Transit and downtown, how should it be?

The transit planning world is a buzz about Tallahassee's revamp of their transit system (one account gushes over the changes, another fawns). Primarily, transit systems are downtown focused, for lots of reasons. Yet, American cities are sprawling outwards, rather than upwards in a central core. Meanwhile, cities across the country have tried to implement more crosstown routes to reflect that change. The results have been mixed, but largely disappointing.

Some stats about the change: Prior to the change, there were 26 routes, all terminating in downtown. Now there are 12, though much longer. Every route was altered in some form. Operating costs did not rise. Of the 12 routes, only six stop at the downtown transfer area.

I am going to rip the maps from the Atlantic article and put here showing the before and after.




Old - notice the radial lines into downtown.



New

The reason given is fairly simple. The links above state how Tallahassee's downtown contains only 14% of the jobs, yet every bus route was routed there. A cursory glance indicates a very sound idea, nothing really unique to Tallahassee even. So why have the mixed results been so prevalent?

The biggest reason is land use. DFW Airport is one of the largest employers in DFW, yet has a very low transit usage rate, especially when compared to downtown. You can't be dropped off at the doorstep or even a few hundred feet away in most areas of the airport. That means lowered ridership. If the same amount of jobs that exist within downtown Dallas now (130-140,000) existed in a much more sprawled landscape, like a freeway frontage or an airport, the current transit use rate would fall. Similarly, as discussed before, if the density is too low, riders can't be generated at a number high enough to make the service close to balancing a cost/benefit ratio. I could plan a system that ran down every street, but that doesn't mean it will be ridden or meet even the loosest, most vague definition of efficiency.

It also completely ignores frequency. Tallahassee would have increased ridership by simply upping the frequency and reducing headways. People ride transit more when they know they won't have to wait long. In the higher ridden systems, some riders don't even have to consult a schedule, since the vehicles run so close together.

It also ignores demographics. Particularly in American cities built for the car, the more affluent you are, the less likely a bus is to be ridden.

Lastly, my personal beef, it treats transit as a way to get to work. In my opinion, if you treat transit as a transportation option, rather than a commuter option, then things change. In New York, people do ride the subways to get to work, but more often, people ride the subways to get somewhere, and sometimes it is work.

Now I don't want to say that planners didn't take these into account, because I am sure they did, but the reporting by people who love to see crosstown routes always ignore these factors. DART put a great emphasis on crosstown routes when it was formed in the early '80's. The average ridership was about a quarter of projections. They had to be scaled back. The main reason was land use was not conducive for bus service, particularly in the 'burbs.

That said, I am not opposed to crosstown routes. However, it should also be noted that bus that run through downtown can still be a crosstown route. Let me illustrate. If you draw an X representing two bus routes, with the intersection being downtown, you can go from the top left to the bottom right by going through downtown, but not stopping, which is commonly done. Now that can bring up other issues, such as extended trip times, since downtown trips usually take longer to traverse.

I have always said that transit needs to do two things effectively, get people from where they are to where they want to go and get there efficiently. The first point is obvious. If I want to go to Arlington, Frisco or Mesquite, I won't take transit because I can't get there. Conversely, if those residents wanted to get to downtown from there, they couldn't. Note, it doesn't say anything about the workplace.

The second point is a bit harder to understand. It can mean time, but not the fastest. Buses are perceived as slow because they stop a lot, since people have to get on and off and that can also mean they miss the timing and get stuck at lights. Trains can sometimes go slower, but it doesn't feel slower, since it is built into the schedule. Bus rapid transit could go a ways to increasing ridership.

But it also means other things. Reducing headway's is efficient as is costs. My biggest one is transfer. It is inefficient to have to make multiple transfers. Each transfer increases the trip time and possibly increases the risk of missing a transfer. DART's system is rough because it is a rail system that requires bus feeders or park and rides to be successful. The only true place where people consistently get off the train to their destination is downtown. But if downtown is not the destination, then it is usually at least two transfers.

I hope Tallahassee's changes work, but I will wait to see results, rather than proclaim the greatness before it is running.

How the built environment and gas prices affect the economy

Has it really been a month since the last post? Wow, shame on me. Sadly, there isn't a lot going on. I have touched on Elm Place getting a chance, the Atmos Complex and the Continental getting started on a residential conversion and I touched briefly on the Statler. The only current project I have neglected is the conversion of an old federal courthouse and post office into residential units, but that has flown under the radar a bit.

My normal M.O. is to find a bit of news and discuss it, putting a bit of my personal beliefs in the post. Rarely do I just throw out my beliefs in an editorial fashion. This will be an exception.

