Dallas Does Bike Lanes II

Roughly a month ago, I critiqued the bike lanes on the ground in downtown Dallas. While there were some things I liked, I was overall unhappy with what has been put into place.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

Biking in Dallas: The Comedy

For any following the City of Dallas quest to become more bike friendly, the Dallas Morning News ran a Metro Section article Tuesday about a tour elected officials took to see the current bike infrastructure on the ground. It is behind the paywall, but I recommend the read.

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.

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.

From the article:

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.
...
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.

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. 
...
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.
...
Those touring the lanes saw lots of striping laid down for bicycles. What they didn't see much of were people on bicycles.

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.

Changing that will be the true test of how well the new lanes work.

 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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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 DART comes up short. 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.

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.

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.

Dallas Falls Further Behind in Biking

Five entries ago, I brought up the fact that Dallas is falling behind several Texas cities in offering a bike share service. Now it appears they are even falling behind in the multi-state region.

Oklahoma City has now officially joined the ranks of cities who have some kind of bike share program. Launched a week ago, the somewhat unfortunately named Spokies bike share program adds another dimension of transportation options in Downtown Oklahoma City . It offer six stations around the neighborhood where you can pick up or drop off a bike. Memberships are available, even as low as one-day, pretty much guaranteeing anyone can use the service.

There is one quote which I want to pull out of the article that shows why they have it, but Dallas has nothing yet to show for it.

City Councilwoman Meg Salyer, who lives and works downtown, is a Spokies advocate and said bicycle sharing adds another dynamic dimension to the ongoing transformation of Oklahoma City's urban core.

Political will plain and simple. We aren't talking something that is expensive, time-consuming or difficult to implement. I could give you suitable locations right now. Within a week, I could map out favorable land-use and demographic data to further supplement station locations. Yet, we have a political body beholden to interests that insist on pursuing archaic ideas based solely on car use.

Sadly, OKC isn't the only one passing Dallas. LSU in Baton Rogue, Louisiana is there. The University of Arkansas has one too. Even Tulsa, Oklahoma offers a program.

I wonder how long the list will become before Dallas makes a serious attempt at getting on the list. The ironic thing is that with Deep Ellum, Uptown and Knox-Henderson, Dallas has a much larger urban area to choose from and presumably much larger opportunity for success. 

The 2011 Bike Plan called for a bike share program, but given the fact that staffers are saying bike lanes are financially unfeasible, I doubt the bike share will be realized anytime soon.

It really isn't hard to put four-six of these around various locations in the city, and not that expensive either.

This is my ultimate frustration with the City of Dallas. On the one hand, they talk a good game. Let's create a vibrant urban area, let's increase mass transit use, let's bring more residents to downtown, etc. But on the other hand, their actions don't support the words. Approval of buildings like Hunt or Museum Towers, continued pursuit of the Trinity Tollway, little attention to detail on the urban design all have negative consequences to a vibrant urban area. In some ways, downtown is revitalizing itself due to outside factors rather than city action or programs. Imagine what could be accomplished if what the city did and pursued were beneficial to an urban Dallas.

Why so Late?

Loyal readers no doubt understand that I am an advocate for transportation balance. Transit, walking and biking are the three main ones that I place forth ideas to increase mode share. Betting transit planning has been discussed as has pedestrian-friendly and urban design to increase walking. Biking will naturally follow those two, but otherwise I haven't offered much in the way of increasing bike share.

I mentioned briefly that San Antonio has a bike share program after my visit there. I have also discussed bike lanes as a strategy, though for personal reasosns, I have avoided the local battle over the lanes. I do feel like the old guard has a hard time embracing the change from the old way of doing things. As a case in point, the continued support of the Trinity tollroad versus the can't do nature on the bike lanes.

Yet, it appears that once again, even in Texas, Dallas is about to get left behind. I really feel a bike share is one of the best ways to increase bike use. As it turns out, Fort Worth is been working on plans to introduce a service. Unlike Dallas, they have also figured out a way to start bringing bike lanes to the city. If you read the link, it also mentions that Austin is working on a bike share program too.

Now, add Houston to the list of major Texas cities that have figured out or are working on a way to implement the program. They used federal funding to get it started, proving a will will find a way.

I just get frustrated by the lack of urgency Dallas is has in approaching this. On the one hand, you hear officials talk a good game. Reduce congestion, increase biking, good.

But when it actually comes to doing something that increases bike use, the feet start to drag. It is frustrating. By continuing to status quo, the city is ignoring the obvious shift in society towards a more urban preference. Unless Dallas embraces something other than the car, Dallas may have troubling competing, even in Texas. Already, officials were concerned by the lack of population growth in the last census. But trying to grow the same way and expecting different results...well, I think we all know what that definition is.

Downtown Midland: How to Revitalize

Now a heads up from my hometown of Midland, about 5-6 hours west on I-20 from Dallas. My sister directed me to a story in the local paper, The Midland Reporter Telegram, about this effort to revitalize their downtown. She sent it to me several months ago, but I procrastinated discussing it until now.

