’s best interest is served.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">In the end, isn’t that what we all need — more kids who are cared for?</span>Brandenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04773092281736359503noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7116035327813253055.post-48557263008089997852013-01-27T19:58:00.001-08:002013-01-27T19:58:34.556-08:00Incremental Improvements Add UpOver the Christmas season, my family and I spent two weekends out of town. The first saw a return trip that is normally less than three hours take four hours, the majority of which was filled with a screaming two-month old. For the second trip, we wanted to avoid that outcome so we looked into the options. We settled on <a href="http://us.megabus.com/Default.aspx">Megabus</a>. <br />
<br />
They are the Southwest Airlines of buses. They avoid high-cost terminals and are generally a very affordable option. We started our trip at DART's<a href="http://www.dart.org/riding/stations/easttransfercenter.asp"> East Transfer Center (ETC)</a>. There was a big dust-up between the bus company and the city. They initially wanted to operate out of the parking lot just south of the ETC, but the City of Dallas <a href="http://cityhallblog.dallasnews.com/2012/06/megabus-was-supposed-to-start-rolling-out-of-downtown-dallas-next-week-nope-try-grand-prairie-instead.html/">had other ideas</a>. They finally came to an agreement with DART to operate out of one of their facilities.<br />
<br />
From that perspective, I love it. I have always thought the ETC, for many reasons, is heavily underutilized. This gives it a lot more uses. It also turns the ETC from a bus station a couple of blocks away from a rail station into a multi-modal transportation facility.<br />
<br />From DART's perspective, they will make a bit of extra revenue on the lease, but it should also have a slight increase in rail ridership and up the bus ridership by a rounding area. It also gives the ETC a more vibrant use in downtown.<br />
<br />
For the rest of the stops we made, Megabus utilized gas station parking lots of the freeways they stopped in. You can definitely see the low-cost approach here. The only downside, as we experienced on the return trip, is when the bus is late, there is no way to know. Our bus was over an hour late and the staff at the Midland Exxon couldn't relay anything.<br />
<br />
Overall, the traveling experience was enjoyable, and I'd recommend. As far as the urban impact, this is a positive for downtown. It adds an extra use to an under-performing downtown bus station, and creates more activity in a part of downtown that has none. I really think several small changes like this will have a positive step in downtown Dallas' transition into a bona fide urban area.Brandenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04773092281736359503noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7116035327813253055.post-46891043564144927792013-01-16T07:09:00.000-08:002013-01-16T07:09:38.887-08:00Biking in Dallas: The ComedyFor any following the City of Dallas quest to become more bike friendly, the Dallas Morning News ran a Metro Section article Tuesday about a <a href="http://www.dallasnews.com/news/community-news/dallas/headlines/20130114-city-officials-tour-highlights-shortcomings-in-dallas-bike-paths.ece">tour elected officials took to see the current bike infrastructure on the ground</a>. It is behind the paywall, but I recommend the read.<br />
<br />
I know I have promised a post on the new bike lanes downtown, but a brief synopsis is this: I am underwhelmed. The article gives a good felling of why, even from the beginning with the headline. "Tour-by van- looks at bike lanes" says it all. People who don't ride design a system for riders and then are perplexed when riders don't use the system.<br />
<br />
Fundamentally, it comes down to a flaw of the planning profession in general. The jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none certainly apply to many-to most planners. Some consult a book, see what other cities or counties have done and apply it without context. The system designed by bikers in Portland, for example, may not work here. Just because they see results, doesn't mean Dallas will. <br />
<br />
From the article:<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">In a white city van, four City Council members and several staff members rode past Fair Park through Deep Ellum and downtown and into Oak Cliff to view the different ways Dallas has installed bike infrastructure.</span><br />
...<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">The city's central connection of bike lanes stretches from Victory Park to near Fair Park and leads from the Katy Trail to the Santa Fe Trail.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">But it isn't the easiest path to navigate, council members agreed. Because of the inadequate signs and variations in the types of lanes used, bicyclists are often left to figure out where they're supposed to be - while riding in lanes shared with cars. </span><br />
...<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">Council members were also concerned about the narrowness of some lanes downtown, particularly along Jackson and Wood streets. In some places, the bike lane runs into the storm sewer.</span><br />
...<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">Those touring the lanes saw lots of striping laid down for bicycles. What they didn't see much of were people on bicycles.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">Whether it was because of the time of day, the cold weather, a lack of interest of something else, the lanes weren't attracting many users.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">Changing that will be the true test of how well the new lanes work</span>.<br />