A lot is being made upon the economy and the the need for jobs. However, what I am seeing is decades of a declining manufacturing base and a shift to the service sector (which is primarily things like retail, restaurant along with the finance, insurance and real estate sectors). The problem with that, as I see it, is that type of system requires two things. It needs goods to be brought in or imported, since they aren't being made here and it requires money to be already present in the system. The collapse of the economy was due in part to trading of bad securities, or people trying to make money off of existing money.

In my opinion, that works well in good times. In bad times, it does not. However, people will always need goods. I am typing this on an existing good, a laptop. I am sitting on a sofa, probably made overseas. My son is squeaking a toy, not made in the USA. These are material goods, made and sold overseas. Opportunities to make money like that are lower in the US than in China, who has barely noticed the global recession, because they make the world's goods.

To some extent, this was unavoidable. Yes, China can pay their workers $1.50 a day, saving the company money. So that means they are passing the savings on to us consumers right? No. Even in these trying times, corporations are profiting more than before the recession. In fact, they are profiting more than any other time in the last two decades. More and more, the middle class is getting squeezed. Prices are rising and wages are not. One reason is that decent paying manufacturing jobs are being sent overseas and being replaced with low wage service jobs.

As odd as the connection may sound, that is one reason why I am a fan of high gas prices. If it costs more to ship the goods made overseas here than the wages that were eliminated, than many of the jobs will come back if nothing more than to keep costs as low as possible.

But that leads to a catch-22. If gas prices are high, doesn't that also create a squeeze on the average American, since they have to pay more for transportation? Ah, but what if more Americans were able to live in a walkable, transit-provided area? Then the shock wouldn't be as great.

Consider these next two maps, which come from this website that calculates cost of housing per income and cost of housing and transportation per income. It consistently shows that even in places where housing costs are high, places that are more urban are not as costly per capita as places that are automobile-oriented.

Here is Dallas. Note that in the suburbs, housing costs per income are greater than in the urban areas near downtown Dallas.

Now notice how much more blue the area becomes when transportation costs are added.

Doesn't it stand to reason that if more places were walkable, people would drive less, thus lowering the cost of transportation and adding more money to people's pocketbooks? So if gas prices were to continue to rise, but more people were able to blunt that impact by having the option not to drive, and jobs returned back to this country, then isn't that a win-win for everyone?

While this may be a little simplistic, so is general economics. There are certainly a lot of other things that could help, such as moving a lot of freight, especially long distance, to more efficient rail lines and let freight concentrate on local distribution, but it does get the point across. If gas prices stay high, and there is no sign that they won't, but more people consume less gas, than the economy can get back on track.

Elm Place, better than before?

So all of a sudden, this week it was announced that plans are underway to convert the jewel of a 60's building built by George Dahl, Elm Place, once the tallest building west of the Mississippi River, into a mixed-use urban tower.

I chose that picture because it illustrates two key things about this building.

First, Elm Place has a respect for the street. There is some set back, and you can definitely see how this would lead to the setbacks of later generations of towers. But, it is more like an extension of the sidewalk. I am not a big fan if I have the option of none, but this is at least done in a way that doesn't harm the urban environment.

The second is the garden deck at the top of the base before the building tapers off into the tower. It is a lovely way to add to the building's amenities. Not many have something like this (I can think of two) and I am glad to see it is coming back.

Now onto the proposal. The developer is from Turkey, the architect from Dallas (coincidentally they office right across the street). It calls for a mix of retail, office, residential and public space. Click for the proposal.

Here's a snapshot of the use by level.

Red is residential, orange is office, yellow is retail, the green at the top of the base will be a public space (or rather, open to the public) while the observation deck at the top will reopen to the public (great views here if you get a chance to look someday). Parking will remain underground.

But here's the best part. This may be the first redevelopment of a vacant building that will completely shutter the tunnel system underneath it. The Merc closed access, so it may count, but from what I can tell, this will be a total closure, and unlike the Merc, it is in the middle of the system. The map for Elm Place's tunnel can be seen here.

They add retail to a dock bay fronting the Akard Station, giving it a better frontage, both for the building and for transit users. Akard Station is the third busiest rail station in the DART system.

I count 484 residential units and several floors of office. This is exactly what I have been thinking should have happened to the building a long time ago. The base is too large to be broken down into residential units, but the tower is nice and slender. It is ideal for a mix of office and residential.

Overall I am really excited about this project. It is scheduled to begin renovation in October and be completed the first part of 2014. TIF funding has already been approved, so this looks as promising as things can be given the current development climate.

Remember, I said downtown would need another 28,000 units this decade to match the growth rate of the past one. Coupled with what is underway or about to be, this means downtown only needs another 27,000. That number is slowly falling.

