Green Line Critique

It's been a week since I rode the Green Line, as well as read a weeks worth of news, saw the system wok firsthand, and seen the effects. While I would say the overall effect is positive, there re several things that could use improvement, both in the control of DART and outside.

I am going to post several links that will build the basis for this entry. The Dallas Morning News did several stories, one the day before opening, which in its own right was a large negative critique, one from a columnist, which is largely a fluff piece, and one the day after chronicling the events. Perhaps the most referenced piece will be this one from the transport politic, which shares many of the same critiques I have, as can be seen from the Skyscraper Page message board, of which you can find my points as FoUTASportscaster.

I don't fully blame DART for this, but my number one gripe about the DART rail system is that it is built in old freight right-of-way and/or near freeways. The one exception is the Blue Line in South Dallas on Lancaster, as it is in the median of a major street, right next to destinations. The Blue Line north is on old freight railroad, as is the Red Line south and the two Green Line segments. The Red Line north is under a freeway for the first three miles and on old ROW after that.

The other major point is the historical formation of the city has affected the modern transit system. Back in the day the railroad made or broke cities. Dallas didn't take off until the Houston & Texas Central and Texas & Pacific Railroads came into town. Then roads followed the railroads. Highways followed the roads. Interstates and freeways followed the highways. As an example, using the T&P alignment, old Bankhead Highway followed roughly the T&P route. Highway 80 followed the road. Finally, Highway 80 turned into Interstate 20 in between cities and around, with highway 80 turning into Business Loop 20. Sometimes, one became the other, as Central Expressway in North Dallas was built on the old H&TC railroad.

Now, what that means is that when the old rail lines are converted to light rail lines, they largely are near freeways. That limits a lot of ridership potential. Rail works best when it goes in the middle of places. The most active stretch of the current DART Line is downtown, which it runs in the middle. The second densest section is the Blue Line south, which it runs in street median, with usable land on either side.

This following of existing ROW ignores already built up and dense neighborhoods. Uptown is probably the best candidate for rail service, yet it has a streetcar and a decent but not great connection to an existing station. If there were two stations in or under McKinney Avenue, they would rank in the top ten in boardings.

For many reasons, such as cost, FTA requirements, disruptions, local politics and regional politics, DART did what they had to do. Building in old railroad ROW is cheaper than a new alignment, a la the upcoming Orange Line in Las Colinas. The FTA's funding formula favored lines that offered commute time savings, hence a commuter type system. Building in the median of streets disrupts various properties. Local political example abound, but the best is the Blue Line's northern alignment. DART planners favored an option to run through East Dallas that would have 600% more riders than the second alignment, which was built. Since DART cannot construct a line without the local jurisdictions approval, the City Council effectively put the kibosh on that route since some residential neighborhoods didn't want it. Now we are stuck with what we have, a line that carries less than 10,000 riders a day. Finally, I don't think it is a stretch to say that the reader can easily imagine the regional politics of city vs. city and "where's my rail line when they already have one."

Dallas has not done much to encourage rail ridership. While many of the suburbs have approved transit supportive zoning, Dallas has not. The only real regulation that has much effect on the built environment is that within a quarter mile radius of a DART Station, developers and property owners have to provide ten percent less parking than required otherwise. While that is nice, it isn't urban at all. In a story reference in the Dallas Observer's Unfair Park, a club in Deep Ellum would have to provide 34 spaces to open, rather than the normal 38. That makes little differences to the smaller scale projects, which is precisely what builds urban environments, which in turn is what precisely builds your transit ridership.

These urban systems generate tremendously more ridership in any measurement than its commuter or suburban counterparts. Yet, DART has designed a commuter system, using the most expensive urban rail technology. This system is designed primarily for one function, get people to and from downtown. Since downtown is composed of mostly office workers, it becomes a commuter system.

When you build a rail system in the manner that Dallas has, you have to rely on transfers, whether that comes from buses, walking, cycling and even cars in a park-n-ride. The problem with that approach is that transfers lower ridership. This is the result of increased time and uncertainty. In many cases, unless you live or work directly on a rail line, which is generally the case, there are two transfers that are needed. For the time-strapped or transit-uncertain commuter, this is a killer.