<br />
I won't go into too much detail of the lanes themselves, as I believe that is worth a post on its own. What I want to address is two-fold.<br />
<br />
First, Dallas isn't alone, but I know it the best. They put up a mismatch of infrastructure, some convenient to the biker, some for the street layout, some convenient to the cars. This combination can actually nullify the first one and it no longer is convenient to cycle any amount of distance. Then the cyclist, both hard core and recreational, don't use it and what was built for them sits empty. <br />
<br />
A lot of times in planning, the phrase "just get something on the ground" is used as a way to put a policy in place with the rationale that the public will see it and opposition will fade as people see it in use. This is a great example of why I don't like that approach as a one-size-fits-all tactic. In this situation, folks who don't want the lanes are going to point here and say "why build it here if no one uses it there."<br />
<br />
The final result ends with no new infrastructure added because the initial ones were implemented poorly and no one uses it. This isn't a good outcome for anyone. <br />
<br />
Ultimately, the big stumbling block lies with the city staffers and elected officials who are reluctant to take space now used for cars and allocate them to another mode. Somehow, in order to achieve balance, that has to happen. You can't add any meaningful infrastructure while leaving a seven-lane-wide roadway with a median intact for autos to achieve high speeds. Those high speeds make cycling, walking and transit uncomfortable and therefore inconvenient. As a result, only car-use is convenient and the only mode used on a wide basis. Cities, like Dallas, tread water if their starting point is to leave the auto-only roadways alone.<br />
<br />
The second point is this. How many times have we heard alternative transportation won't work in Dallas because Dallasites just love their cars? I have maintained people don't love their cars, they love convenience and I still haven't seen anything to contradict this. Cars are still the only thing that is convenient across the region. There are small patches scattered here and yon where a car isn't needed, but nothing wholesale to really put a dent in regional vehicle miles traveled. I have talked a bit about why <a href="http://anurbanrambler.blogspot.com/search/label/DART">DART comes up short</a>. Walking is too fragmented, even in walkable areas. In the DMN article linked, the biking infrastructure is noted for being to erratic and mismatched. The only thing that is close to be seamless and convenient is the car.<br />
<br />
From coast to coast and even internationally, places that have a legitimate choice and offer convenient alternative transportation options, their citizens choose alternatives. In places that don't, folks don't choose it on any meaningful scale.<br />
<br />
Dallas can do it, but I just wonder if there will ever be enough people to hop out of the van to ever get it done. Brandenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04773092281736359503noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7116035327813253055.post-39013895801702111482013-01-10T16:41:00.001-08:002013-01-10T16:41:42.896-08:00Hidden CostsI was shopping the other day, and a transportation and land-use question popped into my head.<br />
<br />
I was at one of the big box stores when I told the cashier that I had my own bags and wouldn't want more plastic bags. She scanned a code that gave a five cent discount per bag. The premise, from the store's perspective, is those who use their own bags are saving the company bags, and therefore aren't charged the amount of the bags.<br />
<br />
In turning this around to transportation policy, what happens to transit users who don't use their parking lot? The store either owns the lot and pays for construction, maintenance and taxes, or leases the property from an entity that pays for for construction, maintenance and taxes and that cost is included in the lease. Either way, that cost isn't going to be a sunk cost to the store. That is passed on in the price and is paid for by consumers. That's okay if you actually use that service.<br />
<br />
But in the case above, my wife and family took the train there. Yet we still paid for the parking space.<br />
<br />
Cars are virtually the only thing that gets a pass. There are so many hidden costs such as this. Some economists have pegged the hidden cost/subsidy of a gallon of gas at 6-10 dollars. City taxes are derived primarily from property and sales taxes, regardless of whether the payee uses or owns a car. Free parking, as I briefly describe above is paid by any customer. Increasingly, the federal gas tax is coming up short on highway funding, so the general fund is being tapped. In fact, as highways become more expensive, regional planning agencies are getting creative in getting the money.<br />
<br />
This is also why I am a fan of tolling roads. It shifts the cost from hidden into the open. There has to be a lot of changes at so many levels to shift this. I think the start has to be from ubiquitous city zoning codes with their origins in the 1950's to be abolished in favor of a market-based strategy pioneered by <a href="http://books.google.com/books/about/The_High_Cost_Of_Free_Parking.html?id=WBe3AAAAIAAJ">Donald Shoup</a>. I think that alone will solve much of the negatives associated with auto-centric land-use and development.Brandenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04773092281736359503noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7116035327813253055.post-76106522452569593842013-01-01T18:23:00.000-08:002013-01-01T18:24:48.782-08:00Why Planning can never be PreciseI hope everyone had a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Mine was quite enjoyable.<br />