Bogus stadium numbers

Back in March, I touched on some Florida and Arizona cities struggles with Spring Training stadiums and how to finance them. Now, the University of North Texas is unveiling a new stadium for the upcoming football season. Additional commentary can be found on Unfair Park's blog.

Bottom line, the stadium cost $79 million and supposedly, using the flawed multiplier effect, a $29 million annual economic impact is calculated. The odd thing is, the researcher, Micheal Seman, if I am not mistaken, would be the same Michael Seman that I went to school with, and really should know better, since we got into these same debates in some of the classes.

Sadly, this will not generate much, if any economic impact.

1) Sports stadiums do not generate new money, they generate a redirection of disposable income. People do not debate whether they will pay rent or go to a game, pay the electric bill or buy a ticket. So regionally speaking, there is little extra spending.

2) There is little to no economic development around stadiums. As I have covered before, there is just not enough activity for a business to build a base around. Even baseball stadiums, with near 100 events a year can't, because there is an hour window before a game and a half-hout afterward. Besides the small window, most stadiums, with concession stands, restaurants, bars and suites are designed to capture the discretionary dollars that might have gone outside the stadium. And to top it off, those expenditures are quite often tax-exempt.

Look around Texas Stadium, (old) Reunion Arena, La Grange Field, Lone Star Park or numerous other sports facilities in the area to see that example. Even Victory Park, of which the American Airlines Center is part of a master plan by one developer, is struggling to build out. What has been built is extremely under-patronized (though poor urban design surely plays a factor).

3) This is a replacement stadium. There will not be many new fans coming. There will still be visting teams, just like the other. Perhaps there will be more fans because higher profile teams will come, but not likely. There may be more home games, but at most one. The small increase is likely to miss the seven figure mark, let alone the $29 million cited in the study.

4) There will not be any long-term increase in attendance because of the facility. D Magazine tried to say that the Rangers World Series year was an outlier. More specifically, winners attract fans, not stadiums.

The best the stadium boosters can call for is increased pride in the University (or city) and increased recruiting of athletes who want to play in better stadiums in college than they did in high school. I can't argue that point, yet rarely is that ever given as a reason to build the things.

A revisit on parking

Have have visited the topic of parking before (and before and before), so allow me to post another's blog post on parking. It comes off a little preachy, but otherwise is fairly solid.

http://www.originalgreen.org/blog/the-importance-of-on-street.html

It makes a lot of the same points I have, but goes a bit more in depth and is illustrated quite well to visualize the points made.

Are the suburbs moving themselves behind the eight ball?

The census has provided a lot of data for planners, but in my mind, none may be as important as the age breakdowns. In no other time in this country's history, has there been as many retirees and those contemplating retirement than now. At the same time, there never has been a lower percentage of younger folks to support these aging folks, whether it is a ride from home by a family member or social security taxes. Make no mistake, the baby boomers have changed a lot of things, and they just won't quit.

In Monday's Dallas Morning News at the bottom of the metro section's front page, a headline reads "Shortage of transportation options concerns aging suburbs." A similar story in front of the paywall can be found here.

Essentially, the authors highlight various exurban cities like Plano or Frisco, state how they used to be primarily younger a decade and more ago, and then show many older folks are aging in place, rather than moving to retirement villages in Florida.

This creates problems because these cities are primarily automobile-oriented and lack adequate health services, "livable" communities, social services and transportation options. A different official is quoted in both stories that state essentially these cities have not planned well enough to accommodate these older generations. There is a lot of irony in this.

Effective planning in other states have planned for a variety of things, including the needs of the elderly, for decades now. Oregon, Washington, Colorado and New York, to name the front-runners, have a physical environment that is made for all people, not just young married couples, families with kids or the elderly. Different life stages call for different uses of the land and urban fabric. People should have the choice of what kind of environment to live. But in Texas, it is primarily auto-oriented sprawl. And since the law limits effective planning, the cities with the best planning departments are merely guides for development, while others cities only process permits.

So what's a Plano to do? Sadly, the answers are much harder to come by than identifying the problem. Plano has a subsidized taxi service. However, funds are tight and there is a months long waiting list. They at least are a member of DART, and have fair transit service (it isn't poor, but neither is it adequate). When fixed bus service isn't enough, some folks can get on the list for DART's paratransit service. DART also has On-Call areas, where folks can pick up the phone and get a bus to their area. Plano has also done a decent job in creating walkable areas in downtown Plano and Legacy, though the later has poor transit access. Meanwhile Frisco is only just now developing a walkable area, and it is targeted to younger folks. They are beginning to implement a taxi-voucher program too, but they have a much more difficult raod to climb, particularly without a meaningful transit service. Same thing with other suburbs like Allen, McKinney or Midlothian.