Now one of the ways to help minimize the above deficiencies is through new supportive developments. There are two problems for Dallas. The first, as noted, is the lack of development controls. Since there aren't even basic TOD type zoning around rail stations, depending on supportive development seems a bit too enthusiastic. Mockingbird Station is an accident. It still has suburban parking requirements. There were little suburban building codes before, which is part of the reason the developer chose that site. Most of the sites around the existing stations will require a zoning change for any type of urban development.

The second problem is that developers may not get it right. Park Lane is another great example. It is closer to being a transit adjacent development. The only part riders can see from the rail line is the parking garage. If they do know it is there, they have to cross busy Park Lane and hike up a grassy hill to get into the development. There is very little, if any, increase in ridership because of it.

It is no surprise that in the DART system, the Green Line's projections show it will be the most ridden line. Currently, the highest ridden segment of the current lines is the Red Line north, followed by the Blue Line south, Red Line south and Blue Line north. The northern section of the Green Line will likely be number two, since, like the Red Line, it follows a highly congested freeway. At a close third, if not tied for second is the Pleasant Grove section of the Green Line. The highly-ridden buses in that area were converted into rail feeders to go into the new line. The 165, which was a semi-express bus that was discontinued since it was a duplicate service carried 4,000 riders a day. They are now rail riders. The big question is, will the new Green Line, operating as a system with the rest of the lines, attract choice riders, those who have access to other modes? For the reasons listed in this entry, I don't think there will be too many.

For the record, I do like the Green Line. It improves the reach of the region for me. But, since I live downtown, I don't suffer the same fate as everyone else. I can easily reach the station, have one less transfer, if any at all, and a lot more immediate destinations since it is the hub. With a few design changes, that could have been the case for more people outside of downtown. That in a nutshell is why Dallas, as the largest Light Rail operator in the country, has the lowest ridership per mile of any other mid-major operator in the country, and that is a shame.

Green Line Opening

The family and I went to Super Saturday, which was the preview in advance of the new DART Green Line opening. I'll do a more in depth critque of the line later.

But first, pictures from the day. First up, whole new track north of Victory.

 DART claims that each station is different, and in a sense, that is true. However, it is usually just differences in the columns and floor tile. Here is Burbank Station, just outside the headquarters of Southwest Airlines, complete with ad space.

 The view of the other side.

Large portions of the Green Line are elevated, leading to some very nice views of the surrounding areas.

Bachman Station. Note the different columns and floor tile. This will also be the junction for the Orange Line and current terminus of said line. Eventually, it will make its way west toward Las Colinas and DFW Airport.

Royal Lane, again with different columns and floor. This is an elevated station, requiring elevators to meet disability requirements.

Trinity Mills, rather non-descript. Come June, if things go well, the A-Train, which is the commuter line from Denton County, will terminate here. Initially, it will run to Lewisville. In a couple of years, it will end in downtown Denton.

This is the end of the line, North Carrollton/Frankford Station. Otherwise, it is like every other DART station, but with different columns and floors.

The only portion of the line that is depressed, though not completely underground, is the stretch that runs under Mockingbird Street.

Finally, this was taken the following Monday. What is shows is a three car train. This wasn't an uncommon site before DART added a middle section to its cars (the section where the white line dips is the new section). This is the first time a three car train has been seen with the new sections. The other nice thing, the cars were full. DART expects 30,000 trips on the Green Line after its first year. The Red Line, the current leader, sees less than 27,000 per weekday, eight years after it was completed in its current form.

Finally, here's a map of the system. This was actually designed by a friend of mine. An extreme improvement over the previous system map. It will also change again in 2012, when the Orange and Blue Lines are extended.

Another Link

It seems that when I bring up a point, I find some bit to back it up. This time around, it is about the traffic engineer. In a previous post, I linked a story about how the Florida DOT won't make an urban street with a State Highway designation urban friendly in Miami.

This link comes from a former traffic engineer. I find myself taking this at face value (I have no idea who the guy is and if is is truly a traffic engineer). But it does make the same points I did, with a couple exceptions.