<br />
Prior to the holidays, I was checking e-mail and on the front page was a headline about congestion reduction. When I <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/gridlock-traced-just-few-key-commuters-150713518.html">clicked on it</a>, I initially dismissed the report, but have thought about it since so what happens when I over-think an urban issue? I blog it o' course.<br />
<br />
The basis of the article is that if select neighborhoods decided against making car trips, then overall congestion would be reduced dramatically. From the lead:<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: orange;">Canceling some car trips from just a few strategically located <span class="yshortcuts cs4-visible" id="lw_1356106864_1">neighborhoods</span> could drastically reduce gridlock and traffic jams in cities, a new study suggests.</span><br />
<br />
They go on to list individual cities' neighborhoods and their effects on overall city congestion:<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">"In the Boston area, we found that canceling 1 percent of trips by
select drivers in the Massachusetts municipalities of Everett,
Marlborough, Lawrence, Lowell and Waltham would cut all drivers’
additional commuting time caused by traffic congestion by 18 percent,"
said researcher Marta González, a complex-systems scientist at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "In the <span class="yshortcuts cs4-ndcor" id="lw_1356106864_4">San Francisco</span>
area, canceling trips by drivers from Dublin, Hayward, San Jose, San
Rafael and parts of San Ramon would cut 14 percent from the travel time
of other drivers."</span><br />
<br />
The problem with this, as is any hard science when they delve into the soft or social science, is that everything is a mathematical formula, a linear cause and effect. Water boils at a certain temperature, oxygen is composed of two oxygen atoms, the day is 23 hours, 56 minutes long, etc. are all measurable, repeatable things. One person can do it, report it and pass it on to someone who can independently do the same thing.<br />
<br />
In social sciences, that is impossible. Human behavior, like nature itself, is chaotic, erratic and unmeasurable. That is where statistics come in. Human behavior can be measured in a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution">bell curve</a>, but it is not precise. Traffic modeling is an example of this measuring of human behavior. There are several different types of mathematical models out there for MPO's to use, but most follow a basic formula, trip generation, trip distribution, mode split and trip assignment.<br />
<br />
However, there is a step called calibration. Ever seen a meter strip in the street? That helps calibrate the model. Using the formula, modelers see where the model says trips are coming from and where they are going. They then compare that to real world measurements and repeatedly calibrate the model until it resembles the observed numbers. This model is then forecast out for however long the modeler chooses too extend it, usually 30 years.<br />
<br />
The reason calibration is needed is human behavior. New York is different than Dallas for example. The exact same mathematical formula would be highly erroneous.<br />
<br />
It, like the study linked above, ignores the human behavior and attempts to quantify it scientifically. I am an alternative transportation advocate. There have been times where I decided to use different modes at different times for the exact same trip. Add in things like <a href="http://anurbanrambler.blogspot.com/2012/01/highway-robbery-how-induced-traffic.html">Induced Traffic</a> and the flaws become more noticeable.<br />
<br />
Individually, there is no way to model behavior. But, using the bell curve, there are ways to measure, but it isn't exact, and that's okay. What isn't okay when folks portray human behavior as a linear function. I don't for a minute, believe that study. Procedurally, it may be sound, the math exact and correct. But it ignores the fact that social sciences aren't neat, compact and unerringly precise. Spouting off precise numbers such as 18 or 14 percent reductions ignores human behavior, and that may cause more problems in a different way.Brandenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04773092281736359503noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7116035327813253055.post-44283585122249997852012-12-13T06:19:00.000-08:002012-12-13T06:19:37.603-08:00DART Expands AgainSticking with the DART theme, an article ran in the <a href="http://www.dallasnews.com/news/transportation/20121203-big-day-for-dart-as-routes-are-extended-to-rowlett-dfw-airport.ece">Dallas Morning News</a> the day after the transit agency debuted a new station on the Blue Line and two on the Orange Line last week. I would have liked to put this up earlier, but honestly, the motivation is low for me on this particular news item. I just feel like a broken record and would just like to have a positive review for once.<br />
<br />
In some ways, this new service is more of the same. Another commuter terminus to bring workers from the outlying areas into the central core. All are going to be commuter station with huge amount of parking spaces (Belt Line - 597, Rowlett - 750, North Lake - 194). I have hope that Rowlett can leverage something around their downtown and the rail stop, but that parking amount will be a huge buffer to cohesive development. If they can, I and other practicing urbanites may use this station sparingly as there are many other destinations that are bigger, better and/or closer to the true urban spaces in the region. Otherwise, there are three more stations added to a commuter system that are true to the rest of the commuter-based system. Bring in workers from the suburbs to the central core, and change the way captive riders use the system.<br />