In many ways, Dallas and Midland are similar. Their downtown's were converted from the center of the city's life to an office park, they have a nearby rival city and a lot of activity has shift to the fringes. Even looking solely at the downtown area of each city reveals similarities. Each have/had vacant office buildings. Each looks great from a distance, but getting inside reveals fake density, similar to what I discussed in this post. Both have out-of-whack parking situations that depend heavily on surface lots and restrict on-street parking. In fact, in a lot of ways, downtown Midland is now where downtown Dallas was 15 years ago. There are even intangible similarities like old money still controls each area and elected officials that do not quite know what is going on in the area or really what is needed to get where they want downtown to go.

This would fit right in if it were in downtown Dallas.

Note the cluster of tall buildings, as well as the vast amounts of surface parking.

Some excerpts from the article that will form the basis of my discussion:

City leaders, along with members of the Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone (TIRZ) board, the Downtown Midland Management District (DMMD), Midland County and the Midland Development Corp. (MDC), among others, have been meeting regularly since the spring to create a unified vision for the future of downtown.
The DMMD in July brought its executive director on full-time. The city also is looking within the next 60 to 90 days to hire -- in conjunction with the other entities -- a full-time employee who would work to develop a "catalyst" project for downtown and to eliminate obstacles that prevent that type of development, City Manager Courtney Sharp said.
What exactly that catalyst project will be still is up for consideration, downtown advocates said. But, they agreed for the first time the entities all are working together toward a common revitalization, rather than each acting separately to achieve essentially the same goal.

...

[Natalie] Shelton [DMMD Executive Director] said she'd support a mixed-use property that would allow for office space on the upper floors and retail or restaurants on the ground-level. Some members of the DMMD said the renovation of the Ritz Cultural Events Center could be a catalyst of sorts as it aims to bring several hundred people downtown at least a few nights a week.
Others have pointed to a combination of possibilities.
"Office space is needed immediately," [Jerry] Morales [at-large City Councilman] said.

...

Gary Glasscock, partner at Tgaar Properties Inc., said they are moving their offices back downtown after operating from farther north for the past several years.
The company purchased Wall Towers east and west, which are about 30 percent occupied, and plans to update the remainder of the buildings to open more office space, he said.
"We've already signed up several leases," he said, adding they've had interest from businesses locally and nationally. "Once that begins we'll start renovating."
Still, he said, there are challenges to re-doing old structures. They're presently conducting a study to determine if asbestos exists in the structures and anticipate it will take about $5 million to fully restore the properties.
"Once you get past the basic issues, this has great bones," he said of the property. "It's a first-class area to be in."

...

Aside from the cost required to bring some buildings up to code, parking issues prevent downtown from thriving, Morales said.

Glasscock said they have an agreement to lease spaces just east of the library, but a lack of parking is prohibitive.

If there were a few developers committed to coming downtown and bringing jobs, Morales said they then could assess where it would be feasible to put a parking garage.

If I were to change Midland to Dallas and the names of the entities involved, this would be just like Dallas' situation. The basic problem as it stands today is that there are too many chiefs and not enough indians. When that situation exists, there are a lot of ideas on what needs to be done. In this case, one wants a cultural institution, one wants office space, some want a parking garage and others want mixed-use office/retail. None of the serious flaws that exist now are addressed. Midland has great bones. That is it. What was proposed does not add the flesh to downtown.

The Councilman wants more office now. The company official bought two office buildings that are 70 percent vacant. Those two don't mesh. Downtown Fort Worth, with an office occupancy above 90 percent in downtown can say they need mopre office. 12.5 percent of the office buildings in downtown Midland are completely vacant right now (which is to say nothing of their overall vacancy rate, which is quite high). The empty buildings are where the biggest opportunity lies. What I have experienced in Midland, coupled with what I know about vibrant urban areas, is the lack of activity outside of office hours (Dallas, anyone?). The current trend across the United States, from coast to coast, cities large and small, is that the younger generation is looking for something different than the prototypical American living situation. That is all Midland is, single-family houses and garden-style apartments. There are no townhomes, no lofts, no duplexes. Convert a handful of these empty and near empty office buildings into a residential use, try to keep them near strategic points and near each other to increase the likelyhood of critical mass and all of a sudden, things will move and they will get their catalyst. People will be walking on the street, retailers and restaurants will be attracted, and Forbes will look at them for the list of best small city downtowns.

However, Midland has not encouraged this thinking. Instead, several empty buildings, six that I can count, have been demolished instead. That is a wasted opportunity. However, the prevailing theme in Midland, like it was in many cities in the United States, from coast to coast, cities large and small, is that no one wants to live downtown. I fear that until someone actually does it, that thought will always prevail and good, solid buildings will be demoed for parking lots.

Speaking of parking ... downtown Midland has it all wrong. There is very little on-street parking, despite the wide four-and five-lane streets that prevail all over the district. You want to encourage ground floor retail? Start there. It will actual bring in revenue to the city, while at the same time reducing parking pressures on the private lots and enticing quick convenient parking for the customers of the potential retailers and restaurants the city wants to attract. I can recall only two restaurants accessible from the street in downtown Midland, and both are always packed.