The first, they are doing what they are doing in their version of safety, primarily car users. Though, it would appear the author came to a revelation that planners have argued for a while. The "safer" streets generally have more accidents.

This has everything to do with the anomaly of human behavior. We tend to slow down, look more and overall drive better when we feel unsafe. Real world example happens here in downtown all the time. You can tell a visitor from a worker by how they drive. Visitors tend to be slower and looking around more while those that drive here frequently go faster, text or run lights.

Which leads to the second, that math-based applications for human behavior is prone to failure. On a very general level, math is useful. Modelling traffic patterns is no more than several mathematical equations based over a geography divided into zones. Still, in every region, the model has to be calibrated, meaning the original equations do not fit well and have to be modified to fit real world observations.

Yet, traffic engineers will float these formulas out there as if it is physics and say we need X across all spectrum's. This is bad for our streets and bad for our urban cities. What's good for suburban Long Island isn't for downtown Dallas. What works for Arlington, doesn't for Oakland. Yet, for decades now, traffic engineers have used these math formulas, usually derived from regression analysis and applied them unilaterally across the board.

Ironically, there are places that are taking spaces for cars only and making them for everybody. New York, San Francisco, Milwaukee and Portland have all taken highways or major routes away from cars and usually turned them into "complete streets" or pedestrian ways. Each time, traffic engineers warned of increased congestion and traffic nightmares. Each time, that proved to be false. Apparently, they have no mathematical formula for decreased space. But, if they were to use a standard linear regression analysis, they'd have to observe it in the real world, which is precisely what they work towards not seeing happen. What little has actually happened, is so small that the statistical margin of error would make the formula irrelevant

Several Quick Links

Several stories have come out in the last two weeks that I have been meaning to post and discuss, so I'll knock them out here.

First up, we look at the car ownership rates of one of the youngest driving generations, or perhaps more specifically, the declining rate. There have been these stories for years now, usually in the form of demographers or planners predicting the future. This one is a bit different, in that it comes from people who care, the car companies.

The cause are quite numerous, from personal reasons (environmental conscientiousness, social networks, time), to social (economic slowdown, cities investments in transit and urban areas, convenience) but the underlying point is still the same, if car companies are focused on this, planners should be too. Cities that are adequately prepared for the car-lite/free lifestyle will be ahead in the game.

New York has always avoided the population fate of its peers, but don't be surprised to see other NE cities stabilize/gain population. Conversely, cities like Dallas and Los Angeles that are building extensive systems to offer that lifestyle in car dominant areas will also be winners of this population segment.

Of course, this coincides with the youngsters parents moving back to the city as well as staying in place, a well documented phenomenon for a few years now. This is important for two reasons. One, cities need to provide for a variety of lifestyles, not just the boomers or Gen Y. Second, do we really want the largest elderly generation (as well as the largest current generation) behind the wheel for everything with their deteriorating physical skills?

The next link comes from USA Today. I read the paper version and immediately thought of the planning ramifications. In essence, for the first time in...perhaps ever Americans are buying smaller houses. The median size house has dropped 200 square feet since its peak in 2007. Again the reasons are varied and even the same as before, but one thing isn't clear. Is this a response to the current economic situation or a longer term trend? Certainly this is unheard of in prior recessions, but none have been as severe either.

Personally, I hope the trend continues. These types of houses are more costly to serve from a civic standpoint. Take a piece of paper and draw one-inch square. then draw a line connecting those squares. Do the same again, but this time draw squares with only 3/4 inch sides. The line connecting them can be a number of infrastructure types/services, water, sewer, roads, postal, fire, police, etc. Obviously, the longer line means a greater cost. It is more expensive to serve low-density areas, primarily because the tax revenues generated do not cover the costs of more infrastructure. This may help balance civic budgets in coming years.

Finally, I post this link from the Miami Herald to back up an earlier point on parking. This concerns Brickell Avenue in Miami, which according to the article is one of the densest places in Florida. Planners residents and city officials want this road to become what is termed a "complete street" where cars, pedestrians, transit, cyclists, etc. all can use the space equally.