<br />
This isn't a shocking position to loyal readers who have followed this blog for a while, which is partly why the motivation for publishing this piece is low. But there are some quotes I want to pull from the article that really illustrate what I have been alluding to previously, which is the DART system has been increasing making the system harder to use by focusing on reducing redundancy and increasing transfers.<br />
<br />
From the article:<br />
<span style="background-color: black;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: orange;">At<span></span> the opposite end of the platform, Gary Dudek was testing out the new rail line on his day off.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: orange;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: orange;">The airport employee's previous DART commute to work took at least 2 1/2 hours each way, he said: a bus, then another bus to one of DFW's remote lots, then a shuttle, then another shuttle.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: orange;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: orange;">Even worse, he said, the buses often stopped running before the end of his night shift, forcing him to walk part of the way back.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: orange;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: orange;">"Hopefully I don't have to walk nine miles home anymore," he said.</span><br />
<br />
Let's play a quiz game. Is Gary Dudek a choice rider, one who has the option to use another mode of transport, like a car, to get to work, or is he a captive rider, one who has little or no other options to get to work?<br />
<br />
Five hour daily commute, a fairly good chance of missing the last bus and multiple transfers. Nothing explicitly says one way or the other, but my intuition tells me he isn't doing that for fun. He's doing that because he has little choice.<br />
<br />
Seriously though, as I mentioned in the <a href="http://anurbanrambler.blogspot.com/2012/11/darts-december-service-change.html">last post</a>, this is exactly the type of system DART is building. By cutting bus service, routing everything through a rail station and increasing the time between runs, DART is creating a user-unfriendly system.<br />
<br />
I do understand, however, that DFW is a sprawling airport and the previous rail link was a true commuter rail with even longer headways than I am complaining about now. I also get that DART is facing a funding shortage.That said, somehow they were able to run the new 500 bus through the airport, with the bus meeting every Orange Line train at Belt Line Station. If they could do it now, they could have done it before the new rail line. A semi-express that began at the North Irving Transfer Station and ran to the airport and on to Centreport Station would have connected it. Obviously, they were able to find the funding for it now, but I wonder if they did it by cutting the inner city bus service, the one that will be used at a greater rate.<br />
<br />
This to me is DART's greatest shortcoming in planning. It is almost as if they view the bus as a second option, rather than using it for what it is best tailored for. In a true transit system, each component is chosen because it is best for its service. There is no one size fits all approach. The places that have tried a hybrid commuter-urban system have seem underwhelming results. DART is no different. The troubling thing is that they either haven't noticed or don't seem to care. I know there is some political pressure on the agency, particularly in connecting to the airport. But there has to be some balance between that and serving the riders and right now there isn't. I see only a system that is being designed to get commuters in and then out.<br />
<br />
The last quote I bring forth:<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: orange;">"I don't want to complain," said Alex Flores, a waiter at Mattito's Tex Mex. "I'm only going to ride it another week. Then my car gets fixed and I don't have to ride a train anymore."</span><br />
<br />
Alright, captive or choice rider?<br />
<br />
Were I in his shoes, I think I would make the same choice. It just isn't convenient. This sentiment is exactly why DART will continue to be one of the least ridden rail systems on a per mile basis in the country. They are currently 21st out of 34 operating systems, which also contain services like Kenosha's 2-mile streetcar, Little Rocks 2.5-mile streetcar and Tampa's 2.3-mile streetcar. Discounting these tourist oriented streetcar systems, Dallas ranks 21st out of 31 light rail systems in passengers per mile.<br />
<br />
DART brags about being the largest light rail system in North America. Overall, that's good enough for the seventh most ridden light rail system in the U.S., per the American Public Transportation Association. For example, Boston, with the most ridden light rail system, has three times the riders on 1/3 the tracks miles. Using a peer Sun Belt city, Houston has 1/2 the rail ridership on 1/10th the rail miles. I doubt the addition of the three new stations will add that much to the ridership numbers, but it will add to the miles, further dragging down the per mile boardings.<br />
<br />
In fact, DART's highest per mile boardings occured when the starter system was finished and it primarily served the urban area, albeit not perfectly. But since then, the system has been built further and further out, and even when they expanded in the urban area, the Green Line did so sub-optimally. If the City of Dallas gets its way, the second downtown rail line will be more of the same.<br />
<br />
