About ten months ago, I briefly chronicled the San Francisco area's strategies for battling congestion. Under the category of congestion pricing, tolls for area bridges and roadways went up when use went up. While many people look at roadway capacity as a supply-and-demand function, they don't like to think of those same economic forces are applied to roadways, if they actually have to pay for it. Which in that essence is why it actually relieves congestion.
The San Francisco Chronicle reported on a study that followed up on the strategy, and it appears to be working. While carpooling (a dubious attempt at congestion reduction) has decreased, so has main lane use. Transit ridership is up, vehicle miles traveled are down and travel time savings is up, tremendously in some cases. The extreme example is I-880, which saw its average travel times reduced by half!
The main problem with congestion pricing implementation on a wide scale is the lack of available case studies. However, of the ones that are out there, it appears that adding a market approach actually reduces congestion, more so than any other attempt that has been tried before.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Saturday, November 5, 2011
More on San Antonio
While I took time in the last post to document the historical significance of San Antonio's downtown and then compare to Dallas , I want to take time to talk other things that SA did well in keeping their downtown active, and the opposite mistake that Dallas
Just a note though, everything likely could be traced back to historical significance in one way or the other. Downtown's were the beginning of every city. If there was no downtown, there was no city. The exceptions are suburbs and exurbs like The Colony, which are nothing more than auto-oriented suburban locales developed well after WWII. Some, like The Colony, are just developer driven places that incorporated sometime after development began or had finished. So when I talk about the street grid for example, know that is some form, it is San Antonio acknowledging its historical significance and building upon it, rather than Dallas, which was in a race to be the more modern city that could allow thousands of cars a minute through the area, at the expense of anything else.
Also, I don’t think, as someone implied to me after reading the previous post, that everything is perfect. One of the worst mistakes that Sun Belt cities did in the ‘50’s and ‘60’s was hem off the downtown area with freeways. San Antonio
At this point in time, highways, like Rte. 66, went straight into the city core. So, prior to I-35, the highway was U.S. 77, which ran on streets like Lamar in Dallas
Of course, now we know that there are unintended side effects. By making the auto more convenient to go around downtown rather than through, planners made downtown less convenient as a stopping point. So people who were passing through that would stop to eat at restaurant or shop at the stores now no longer did, since getting off the freeway was a pain. This had the effect of dispersing the urban area, simultaneously making downtown less attractive and encouraging suburban sprawl.
Paradoxically, it also didn’t relieve congestion downtown. The streets were just about as clogged as ever. My long promised post on the induced traffic principle will go into more details.
While the degradation of downtown's vitality was a slow process, the destruction of the urban fabric was imminent. Here's some pictures of our hotel.
 |
| I-37 in the background is the likely reason the prior buildings were demolished, allowing for the auto-oriented Day's Inn. |
 |
| The parking lots in the foreground and the urban skyline in the background are the antithesis of each other. |
However, I have to also give credit that some of the freeway loop is quite a ways away from the urban core, though that just pushes the negative effects further away. I-37 is 3 miles long on the loop. I-10's southern part is 2.5 miles, the western portion is over 2. Only the northern part of the ring road, I-35, is similar to Dallas' downtown freeway loop. This expanded geographic boundary is beneficial to downtown, though it still slices the urban fabric. It means there is a greater surface area within the freeway loop.
Another automobile-oriented mistake is the one-way streets. Luckily, this is in part negated by the fact that streets were not widened. Streets like Pearl or Young do not exist in San Antonio. They also didn't do things like create a Griffin Street within the existing urban area, which is in essence the same thing as adding a freeway, only a bit smaller in scale. Outside of the historical aspect of downtown SA, it's the lack of wide, pedestrian-adverse streets that create its vibrant setting.
And finally, for my WTF?!? moment, I give you this:
The good news is that a lot of this is able to be remedied. Elm and Commerce can be tamed by reverting back to two-way. The Deck Park over Woodall helps negate the negative effects, though the surrounding area is still freeway oriented and unlikely to change. A greater focus on urban form in new development to make sure that places like Dealey Plaza engage visitors would be welcomed. While I don't think downtown Dallas will ever score high vibrancy marks like SA does, but it isn't a lost cause. It just needs political will to get it done.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
San Antonio, an urban oasis?
How timely that just a bit after my family and I visited San Antonio, Yahoo! Travel and Forbes but SA in their top 10 mid and small city downtown's, though how San Antonio with 1.3 million people, let alone Chicago, is considered mid-sized is beyond me.
Per the article:
For those who haven’t yet visited San Antonio, the city conjures up images of a tragic and bloody last stand at The Alamo. But for anyone who has visited, the city is more than just home to one of the most famous historical sites in the West. The San Antonio River Walk is perhaps the most beautiful part of the city, creating a verdant pathway lined with colorful café umbrellas that winds its way through downtown, offering up a bevy of shops, restaurants, and bars on the way. Tour downtown, follow the river by foot or tour it by boat, and save your visit to the Alamo for the late afternoon, when the sun is in retreat and you’ll have more to remember from your trip than just an historic and valiant defeat.