I have said it before and it will never be invalidated. Urban areas will never out-suburb the suburbs. Downtown Midland will never be able to offer large amounts of surface parking like the places on Loop 250 can. Instead, they need to offer what those places can't, an inviting streetscape teeming with pedestrains. When I say activity begets more activity, that is what I mean. Sometimes people don't go to the mall to shop. Sometimes they go to socialize or people watch. Malls are nothing more than an urban streetscape covered by a roof and usually lacking the mixed-use component. When the land use encourages street-level activity, people will come to observe and be a part of it, not because of what use is there now specifically. The base activity encouraged the ancillary activity, furthering the vibrancy of the street.

Downtown Midland would have to take steps to encourage that pedestrian traffic. A big start would be the addition of the on-street parking, which then gives the pedestrians a buffer from the traffic.

Also, the idea that it takes a catlyst project or one thing to jump start development is a very outdated mode of thinking. Urban areas operate best when they are a conglomeration of lots of little pieces. One residential building with 100 units is better than none, two is better than one and three is better than two. However, it is not linearly better. In this case the sum is greater than the whole. The 300 units are far better than if each 100 units existed on its own seperately. So any policy that is geared toward a catalyst is flawed from the beginning. The focus needs to be on accumulation of several small things at once. Encourage a form-based code that dictates where you want the street-level retail. Make improvements to the streetscape, particularly shade and benches. Set-up a tax break system for certain tyoes of development, ie. residential, that will encourage private entities to look in that direction. Study where transit makes the most sense within the current land-use.

Downtown Midland has tried catalyst projects before and have seen minimal results out of the effort. Midland Center was built, yet downtown wasn't revitalized (just like the empty promises of almost every convention center in America). Centennial Plaza was supposed to be a gathering spot for locals to enjoy downtown in an open setting. But without complementing land uses nearby, it is sparesly used when an event isn't scheduled. There was a massive undertaking to remake the streets and sidewalks from regular concrete to red brick or other fancy patterns. Yet without fundamentally changing how downtown was used, there wasn't a fundamental increase or decrease in anything but the budget.

Bottomline, downtown Midland has a great opportunity, but I just have a feeling that well-meaning officials will miss the mark. Unless they bring in someone with a basic knowledge of urban design and land-use, things will not change. Midland is not different than any other city or region. If places like Fargo, North Dakota can revitalize their downtown, then so can Midland. Weather, industry or age, despite what common criticisms are leveled, will not prevent Midland from having a vibrant downtown. Misguided directions and policy will.

Bike Lane Battles

There's a big war brewing, as is almost always the case with civic change, in New York. The city has created a couple hundred miles of bike lanes throughout all five boroughs the last few years. As usual, there are those for it and those against, in this case, those who promote a balanced transportation system and most bikers versus car first/only people.

R.A. from the Economist wrote this blog post in response to a John Cassidy blog post from the New Yorker. In essence, Cassidy wrote several reasons why bike lanes are bad. The big reason that isn't filled with flawed stats or subjective points of view is that the New York Department of Transportation is taking away space that used to be for cars and giving them to bikes.

From Cassidy:

Like many New Yorkers who don’t live in Manhattan, one of my favorite pastimes is to drive from Brooklyn, where I live, into the city for dinner and find a parking space once the 7 A.M.-7 P.M. parking restrictions have lapsed. Years ago, this was a challenge, but a manageable one. These days, especially downtown, it is virtually impossible. When the city introduces a bike lane on a given street, it removes dozens of parking places. All too often these days, I find myself driving endlessly up and down Hudson, or Sixth Avenue, or wherever, looking in vain for a legal spot—and for cyclists. What I see instead is motor traffic snarled on avenues that, thanks to bike lanes, have been reduced from four lanes to three, or three to two.

I encourage everyone to read the Economist post if merely for the fact that R.A. eloquently makes the economic argument for bikes in a way that I can't. From negative externalities of cars to subsidized roadways encouraging driving to positive externalities of cycling, R.A. uses a short but sweet post to debunk many of the myths the anti-everything but car "lobby" throws out there.

I will however comment on the pulled quote above. It seems that everything in politics today is based on whether it is worthwhile to me, not anything else like society or strangers. Cassidy says bike lanes are bad because it took away free parking from him on the most expensive land in the country and gave it to someone/thing else. It is of no direct value to me, therefore I am against it. This applies to all levels of government. Frankly, that makes me think we have taken a step backin the last half decade. In my opinion, we have moved from debating the merits and appropriate role of governmental programs, policies and regulations to one that makes blanket statements about governments effectiveness or need.

I personally also have to feel sorry for Mr. Cassidy. If he lives in Brooklyn, quality transit is everywhere, especially to Manhattan. Since he admits he drives constantly looking for a spot, it is obvious he is not saving any time over transit. I wonder what his hesitancy is for taking a trip on an urban rail system that carries over 8 million passenger trips a day. 

It also makes one wonder how easy it is to implement bike improvements in other parts of the country. If New York, which already is the most car-inconvenient city in the country, faces push back, how can a city like Dallas, where it is assumed to be a constitutional right for everything to be car-friendly, implement these types of improvements smoothly?