Let me leave you with a thought. Read though this again, particularly Gary Dudek and Alex Flores contributions. As a society, do we really love our cars? Or do we, as I continue to contend, love what is convenient?Brandenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04773092281736359503noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7116035327813253055.post-78503271571847208902012-11-20T12:57:00.000-08:002012-11-20T12:57:53.884-08:00DART's December Service ChangeSorry to disappoint those who were looking forward to the topics I previewed in the last post, but I overlooked one, and this has me steaming.<br />
<br />
In <a href="http://anurbanrambler.blogspot.com/2012/01/buses-and-their-role-in-dallas.html">this post</a> at the beginning of the year, I mentioned the bus changes DART wanted to implement. I was struck by the fact that they are making the bus service a highly ineffective and inefficient system, especially when the rail system is a commuter-designed system rather than the urban one that serves and carries more riders.<br />
<br />
Well, I flipped through the latest service change pamphlet they produce before every change and it appears that every one of the planners recommendations made it to the finish line. Bottomline: Bus cuts are funding the rail system. DART is cutting service from the workhorse that carries the bulk of their riders in favor of a less ridden alternative.<br />
<br />
I'm trying to contain myself, but I am just disgusted. DART has a local reputation among the population for user unfriendliness and these cuts do nothing to dispel that notion. Two close-in, urban neighborhoods are no longer connected by one route. To get to a point on Oak Lawn from downtown Dallas will require a transfer to another route or a long walk. Sadly, most of the urban core is now functioning this way.<br />
<br />
DART has designed an urban transit system that requires multiple transfers. Transfers kill ridership. They have increased headways. Longer wait times kill ridership. Adding to the appalling news, more and more urban routes require a transfer to the commuter-designed rail system, which then almost always requires another transfer. It is not inconceivable that an urban resident will need to ride 3-5 routes to get where they are going within five miles of their start. DART generally does a good job of minimizing transfer times, but it is near impossible for every route to connect seamlessly with every other route. And even when they do work, and the time is less than five minutes, after a few transfers, the wait time still adds up. If it takes 30-60 minutes by streetcar/rail/bus/bus, or 10 by car, which will be the preferred choice? Add the fact that most trips have a return and the time wasted is amplified.<br />
<br />
Results aside, I think the thing that gets me the most is the feeling that the public meetings were a sham. Planners came in with one goal and only one goal, likely dictated from above, and that was to save money. There was nothing else that mattered. At several meetings, groups and groups of riders protested a select few service changes. In the end, every one of them were cut. They did the public meetings in correspondence with federal law, but when your goal is to cut expenses, what happens at these meetings are inconsequential. They are only supposed to take the comments into account, not act upon them.<br />
<br />
I get frustrated because to many of the general public, planners are insulated from them. And this is why. In the end, it feels all the time given up for these meetings to make their voice heard was pointless. It feels like a dog and pony show, only to comply with the law, not be heard.<br />
<br />
I have always believed that planning is best done from the bottom up. Part of my frustration with this is that this was the exact opposite. And THAT'S why the taste in my mouth is bitter. I firmly believe there was a solution that was reachable where both sides would have agreed, even if they didn't endorse, to a solution. This reeks of my way and only my way.I despise insulated decisions.<br />
<br />
Lastly, this is where right-wingers and libertarians share frustrations with the public sector (though no one on the DART Board is elected). Because less than a quarter of DART's revenue is generated by fares, even if they see a huge ridership loss, the budget won't be affected by anything more than a blip.<br />
<br />
Here, however, I won't fault DART. Because we choose to fund their operations with a sales tax, which is the most economically cyclical way of all funding, when times get tough, regardless of demand, service has to be cut. Due to the circumstances, these cuts are anti-urban and anti-urban-development. However, given that constraint, there was a better way to cut costs than to ax routes and lower ridership.<br />
<br />
For me, Houston would be a better model. Because their rail line and expansions are more cohesive with the urban environment, they would feel less shock from route cuts and transfers into the rail system. The rail system is actually an urban one, and therefore many of the transfers work because the rail line will get them to the rider's final destination or will be the starting point.<br />
<br />
Within the next year, a story will appear in the paper that will discuss the further eroding of DART's ridership. In it, DART officials will point to the down economy (fewer jobs mean fewer riders), lower sales tax collections and suburban job growth as reasons. Now on will mention they keep cutting routes and those that remain have fewer buses running on those routes. <br />
<br />
Unless more of an effort is put forth, I fear Dallas will always be known as a car city, and it will have little to do with the resident's true transportation preferences.Brandenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04773092281736359503noreply@blogger.com0