A bit brief, though what is there is accurate. San Antonio really has a lot of what folks like me, particularly in the Sunbelt cities, advocate.
We found it to be quite an active place, which begs the question of why. Though there is not one singular answer, and I will get into many shortly, the big answer is history. Obviously, the large scale historical framework is there with the Alamo and the Tower of the Americas. But there is also the smaller places that give it the historical feel. The difference between the Alamo and the other missionary sites is that the Texas soldiers choose that site as its fort. It isn't out of the question to think that the Alamo could be just another historical site in SA, but that a current missionary settlement building could have been where the battle was fought in 1836. These smaller missionary sites have been converted other uses, but their history remains. Often these uses are public, like a theater or performing arts venue.
But that isn't all the history. Six of the top 15 tallest buildings were completed before 1960. Five were built before WWII. To put it in perspective, Dallas has one before 1960 and none before WWII.
This is significant in two major ways. First, older buildings tend to be better urban buildings than those built between 1960 and 2000. There are ground floor retail locations and even those that aren't don't alienate those who are walking near the property. They are also better for the pedestrian scale. The materials are usually softer and the design is generally warmer to people up close. The second is that when a building built before WWII is demolished, the replacement is not of the same quality. More often than not, especially in the southern half of the U.S., that replacement is a parking lot, a known pedestrian adversary. By having large quantities of these buildings, San Antonio guarantees an active street scene.
One of the most famous features of San Antonio is of course the River Walk. From a planning standpoint, this area fascinates me. Here was an area, several decades ago, that was a liability. When it flooded, there was damage and death. It was considered no more than a ditch at the turn of the century. The look and smell made the locals call it an eyesore. In the '20's, plans called for taming the river, including paving it, a la the Los Angeles River. The local Conservation Society took exception to the idea. They worked with the mayor and came up with a beautification project that would turn into the River Walk. The idea was very unpopular and it wasn't until the Works Progress Administration offered funds that the project got off the ground on a large scale.
Aside from paving and the actual completion, if I inserted the Trinity River here, would that sound familiar? What would SA look like today, had this area been paved over and become an open drainage ditch? This is a major tourist attraction because it is unique, beautiful and at the same time functional in flood control. SA took an asset, improved it and has been reaping the rewards since then.
Here's some pictures:
This is a great illustrator that the River Walk is both beautiful and functional. Instead of concrete tip to toe, stone work accents landscaping that fits the area, ie that is natural. If this were done today, one of two things would be the outcome. Either the area would be entirely concrete grey, to contain costs, or consist of imported granite and exotic vegetation that required extensive maintenance and died frequently.
I like this one as it illustrates the relationship between the street, the river and the built environment. I have heard that San Antonio is an example of how you can have a divided streetscape, basically debating that the tunnels can be successful within downtown Dallas. I feel differently. What you see above is the extension of the streetscape, not another entitly, like the tunnel system. On Friday night, we had dinner at Casa Rio, a restaurant with entrances at both the river and street level. While that can be achieved in the confines of a tunnel or skywalk, it is much harder, particularly when the buildings in question are post-modern office buildings.
This final shot also illustrates how well connected the two realms are.
It is hard NOT to find the street level in San Antonio. Stairs are plentiful and there are numerous times where it is easier to go to the other side of the river by going up the stairs, crossing the street and walking back down. While, as before, this may be possible in the tunnels, it is very hard to actually achieve.
The River Walk itself is wonderfully pedestrian-friendly. Yet, so were the streets above, which had just as much activity as below. It was easy to see how the design fed one to the other. Each would be less used were the other not there.
My main focus was what they did well in creating downtown SA. It is an area that is a bit odd compared to many cities. The tallest structure is the aforementioned Tower of the America's, it's tallest skyscraper is a hotel, the Marriott Rivercenter, and the tallest office, Weston Centre, is only the third tallest in the city. It is hard to find a city whose tallest structure is not an office tower. This represents downtown SA in a measurable way.
They don't focus on what other cities did or try to incorporate an off-the-shelf-planning idea. Instead, they took stock of what they had, and strengthened it. They didn't try to import a modern Times Square. They didn't try to build the tallest office building. They didn't call the latest and hottest architect to build a fancy civic building.
When compared to Dallas, they don't have a high downtown residential population. They don't have a huge amount of office space. They have more hotel rooms, but not that drastic a difference. Yet, despite that downtown Dallas should have a higher population within downtown at all times, but the streets don't reflect it. San Antonio has accomplished this by embracing what they are and what they were. Dallas has ran from it, trying hard to be more than it is.
Just to show this point, compare the two big historical sites, Dallas' Dealey Plaza to San Antonio's Alamo. Both were the location of a tragedy, though the Alamo was significant to Texas' independence, while JFK's assassination were black eyes to folks in Dallas. Both have museums dedicated to the event. After that, it is night and day.