However, the State Department of Transportation, composed largely of traffic engineers, is making the street an auto-oriented one, to get as many cars through as fast as possible. It is common place to see pedestrians dodge oncoming cars and see cut-through's in the bushy median.

It hearkens back to something I have said consistently, if Americans do indeed love our cars, it is similar to an arranged marriage. People tend to do what is convenient. When we build for cars, we all of a sudden love them. We will never divorce our cars if we keep following a traffic manual designed for maximum car use at the expense of any other mode.

Map of Historic Streetcar Lines in Dallas

Here's a map transposed onto Google Maps showing all lines in Dallas. This isn't an accurate map at one point in time, since some lines were laid and then ripped out before others were laid, but it does show a comprehensive map from start to finish.

http://www.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=111053706958580298750.0004477da882a2f7e7baa&z=11

Amazing what we once had.

Dowtown Dallas Parking, a Pictorial Tour

To highlight my points from the second to last post, I took several pictures around downtown.

First, this is Ceasar Chavez Parkway. It is eight lanes in both directions. Yet, not one of those lanes are dedicated to on-street parking.

The second is a stretch of Jackson between Harwood and Pearl. There are 11 curb cuts, greatly diminishing the on-street parking quantity.

The next is one of the 11 curb cuts, though it is no longer in use. Though there are meters in this picture, it is far more common for an unused curb cut to be meter-less.

This is a garage curb cut just outside my residential building. The curb cut takes the space of 4.5 on-street spaces. Also in the picture is a truck. It is notable because the picture was taken before 9 am. It is illegally parked.

Here is a stretch of Elm. It is just a block away from the heart of downtown and between almost 3 million square feet of office space. Yet, the view from the street is one of desolation. Note the lack of any parking meters.

The following series is the retail section of my argument. The first is Chase, CVS and Jason's Deli on Main Street. A prime place for metered, convenient parking, yet you'll see the no parking signs all up and down this section.

Next up is a 7-11 on Commerce. However, it is more important for people to turn left than park and spend money.

If you forgot your anniversary and you want to stop by the Flagship Neiman Marcus to get your significant other a gift, well you'll have to drive into the garage, pay, take the elevator down, cross the street and go in, because you can't drive up to the meter, drop in some change and go in.

Are you on your way home, but want to stop by and get a bite to eat? Unless you do it outside of rush hour, you are out of luck. Go to your home outside the downtown area and spend money on Italian.

What about the downtown grocery store? Nope, even on little-used Jackson Street, you can not stop on the street and get what you need. The ironic thing is that the city at the behest of downtown stakeholders subsidized the grocer at the tune of $1 million over two years.

Continuing the theme of don't stop by during rush hour, the donut shop on Elm Street might be particularly keen on attracting the morning customer. Sadly, the parking meters out front are not. The clothing shops hours might be dictated by the availability of convenient parking, meaning shorter than they might otherwise be.

And finally, downtown is chock full of "no parking from here to corner" signs. I guess the idea is that having the corner available makes it easier on traffic. I can certainly understand outbound, ie easier turning right, but in bound makes no sense, like the one in the picture. Either way though, I feel it is at least one wasted space on each corner.

Also, compare the last picture with the fifth picture. Even though they have the same amount of pedestrians (0), this one looks like there's more activity, thanks to the parked cars.

Finally, a look back at the Stockyards, which does allow cars until the corner.

The Stockyards, a Small Urban Oasis

The wife and I took a visit to the Fort Worth Stockyards yesterday, and proof that I am not a constant complainer, only an urban elitist, I was pleasantly surprised. The Stockyards are a collection of near-turn-of-the-century buildings on or near Exchange Avenue just north of downtown. It receives a lot of hype as a popular and family-friendly urban area.

My wife, almost 8-month old son and I rode the TRE from downtown Dallas to downtown Fort Worth, then caught the Fort Worth Transportation Authority's # 1 bus to the Stockyards. We've taken the TRE often, but rarely Fort Worth's buses. This bus, especially considering it was a Saturday, was well-ridden.