In the article, Louise Broderick of Plano is quoted as saying "I can't take the bus. There is no bus in my area." That is a major problem of the auto-oriented design, which makes providing any kind of bus service complicated. Cul-de-sacs and buses don't mix.

When I was in school, the number was one-third of Americans can't drive, whether they are too young, old, disabled or unable. That number is surely going to rise in the coming years, both in real numbers and percentages. The areas that can offer that living balance are going to be better off. There will be people who will stay where they are now, at the detriment of their family and public safety. But there will also be, and already has been, those older folks and empty-nester's who find more walkable areas to reside.

If the foreclosure crisis wasn't the nail in the coffin for contemporary suburbia, the baby boomers surely will add another.

Suburbs Exploring Transit and Who Pays to Park

There were some interesting tidbits in the Dallas Morning News recently pertaining to a few area suburbs exploring the options of transit service, though in a completely unusual way.

Mesquite is perhaps the furthest along of any city to actually contracting with DART for an express bus route. You can read the DART Board minutes here, page 19 of the pdf. If you can get behind the paywall of the DMN, the story is here.

In essence, Mesquite will use their economic development taxes to fund an express bus route, while simultaneously seeking to gather local, regional and federal funds to build a rail line. They are seeking a public-private partnership to get the job done. On July 5th, the city council authorized the funds to begin the express bus route, with DART providing the ride.

Then it comes out that the northern exurbs of Allen and McKinney in Collin County are in the preliminary stages of doing the same thing.  McKinney is looking to shuttle passengers from a park-n-ride lot to DART's Parker Road Station. Allen is hoping to lure shoppers from the DART service area to places like their outlet mall. In essence, McKinney wants a two stop express bus route, Allen wants a partial express, non-stop from Parker Road to a stop in Allen, where it begins a typical local route with multiple stops.

Allen hasn't decided yet who would run it, while McKinney seems to be preferring DART to run the buses. I would bet that Allen will choose DART, simply because it will connect to a rail station. Either way, DART will get revenue from this.

If I had to pick a loser, it would be Allen's. Most (I'm talking 99%) shoppers in this area don't use transit. Compare weekend trips at Park Lane Station to the parking garages at North Park Mall. Since a great percentage of shopping is on the weekend, I don't hold out a high hope that this three-year pilot project will be extended, despite the fact that I would use it more than the other two routes.

I am undecided about this generic idea overall. Obviously increased transit options are a plus. If the McKinney proposal mirrors Mesquite, I won't use their routes, since this would only be rush hour services. However, it would still increase transit usage, albeit in the hundreds, a very small percentage of total ridership.

So if this increases ridership, surely I can't be against it, right? Well, it is the funding that worries me. Since 1984, DART member cities have been allocating a full cent sales tax for the service. Mesquite turned down the offer in 1983 by 20 votes. Instead, they would later approve an economic development tax as an attempt to improve their tax base. I did preliminary research in graduate school using area numbers and correlated increased economic activity with transit and an actual decrease in economic activity with the ED taxes. In short, they are ineffective at best. In essence, these three cities are proving that point. Why use your ED taxes on transit unless they aren't working in the traditional way? I said it then before the paper and I repeat, transit is an economic development tool.

If this is replicated on a much larger scale, there could literally be a dozen cities buying the Pinto package of transit service, rather than the Ford (New York would be the Lexus). It will also primarily be a commuter system, that is ineffective in long term transportation changes. I certainly have made more trips to Plano in my 4+ years of living in downtown Dallas than Mesquite. That won't change with this proposal, but it could (and almost certainly would given its proximity to me) if they flat out joined DART.

But the timing may be fortuitous for the northern burbs. DART has announced a pilot program for the two northern terminus stations where folks who live outside the service area will have to pay two dollars to park at those stations. While folks who use the Green Line have the DCTA as an option, the Red Line currently doesn't. This may give those folks an option.

This policy is one I can actually get behind. While some have suggested DART is a villain for this, I believe it is fair, if only in the current financing scheme. I have always been leery of individual cities deciding who gets to have a transit service. TxDoT doesn't ask cities if they want a highway. They plan it as a regional need. Why does transit get a different approach? Yes freeways are interstate infrastructure with national implications, but the vast, vast, vast majority of users are regional.

Given that restraint, I support DART's approach to recouping revenue that the resident's aren't paying when they make purchases in non-member cities and then drive to a DART station and use the system. Yes they pay a fare, but it pales to the sales tax, which is the primary revenue source for DART. It will drive some away, but not much. Some will travel one mile down and park, some won't, but some will switch to the DCTA A-Train and the new routes from Allen and McKinney, and that isn't that bad of an option, if not perfect.