There are lots of things to do around the Alamo after or before you go. The River Center Mall and the River Walk allow for eating and shopping. As it stands now, all that is near Dealey Plaza in that regard is the Sixth Floor Museum's cafe (not open past 6pm and only on weekdays), a Subway and a western-themed gift shop. Not that far, but out of eyesight of the Plaza are a few more restaurants. If you want to visit and pay your county tax bill, that can be done at the Records Building. If you want to visit then join the army, you can accomplish that at 207 South Houston. If you want to visit Dealey Plaza before your county court date, the fortress-like George Allen Courts building is adjacent. Aside from the museum and and its cafe, the only directly adjacent building that caters to visitors would be Old Red Courthouse, though if you are at Dealey Plaza, it is only a building that looks neat. Otherwise, visitors have no idea what it is. If visitors know that the JFK Memorial is only a block away (some don't) it is highly underwhelming and only makes sense when you realize it is nothing more than a garage topper.
It is this scattering of parts that make downtown Dallas so lackadaisical in activity, particularly when compared with SA. Compactness plays a huge factor in urban street vibrancy. Dallas doesn't have it, San Antonio does.
Per the article:
For those who haven’t yet visited San Antonio, the city conjures up images of a tragic and bloody last stand at The Alamo. But for anyone who has visited, the city is more than just home to one of the most famous historical sites in the West. The San Antonio River Walk is perhaps the most beautiful part of the city, creating a verdant pathway lined with colorful café umbrellas that winds its way through downtown, offering up a bevy of shops, restaurants, and bars on the way. Tour downtown, follow the river by foot or tour it by boat, and save your visit to the Alamo for the late afternoon, when the sun is in retreat and you’ll have more to remember from your trip than just an historic and valiant defeat.
A bit brief, though what is there is accurate. San Antonio really has a lot of what folks like me, particularly in the Sunbelt cities, advocate.
We found it to be quite an active place, which begs the question of why. Though there is not one singular answer, and I will get into many shortly, the big answer is history. Obviously, the large scale historical framework is there with the Alamo and the Tower of the Americas. But there is also the smaller places that give it the historical feel. The difference between the Alamo and the other missionary sites is that the Texas soldiers choose that site as its fort. It isn't out of the question to think that the Alamo could be just another historical site in SA, but that a current missionary settlement building could have been where the battle was fought in 1836. These smaller missionary sites have been converted other uses, but their history remains. Often these uses are public, like a theater or performing arts venue.
But that isn't all the history. Six of the top 15 tallest buildings were completed before 1960. Five were built before WWII. To put it in perspective, Dallas has one before 1960 and none before WWII.
 |
| Aside from the parking garage on the left, this vibrant street scene is composed entirely of pre-WWII buildings. |
This is significant in two major ways. First, older buildings tend to be better urban buildings than those built between 1960 and 2000. There are ground floor retail locations and even those that aren't don't alienate those who are walking near the property. They are also better for the pedestrian scale. The materials are usually softer and the design is generally warmer to people up close. The second is that when a building built before WWII is demolished, the replacement is not of the same quality. More often than not, especially in the southern half of the U.S., that replacement is a parking lot, a known pedestrian adversary. By having large quantities of these buildings, San Antonio guarantees an active street scene.
 |
| Notice how this older building respects the street, and therefore enlivens it. |
Aside from paving and the actual completion, if I inserted the Trinity River here, would that sound familiar? What would SA look like today, had this area been paved over and become an open drainage ditch? This is a major tourist attraction because it is unique, beautiful and at the same time functional in flood control. SA took an asset, improved it and has been reaping the rewards since then.
Here's some pictures:
This is a great illustrator that the River Walk is both beautiful and functional. Instead of concrete tip to toe, stone work accents landscaping that fits the area, ie that is natural. If this were done today, one of two things would be the outcome. Either the area would be entirely concrete grey, to contain costs, or consist of imported granite and exotic vegetation that required extensive maintenance and died frequently.
I like this one as it illustrates the relationship between the street, the river and the built environment. I have heard that San Antonio is an example of how you can have a divided streetscape, basically debating that the tunnels can be successful within downtown Dallas. I feel differently. What you see above is the extension of the streetscape, not another entitly, like the tunnel system. On Friday night, we had dinner at Casa Rio, a restaurant with entrances at both the river and street level. While that can be achieved in the confines of a tunnel or skywalk, it is much harder, particularly when the buildings in question are post-modern office buildings.
This final shot also illustrates how well connected the two realms are.
It is hard NOT to find the street level in San Antonio. Stairs are plentiful and there are numerous times where it is easier to go to the other side of the river by going up the stairs, crossing the street and walking back down. While, as before, this may be possible in the tunnels, it is very hard to actually achieve.
The River Walk itself is wonderfully pedestrian-friendly. Yet, so were the streets above, which had just as much activity as below. It was easy to see how the design fed one to the other. Each would be less used were the other not there.
