Am 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.

I have mentioned the urban design flaws of Victory Park 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.

But I offer these quotes from Griggs.

"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."

"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."

Victory Park is "one of the biggest failures of urban design ever imaginable."

No link to the Katy Trail "is going to be a regrettable mistake."

Griggs also noted the poor relation to Victory Park and the DART light rail station.

He wasn't the only one with attention directed towards the flaws. I think we are finally getting council members who get urban areas.

Adam Medrano questioned city staffers on why bike lanes were absent in the redo plans. His council district covers the area.

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 many times, particularly on the economic development front.

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.

Just Not Enough Parking

I 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 lamenting the lack of parking in downtown Dallas, particularly as new developments take the place of surface lots.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Brown himself makes no mention of transit as an option. He does offer the following quote:

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.

But first, the building owner and Dallas economic development officials had to line up extra parking in a garage next door.

“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.

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.

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.

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 SUBURBS! 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.

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.

It wasn't until the end that we got the idea that maybe it really isn't a terrible issue.

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.

“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.

“As we look at taking away these surface parking lots, we are looking at other options.”

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.
And Downtown Dallas Inc. and city officials are working with other building owners to find additional parking.

“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.”

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.

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.















“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.”

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.

There are over 100 distinct surface parking lots downtown.

These are the stand-alone garages, which are approximately equal to the number of spaces in the picture above.

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?

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.

Dallas' Does Bike Lanes

For 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.

Sadly, the City's attempts at bike infrastructure downtown follow the same, tiring pattern.

Allow some background information before I continue. In 2011, the Dallas Bike Plan was released. It was put together by the Toole Design Group, 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.

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 here for an Dallas Observer account). Then, thanks to intense pressure, it was able to get done.

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.

When it comes to bike infrastructure in Dallas, it has been all the above.

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.

Add in the bonus that the infrastructure implemented was done by someone who doesn't ride a bike, and the downtown portion severely underperforms.

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.
                                          

Main street bike emblem. The bike shares the lane with vehicular traffic.

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.

Notice the darker part in the middle, indicating where oil drip has occurred, is right in the middle of the bike lane.

The ghost lane indicating the bike should ride in the middle.

As I mentioned in the Belo Garden critique, 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.

Otherwise, I do like the bike markers in the street. It is just the rest of what has happened downtown I don't like.

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.

There is a problem with vehicles pulling over into the lanes on both streets. It happens all day, everyday on both streets.

Three vehicles are in the bike lane on Jackson.

A maintenance is vehicle blocking the lane on Wood Street.

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.

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.

Bottom Line is that these two lanes are just in a poor location and then poorly designed on top of it.

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).

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.

The bike land coming from Deep Ellum under Central Expressway

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.

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.

From a biking standpoint, what was once an easy pass by the freeway exit has turned into something a bit more complicated.

The bike lane past the Central Expressway exit on Main Street

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.

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.

Any infrastructure design that increases the risk of cyclist injury is fundamentally flawed.

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.

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.

The end of the Jefferson Street Bridge bike Lane.

Self-explanatory

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Notice the on-street parking on the right, bike lane in the middle and auto lane on the left.

Between the parking cars, buses, intersections and turning vehicles, there are myriad points of potential conflict between drivers and cyclists on Bishop Avenue.

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.

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.

Dallas has a very, very long way to go for it to make biking a legitimate urban transportation choice.

Central Teardown

I am ashamed to admit this, but what I am about to post was published in the Dallas Morning News in early June.

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/local-voices/headlines/20130606-j-branden-helms-downtown-could-use-one-less-highway.ece

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.

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
dallas.com.

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.
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.

That is what this is about.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

As I alluded to in the article, there are better spokespeople than I. I leave you with the site.

http://www.anewdallas.com/

Belo Garden. I promised it and as a man of my word (eventually) I will give forth.

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.

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.

 
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.

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.

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.

The main active feature of Belo Gardens.

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.

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.

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.

Note the one bench you see in this picture is not near a shade-providing tree.

All grassy areas are similar to these.

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.

This hill is better as a park feature than noise reducer.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

One of the biggest controversies 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.

The wall between the park and neighboring condos.

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.

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.

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.

Here, the grasses separate the picnic area from the rest of Belo. It happens in way too much of the park.

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.

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.

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.

D2 in the DMN

Frequent commentator Ken Duble and I did a dual column for the Viewpoints Section in the Dallas Morning News.

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

Ken 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 www.DART.org/D2. 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.

Branden: 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.
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.
Ken: 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.
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.
Branden: 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.
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.
Ken: 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.
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?
Branden: 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.
Ken: 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.
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?
Branden: 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.
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.
Ken: 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.
Branden: 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.
Ken: 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.
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.

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.

There are a few supplementary points I would like to add.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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. 

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.

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.

So, development could occur all along a Union Station alternative, and very little to moderate, at best, ridership increases would be seen.

Commerce, on the other hand, already has a large collection of pre-WWII buildings, all ready to have a complimentary-transit component built.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

And yes, Amtrak bookings may have gone up, but the average is still less than 200 a day. 

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Now, try putting that into 5 different 100 words bits.

Politics 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.

DART planners narrowed the alternatives a few years ago to four options (seen in this PDF on page 4). 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.

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.

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 2011 post. Ironically enough, much of what will come when I dissect the "new" alignments has already been posted there.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 this post, 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.

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.

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.

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.

As an added bonus, I will critique a loyal readers proposal.

From Ken Duble in an e-mail:
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.

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. The core of downtown workers, residents and visitors is still above Jackson Street, and tunneling under the Omni ignores these key riders. It 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.

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.

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 this post.

 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.

Freeway removal

After 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.

Well, Patrick Kennedy isn't either. That's no surprise to me, since his blog, http://www.carfreeinbigd.com/, is one I follow. In fact, his was one of the inspirations to start my own.

In the article, 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.

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.

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.

I made a similar point here 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.

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.

Fitting with the Induced Traffic Principle, 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.

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).

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).

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Raising Kids Downtown

Some 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.

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/local-voices/headlines/20130201-j-branden-helms-urban-living-has-benefits-for-my-children.ece

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.

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.
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.

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.

It’s not, as some anonymous Internet commenters have suggested, that we want to appear hip and trendy.
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

In the end, isn’t that what we all need — more kids who are cared for?