We departed on Main Street just south of Exchange. There were some nice urban buildings, but nothing outstanding until exactly one block south of Exchange. We were hungry and my wife had a destination in mind, a place called Love Shack Burgers. I was mildly surprised that it wasn't a building.

In essence, this was a place where an old building was demolished, and rather than making it a parking lot, the property owners added a shack where the food was cooked and another for restrooms. A couple of small decks were added to make for seating and a stage was added at the far end for live music.

It was nice to see that although an important piece of the urban fabric had been removed, there was a cheap and inexpensive way to integrate the property back into the urban fabric. On the Dallas side, it would be a parking lot and start to degrade the urban fabric.

The street scenes were quite lively. There were all types of people, old and young, families and couples and friends and strangers. All different types of ethnicities were present as well as different types. By that I mean folks like bikers, cowboys, tourists and yuppies. In its basic form, it does what a true urban environment does. Everyone from all walks of life getting along.

The physical design was still well done. What I mean by still is that in a lot of these types of neighborhoods built before the car, changes happen to make it accommodate the car. On Main Street, before entering the Stockyards from downtown, the street looks like a lot do in car-oriented areas. However, on Exchange and the Stockyards section of Main, it looks like a pedestrian area. The lanes are narrower, the street is made of brick instead of concrete and the lanes aren't clearly marked. Now keep in mind, the same amount of cars fit into the street. But instead of encouraging them to get through as fast as possible, they encourage all types of transportation, not just one.

The parking issue was also encouraging. Instead of vast amounts of surface parking, there was ample amounts of on-street parking. Other off-street parking was available at the edges. The parking didn't destroy the urban fabric, at least at the center. A lot of the points I made in the previous post were followed and made the area attractive.

I'd also be remiss to point out that auto congestion was high, yet the area was still active and vibrant. This defies the logic that if there is high congestion, the area will decline. These types generally advocate bigger and wider roads to promote vitality, when it these projects that eventually destroy it.

Note the long line of cars on both sides of Exchange, yet there are still just as many people out strolling. This exemplifies a balanced system in an urban environment. As soon as this proportion changes and favors the car, the other aspect, people, fade as the streets feel less comfortable.



The adaptive reuse was well done too. As near as I can tell, a former train depot for loading livestock has been converted to an outdoor pedestrian mall with a variety of shops.

In fact, that was well done throughout the entire district. Unlike Deep Ellum in Dallas, which has the same feel, but entirely different use, the Stockyards different uses keep it active. There were stores typical of what you'd see in Deep Ellum, but so much more. Typical old time stores such as antiques and trinket shops were present, but others such as tattoo parlors and bars. Again, it was this mix of uses that kept the scene vibrant.

Not all was well. There were parts, unlike Love Shack Burgers, where the replacement building didn't quite go over. You can tell the architect tried to fit the building, a hotel, into the existing urban area using the same building materials. However, the buildings physical design does not fit in well. There are too many setbacks, unimportant landscape and no interaction. 

It is obvious in the above picture that the hotel does not fit in with the surrounding areas of the other pictures, even though the hotel is directly adjacent to them.

The irony is that had it been in reverse, the buildings materials didn't fit in, but the design did, it would flow well. This is an all too common occurrence that architects do in redevelopment projects. These in turn degrade the overall quality of the urban environment, where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Another concern is can this place stay vibrant. The positive is that the actual stockyards anchor the area. There was a rodeo there during our visit. That activity alone helps attract visitors. The area itself as it is arranged is attractive as well. In fact, urban areas in the Sunbelt are an attractive area in and of themselves, since they are a novelty in a car-oriented oasis.

However, beside retail and the livestock attraction, there are very little other uses. There are old residential houses on the far outskirts that do count (proof that suburban development can be walkable), but within there is none. There are a smattering of offices here and there, but not many. This may be something planners will have to address in the not-so-distant future.

One other thing that was really well done was the extreme amount of street furniture. There were several benches, trash cans, shade and other street furniture that made the street scene friendly and inviting for pedestrians. There are even some made for little ones.

This may have been a shameless attempt to post a picture of family, but it illustrates well the basic premise of an attractive urban environment.