My main focus was what they did well in creating downtown SA. It is an area that is a bit odd compared to many cities. The tallest structure is the aforementioned Tower of the America's, it's tallest skyscraper is a hotel, the Marriott Rivercenter, and the tallest office, Weston Centre, is only the third tallest in the city. It is hard to find a city whose tallest structure is not an office tower. This represents downtown SA in a measurable way.
They don't focus on what other cities did or try to incorporate an off-the-shelf-planning idea. Instead, they took stock of what they had, and strengthened it. They didn't try to import a modern Times Square. They didn't try to build the tallest office building. They didn't call the latest and hottest architect to build a fancy civic building.
When compared to Dallas, they don't have a high downtown residential population. They don't have a huge amount of office space. They have more hotel rooms, but not that drastic a difference. Yet, despite that downtown Dallas should have a higher population within downtown at all times, but the streets don't reflect it. San Antonio has accomplished this by embracing what they are and what they were. Dallas has ran from it, trying hard to be more than it is.
Just to show this point, compare the two big historical sites, Dallas' Dealey Plaza to San Antonio's Alamo. Both were the location of a tragedy, though the Alamo was significant to Texas' independence, while JFK's assassination were black eyes to folks in Dallas. Both have museums dedicated to the event. After that, it is night and day.
There are lots of things to do around the Alamo after or before you go. The River Center Mall and the River Walk allow for eating and shopping. As it stands now, all that is near Dealey Plaza in that regard is the Sixth Floor Museum's cafe (not open past 6pm and only on weekdays), a Subway and a western-themed gift shop. Not that far, but out of eyesight of the Plaza are a few more restaurants. If you want to visit and pay your county tax bill, that can be done at the Records Building. If you want to visit then join the army, you can accomplish that at 207 South Houston. If you want to visit Dealey Plaza before your county court date, the fortress-like George Allen Courts building is adjacent. Aside from the museum and and its cafe, the only directly adjacent building that caters to visitors would be Old Red Courthouse, though if you are at Dealey Plaza, it is only a building that looks neat. Otherwise, visitors have no idea what it is. If visitors know that the JFK Memorial is only a block away (some don't) it is highly underwhelming and only makes sense when you realize it is nothing more than a garage topper.
It is this scattering of parts that make downtown Dallas so lackadaisical in activity, particularly when compared with SA. Compactness plays a huge factor in urban street vibrancy. Dallas doesn't have it, San Antonio does.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Chicago takes steps to increase transit use
There's a few things I want to get into, some of which are require a separate post, such as my recent visit to San Antonio. But for this one, I want to turn your attention to Chicago.
The first bit of news is the fact that the mayor is setting a policy that requires city employees to take transit instead of city vehicles where possible. This may seem like a policy set to increase transit use, and to degree it is. However, it is primarily a direct response to employees over billing for car reimbursement forms. Things like car washes were being charged to the city.
I really can get behind things like this. For no added expense for the city (unless it does not offer a transit pass as a benefit) or the employee, we find a way to lower city expenses and increase (albeit marginally) CTA's reach.
The other bit of news from the Windy City is they are trying to join the ranks of those cities with congestion pricing. San Francisco instituted an on-street parking program that adjusts rates to demand, a far cry from flat-rate, all-day rate. The region also adjusts toll rates to correspond with demand. London charges a fee to enter downtown by car, something New York considered, but declined to implement.
Chicago is charging a two-dollar surcharge on all public parking. This will increase demand for alternative transport, primarily transit, but also walking biking and a possible land-use change.
I like the principle. I just don't think this is the best way to go. Private parking is completely ignored here, which is usually in abundance and city codes (I don't know Chicago specifically) usually require a large excess. By ignoring the private and regulatory aspect, the effect is blunted. Unless all people are effected equally, the policy will be ineffective at best and useless at worst.
When it comes to congestion pricing, I usually think something is better than nothing, and this is certainly better than the status quo. I just would approach it differently to increase the effect. Maybe that's why it failed politically in New York. Too much change can also be ineffective.
The first bit of news is the fact that the mayor is setting a policy that requires city employees to take transit instead of city vehicles where possible. This may seem like a policy set to increase transit use, and to degree it is. However, it is primarily a direct response to employees over billing for car reimbursement forms. Things like car washes were being charged to the city.
I really can get behind things like this. For no added expense for the city (unless it does not offer a transit pass as a benefit) or the employee, we find a way to lower city expenses and increase (albeit marginally) CTA's reach.
The other bit of news from the Windy City is they are trying to join the ranks of those cities with congestion pricing. San Francisco instituted an on-street parking program that adjusts rates to demand, a far cry from flat-rate, all-day rate. The region also adjusts toll rates to correspond with demand. London charges a fee to enter downtown by car, something New York considered, but declined to implement.
Chicago is charging a two-dollar surcharge on all public parking. This will increase demand for alternative transport, primarily transit, but also walking biking and a possible land-use change.
I like the principle. I just don't think this is the best way to go. Private parking is completely ignored here, which is usually in abundance and city codes (I don't know Chicago specifically) usually require a large excess. By ignoring the private and regulatory aspect, the effect is blunted. Unless all people are effected equally, the policy will be ineffective at best and useless at worst.
When it comes to congestion pricing, I usually think something is better than nothing, and this is certainly better than the status quo. I just would approach it differently to increase the effect. Maybe that's why it failed politically in New York. Too much change can also be ineffective.
Friday, October 14, 2011
Why salt is important to planners
The Texas Transportation Institute, out of Texas A&M, released its annual Urban Mobility Report and as usual, large urban metros are clogged with auto congestion. I am not going to get into the details, but know that methodologies used have been under increased scrutiny.
The top 10 cities come as no surprise: 1) Washington D.C., 2) Chicago, 3) Los Angeles, 4) Houston, 5) New York, 6) Baltimore, 7) San Francisco, 8) Denver, 9) Boston, 10) Minneapolis & 10) Dallas. Perhaps the bigger surprise is the preferences of the authors and its intended readers.
To make it simplistic, the authors assign an arbitrary amount ($16 per hour) to each drivers time lost in congestion. If a freeway is not level-of-service A, which is very hard to attain, then there is time lost to congestion.
The report makes the case that time lost to congestion is important, but time lost to commuting is not. For example, if a commuter (already a biased term) lives close to work, but spends all 10 minutes of the commute in congestion, they lose more time than the commuter who lives 40 minutes from work, but five of that is congested. So the latter commuter, which spends more time a day/week/year in traffic doesn't count as much in the congestion cost as the former, even though the former spends only a quarter of that time in the car overall.
Also, transit times are not considered at all into the equation. The certainty of knowing the train will arrive here at X time and get me there at Y time 95% + on schedule means nothing to the report. It does through a bone and says transit saves X amount of time in congestion by multiplying the riders of the system by the $16 an hour. I won't get into the flaws of this line of thinking, as I would hope they are somewhat obvious.
This report is often used as a reason for supporting more freeway lane construction. And again, this bias is skewed toward more freeways. If the latter commuter is ideal in the minds of the authors, then surely their recommendations will mirror that. On top of that, the recommendations ignore the induced traffic principle. I will devote a post to that sometime soon in the future, but just know, simplistically, it means travel is not a supply and demand function, but behavioral and people will travel based on capacity.
A lot of planners are coming around on the idea that more congestion is actually good. More people choose transit when the uncertainty of auto travel reaches a certain point. More people choose to live closer when travel times and costs are high. Others choose different routes, etc. Point is, most planners know more freeways means more low-density suburban development. I suppose the TTI does to.
That is why I say these things must be taken with a grain of salt, even if they support your point. In graduate school, I was working on a research paper for a statistical analysis class. I was working with numbers that were timed based. I ran the numbers at first by the year and didn't get what I wanted. So for fun I ran it by months and still didn't get what I wanted. Finally I tried the numbers by quarter years and it showed what I had hoped it would at the beginning. Needless to say, I switched to the quarter years.
This is why I do not put a lot of stock in non-peer-reviewed pieces, like the TTI's UMR. That saying that figures don't lie but liars figure can always be applied to public policy pieces.
The top 10 cities come as no surprise: 1) Washington D.C., 2) Chicago, 3) Los Angeles, 4) Houston, 5) New York, 6) Baltimore, 7) San Francisco, 8) Denver, 9) Boston, 10) Minneapolis & 10) Dallas. Perhaps the bigger surprise is the preferences of the authors and its intended readers.
To make it simplistic, the authors assign an arbitrary amount ($16 per hour) to each drivers time lost in congestion. If a freeway is not level-of-service A, which is very hard to attain, then there is time lost to congestion.
The report makes the case that time lost to congestion is important, but time lost to commuting is not. For example, if a commuter (already a biased term) lives close to work, but spends all 10 minutes of the commute in congestion, they lose more time than the commuter who lives 40 minutes from work, but five of that is congested. So the latter commuter, which spends more time a day/week/year in traffic doesn't count as much in the congestion cost as the former, even though the former spends only a quarter of that time in the car overall.
Also, transit times are not considered at all into the equation. The certainty of knowing the train will arrive here at X time and get me there at Y time 95% + on schedule means nothing to the report. It does through a bone and says transit saves X amount of time in congestion by multiplying the riders of the system by the $16 an hour. I won't get into the flaws of this line of thinking, as I would hope they are somewhat obvious.
This report is often used as a reason for supporting more freeway lane construction. And again, this bias is skewed toward more freeways. If the latter commuter is ideal in the minds of the authors, then surely their recommendations will mirror that. On top of that, the recommendations ignore the induced traffic principle. I will devote a post to that sometime soon in the future, but just know, simplistically, it means travel is not a supply and demand function, but behavioral and people will travel based on capacity.
A lot of planners are coming around on the idea that more congestion is actually good. More people choose transit when the uncertainty of auto travel reaches a certain point. More people choose to live closer when travel times and costs are high. Others choose different routes, etc. Point is, most planners know more freeways means more low-density suburban development. I suppose the TTI does to.
That is why I say these things must be taken with a grain of salt, even if they support your point. In graduate school, I was working on a research paper for a statistical analysis class. I was working with numbers that were timed based. I ran the numbers at first by the year and didn't get what I wanted. So for fun I ran it by months and still didn't get what I wanted. Finally I tried the numbers by quarter years and it showed what I had hoped it would at the beginning. Needless to say, I switched to the quarter years.
This is why I do not put a lot of stock in non-peer-reviewed pieces, like the TTI's UMR. That saying that figures don't lie but liars figure can always be applied to public policy pieces.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Multiple streetcar recipes
I ran across a great piece from the Transport Politic about streetcars and why cities are opting for them. The author wonders if they are the panaceas promoters claim.
First, I generally agree with Yonah Freemark's assessment. It points out that Washington has shifted gears from funding bus improvements to streetcar projects. All true. Bush's administration put a higher priority on speed. Projects that reduced travel times got the nod for federal funds. That usually meant streetcars didn't get funds. The current administration favors a funding formula that considers streetcars. The stimulus fund also wou8nd up going to streetcars.
He then points out that most money goes to lines that are slower. By avoiding paying for things like grade separation, that could be done cheaply with something like paint, he insists that we are short-changing our transit systems. The only reason he gives for this is that it is politically unpopular to take a lane of traffic away. While that maybe true in some areas, I don't think that is it only.
I also don't think he gets the whole picture. Until we understand that transportation systems are not separate entities from the built environment, we will never have fully integrated communities.
While I don't suggest that streetcars should always be slow, neither do I suggest, as Freemark seems to do consistently, that speed is the ultimate goal. I refer to McKinney Avenue, the main thoroughfare to perhaps Dallas' most urban neighborhood. It is a heavily traveled street with a streetcar line in the middle and dense buildings along both sides.
McKinney is a great urban street. Obviously the streetcar shows transit works here, but many people drive and biking is quite easy, despite heavy traffic (primarily for the reason about to be given). The difference here and elsewhere is the slower speeds. This is what Freemark (and almost all traffic engineers for that matter) misses. The speed, or maybe lack of, is a commonly missed ingredient of urban streets. So much of our time in the transportation field is spent getting things through areas as quickly as possible. That alone is not ther problem. There are times where that is needed. The problem comes in when it is done everywhere, regardless of context.
First, I generally agree with Yonah Freemark's assessment. It points out that Washington has shifted gears from funding bus improvements to streetcar projects. All true. Bush's administration put a higher priority on speed. Projects that reduced travel times got the nod for federal funds. That usually meant streetcars didn't get funds. The current administration favors a funding formula that considers streetcars. The stimulus fund also wou8nd up going to streetcars.
He then points out that most money goes to lines that are slower. By avoiding paying for things like grade separation, that could be done cheaply with something like paint, he insists that we are short-changing our transit systems. The only reason he gives for this is that it is politically unpopular to take a lane of traffic away. While that maybe true in some areas, I don't think that is it only.
I also don't think he gets the whole picture. Until we understand that transportation systems are not separate entities from the built environment, we will never have fully integrated communities.
While I don't suggest that streetcars should always be slow, neither do I suggest, as Freemark seems to do consistently, that speed is the ultimate goal. I refer to McKinney Avenue, the main thoroughfare to perhaps Dallas' most urban neighborhood. It is a heavily traveled street with a streetcar line in the middle and dense buildings along both sides.
McKinney is a great urban street. Obviously the streetcar shows transit works here, but many people drive and biking is quite easy, despite heavy traffic (primarily for the reason about to be given). The difference here and elsewhere is the slower speeds. This is what Freemark (and almost all traffic engineers for that matter) misses. The speed, or maybe lack of, is a commonly missed ingredient of urban streets. So much of our time in the transportation field is spent getting things through areas as quickly as possible. That alone is not ther problem. There are times where that is needed. The problem comes in when it is done everywhere, regardless of context.
 |
| My favorite Dallas streetcar - the Green Dragon. The nickname comes from the SMU students who used to ride it when Dallas had an expansive city-wide streetcar system. |
This is where the streetcar comes in. I can think of nothing as regular as a scheduled streetcar that can help slow traffic down as a streetcar line. Buses can, but not as well, for reasons I can't even articulate. Maybe part of it has to do with the streetcar unloading in the middle of the street, rather than the side, but it isn't the only reason. Even the feel of driving next to a streetcar slows traffic.
In fact, it is amazing how everything but cars work better when the overall traffic speed is lower. Transit does, biking certainly does. Nearby pedestrians are more comfortable.
Freemark did say later that each locality should decide the use that is best, so at least he wasn't advocating speed above all, all the time. But if you read enough of his posts, you'll that he indirectly advocates speed above all things.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Dallas and the Two Things about Transit
I want to expand on the previous post about how to do transit, particularly that only two things need to be done to make it successful, using a case study. Previously, I said transit needs to get people from where they are to where they are going, and they need to do it efficiently.
The reason I want to go back to that point is to compare DART, which is a typical American transit agency. There is a lot that is at fault with DART's rail system, much of which is beyond their control. DART rail fails on the first part, getting folks places, primarily because it was built within old railroad right-of-way. The land-use downtown is much more conducive for rail transit, since the built environment is more convenient to rail than the outlying areas. Much of the old ROW is surrounded by factories, warehouses and other industrial uses. Industrial areas are far less likely to support transit use than just about any other land use. On top of that, what is already there has its back to the rail lines and stations.
When the rail line runs though old industrial areas, two things happen. First, the stations become park-n-ride lots for the stations in the center of the system. Second, the area has to redevelop to encourage all day usage. If that doesn't happen, the line is underutilized during non-peak hours and it is not cost-effective. It also is likely to have a reduced frequency. Large headways are not efficient for passengers, further reducing the lines patronage. This is the exact situation of the Blue Line north of Mockingbird Station. Everything but Downtown Garland (though even this one is a large commuter station) is only a commuter or transfer station, though plans are in place to make Lake Highlands Stations a mixed-use station, and it runs through one-story brick industrial areas north of LBJ and the southern part runs through woodlands and views of single-family house's backyards.
As DART has set it up, the rail system is heavily dependent upon transfers. Most are buses, but even park-n-ride lots count, since folks are transferring from their cars to the rail system. Transfers kill ridership. Unless the destination is downtown Dallas, there are likely at least two transfers. Passengers board a bus, transfer to a rail line, and then transfer to another bus. The idea should be to try to get transfers down to roughly one on average. As more transit-oriented developments come on-line, this will become more likely, but the vast, vast majority of the region will still not be convenient to the rail system.
The funny thing is that a lot of it is outside of DART's control. To keep the systems construction cost lower, and therefore available for federal funds, the freight ROW was the best choice. But from a ridership perspective, consider a subway line down McKinney Avenue to serve Uptown, rather than the subway currently under Central Expressway. Other than Cityplace Tower, and perhaps the shopping center with the Target, Cityplace Station isn't surrounded by conducive land uses. However, what could have been if there was a subway station between Pearl and Fairmount (remember that an urban subway station has entrances at both ends of the station)? This would cover most of the lower portion of Uptown. Another station between Hall and Lemon, covering the upper part of Uptown that Cityplace does so poorly. Another station somewhere between Fitzhugh and Knox would serve the emerging area of Knox-Henderson. To be fair, the Knox-Henderson neighborhood fought a station from being build on the current alignment. Ironically, that area is one of the vast minority of neighborhoods that would be effectively served from a freeway alignment.
In conjunction with the feds cost requirements, the suburban faction also keeps the status quo as we know it. They oppose urban subways, since they fear that increased cost will result in a delay or perhaps no rail line to their areas. That isn't necessarily a bad thing for DART, since studies have statistically shown that suburban locales have lower riders per capita and in real numbers than their urban counterparts. There are a variety of reasons, such as land use favoring autos, lower densities and car-oriented customs. But the funding of the system requires suburban participation.
Is it DART's fault that their rail system is underutilized? I would answer that as partially. The feds funding formula's favor funding construction over operating costs. The state offers very little funding as is, and what is made available is primarily for construction. The regional interests favor the more expansive commuter system, though commuter systems always have lower riders than truly urban ones.
While much fanfare has been made of the TOD's that will remake the area, some developers aren't helping either. DART wanted to run the first phase of the Green Line down Houston Street, rather than the current freight alignment by I-35E. Not only would that have served Victory better, but that part of Uptown would have been much better off. Add that in combination with the McKinney subway proposed above, Uptown, one of the most dense office and residential neighborhoods in Dallas would have been well served by rail, rather than virtually non-existent as it is now.
But even given the hand DART was dealt, only minor changes may have had much bigger ridership impact. There was a former Executive Director at DART, Ted Tedesco, who proposed moving portions of the Green Line near Parkland Hospital and the Red Line in Oak Cliff to street-median running alignments that would have run through the neighborhoods they served (similar to the south Blue Line), but the DART board voted against that proposal, due primarily to suburban and cost interests.
The Orange Line is likely to be a higher utilized suburban rail line, since it is being built in the median of Lake Carolyn Parkway in the Las Colinas Urban Center. However, since the built environment is more suited to a suburban office park, with things like setbacks, poor pedestrian design and high parking ratios, than an urban rail system, the line willl be similar to others in DART's system, promising yet underwhelming. It also requires yet another transfer to the Las Colinas APT, further supressing ridership.
Houston, despite their fumbles, is building excellent urban rail system. At build-out, they are going to have a similar amount of riders on one-third of the track mileage. They did that despite being a typical Sun Belt city like Dallas. Perhaps the main difference is that Houston is by far the majority of Metro, where as Dallas is about half the membership of DART, by population.
In essence, Houston did a much better job in the design phase of figuring out where people are, where they are going to go and how to get them there efficiently. DART did what was easy.
The reason I want to go back to that point is to compare DART, which is a typical American transit agency. There is a lot that is at fault with DART's rail system, much of which is beyond their control. DART rail fails on the first part, getting folks places, primarily because it was built within old railroad right-of-way. The land-use downtown is much more conducive for rail transit, since the built environment is more convenient to rail than the outlying areas. Much of the old ROW is surrounded by factories, warehouses and other industrial uses. Industrial areas are far less likely to support transit use than just about any other land use. On top of that, what is already there has its back to the rail lines and stations.
When the rail line runs though old industrial areas, two things happen. First, the stations become park-n-ride lots for the stations in the center of the system. Second, the area has to redevelop to encourage all day usage. If that doesn't happen, the line is underutilized during non-peak hours and it is not cost-effective. It also is likely to have a reduced frequency. Large headways are not efficient for passengers, further reducing the lines patronage. This is the exact situation of the Blue Line north of Mockingbird Station. Everything but Downtown Garland (though even this one is a large commuter station) is only a commuter or transfer station, though plans are in place to make Lake Highlands Stations a mixed-use station, and it runs through one-story brick industrial areas north of LBJ and the southern part runs through woodlands and views of single-family house's backyards.
As DART has set it up, the rail system is heavily dependent upon transfers. Most are buses, but even park-n-ride lots count, since folks are transferring from their cars to the rail system. Transfers kill ridership. Unless the destination is downtown Dallas, there are likely at least two transfers. Passengers board a bus, transfer to a rail line, and then transfer to another bus. The idea should be to try to get transfers down to roughly one on average. As more transit-oriented developments come on-line, this will become more likely, but the vast, vast majority of the region will still not be convenient to the rail system.
The funny thing is that a lot of it is outside of DART's control. To keep the systems construction cost lower, and therefore available for federal funds, the freight ROW was the best choice. But from a ridership perspective, consider a subway line down McKinney Avenue to serve Uptown, rather than the subway currently under Central Expressway. Other than Cityplace Tower, and perhaps the shopping center with the Target, Cityplace Station isn't surrounded by conducive land uses. However, what could have been if there was a subway station between Pearl and Fairmount (remember that an urban subway station has entrances at both ends of the station)? This would cover most of the lower portion of Uptown. Another station between Hall and Lemon, covering the upper part of Uptown that Cityplace does so poorly. Another station somewhere between Fitzhugh and Knox would serve the emerging area of Knox-Henderson. To be fair, the Knox-Henderson neighborhood fought a station from being build on the current alignment. Ironically, that area is one of the vast minority of neighborhoods that would be effectively served from a freeway alignment.
In conjunction with the feds cost requirements, the suburban faction also keeps the status quo as we know it. They oppose urban subways, since they fear that increased cost will result in a delay or perhaps no rail line to their areas. That isn't necessarily a bad thing for DART, since studies have statistically shown that suburban locales have lower riders per capita and in real numbers than their urban counterparts. There are a variety of reasons, such as land use favoring autos, lower densities and car-oriented customs. But the funding of the system requires suburban participation.
Is it DART's fault that their rail system is underutilized? I would answer that as partially. The feds funding formula's favor funding construction over operating costs. The state offers very little funding as is, and what is made available is primarily for construction. The regional interests favor the more expansive commuter system, though commuter systems always have lower riders than truly urban ones.
While much fanfare has been made of the TOD's that will remake the area, some developers aren't helping either. DART wanted to run the first phase of the Green Line down Houston Street, rather than the current freight alignment by I-35E. Not only would that have served Victory better, but that part of Uptown would have been much better off. Add that in combination with the McKinney subway proposed above, Uptown, one of the most dense office and residential neighborhoods in Dallas would have been well served by rail, rather than virtually non-existent as it is now.
But even given the hand DART was dealt, only minor changes may have had much bigger ridership impact. There was a former Executive Director at DART, Ted Tedesco, who proposed moving portions of the Green Line near Parkland Hospital and the Red Line in Oak Cliff to street-median running alignments that would have run through the neighborhoods they served (similar to the south Blue Line), but the DART board voted against that proposal, due primarily to suburban and cost interests.
The Orange Line is likely to be a higher utilized suburban rail line, since it is being built in the median of Lake Carolyn Parkway in the Las Colinas Urban Center. However, since the built environment is more suited to a suburban office park, with things like setbacks, poor pedestrian design and high parking ratios, than an urban rail system, the line willl be similar to others in DART's system, promising yet underwhelming. It also requires yet another transfer to the Las Colinas APT, further supressing ridership.
Houston, despite their fumbles, is building excellent urban rail system. At build-out, they are going to have a similar amount of riders on one-third of the track mileage. They did that despite being a typical Sun Belt city like Dallas. Perhaps the main difference is that Houston is by far the majority of Metro, where as Dallas is about half the membership of DART, by population.
In essence, Houston did a much better job in the design phase of figuring out where people are, where they are going to go and how to get them there efficiently. DART did what was easy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)