Off Topic: The Sway of Sports

Allow me to stray from the topic of this blog for the first since I started this in September of 2010. There's some current events that have stuck in my craw and I am going to use the soapbox of my blog to get on my soapbox.

Before I do that, here's some personal background. I formerly worked at a local sports radio station. I left primarily because radio is a dying industry, especially for younger folks like me. There are less and less jobs available (even when the economy was great) for an industry that a lot of people would like to be employed.

However, one of the secondary reasons had to do with what I felt was the misplaced priority that sports played in society. There were several regular callers who could answer any question related to their sports topic of choice, but had no idea about things happening around, whether it was local or national.

My personal philosophy is one of that is rational, based on being informed. I really don't care if you follow sports, but at least know something else about your surrounding world. That's one reason I have some respect for much of the tea party movement. I have little agreement with much of their platform (though not all), but at least for the most part, they are educated about where they stand.

As a kid, I grew up a devoted Dallas Cowboys fan, but while I was at the radio station, it changed. I was exposed to more of the team's inner workings and I just couldn't justify routing for a team that put more emphasis on winning than character. My breaking point was the signing of Terrell Owens. I could no longer justify and support a team I couldn't identify with and came to despise some of its players.

With that in mind, I wish to comment on the Penn State scandal, specifically reactions to the sanctions handed out by the NCAA yesterday. These sanctions were a four year post-season ban, reduction from the 25 yearly scholarships to 15, a $60 million fine and the vacating of wins from the earliest time period when the child sexual abuse was known to the higher ups until this past season.

My first moment of disgust came when I saw a video reaction of the student body. They were distraught. I have seen people react less than crushed when they have been informed of a passing in the family.

I understand that football, especially at certain Universities, can be a big part of student life, but in the end, it is just football. Your degree still means the same, you don't have to work any more or less to receive it, the rest of the student life is the same, the value of your degree hasn't diminished and in the end, IT IS JUST FOOTBALL. Child safety, especially sexual assault, should not ever be put behind any sport.

The program I was watching interviewed several students, and aside from one reasonable learner, the basic commentary was that it wasn't fair. They are right, the victims who were abused because Sandusky was able to use the name of Penn State as a cover to minimize their feelings didn't have a say. When the higher-ups found out, they were more concerned with the football program's reputation than stopping future victimizations and seeking justice for those who had already been violated. Yes, it isn't fair.

As to their point about punishing the current program for the past ones transgressions, I have a few thoughts. While I do understand their point, it is irrelevant in the long run, because that is how punishments work. Example, when I was a child, I was supposed to have a sleepover. I violated a rule and my mom would not let me go to my friend's house that night. By the students (and many others) logic, it wasn't my friend's fault, so I shouldn't be punished and should have gone to that sleepover.

Many times, there will be negative consequences for those not involved. Go to a football coach during two-a-days and say you shouldn't have to run because your teammate made the mistake, not you. See how that works out.

In some ways, it is precisely because those who didn't have a say are being punished that it will stop it again. Going back to that coaching analogy, the player guilty of making a mistake that causes his teammates to run will be a bit more wise in that situation again. That is exactly what the NCAA is looking to accomplish.

The point I am trying to get at is simple. The NCAA couldn't sit idly by and do nothing, even though Paterno is dead and the Athletic Director and President are gone. That would allow future perpetrators a greater leverage, since the NCAA didn't do anything now. Yes, they are right that the current coach didn't do anything, but sadly for them, Penn State was the first one to do it, or heaven forbid, was just the first to get caught. If it stops future abuse, then I am all for it, and anyone else really should be. Preventing child sexual abuse shouldn't see anyone on the fence.

And in another way, the students reaction just really shows why this happened in the first place. These students are still putting the football program above almost everything else. These children were abused because the University worshiped that team. That obviously hasn't changed.

Here's a relevant quote from Mark Emmert, NCAA president:

These events should serve as a call to every single school and athletics department to take an honest look at its campus environment and eradicate the 'sports are king' mind-set that can so dramatically cloud the judgement of educators.

I still think some of those with a direct link to Penn State are missing the message.

Are they shocked that their beloved program was complacent in raping kids or that they can't play in a bowl game?

The Dallas Morning News published several stories in today's edition, the most recent after the sanctions were announced. One story's main topic was the $60 million fine won't hurt Penn St too much because 1) it will be paid out over 4 years and 2) boosters will step up and donations will rise.

I don't have too much of a problem with increased donations. However, how about you donate the funds to a charity that supports or aides child victims of sexual assault? By not doing that, it sends a quiet, indirect message that you condone this type of action.

But Bob Harrison, Class of 1962, booster and Goldman Sachs employers doesn't just want to send a quiet message. From the DMN:

Frustrated that the NCAA based its sanctions on what he considers a deeply flawed report by former FBI Director Louis Freeh, Harrison's support for the school and the athletic department has not wavered. And he believes he's not the only booster who feels that way.

"I would say a high percentage supporting the athletic program will continue to," said Harrison, who worked for Goldman Sachs for 28 years.

The last thing I would do if I were in any way related to Penn St would be to criticize the Freeh report. There were concrete e-mails in there that show Paterno, as well as the AD, President and the campus Police Chief, covering this up. Their big plan to stop Sandusky from abusing kids in the future? Ban him from the campus. Not report it to the proper authorities, not go to the press, not file charges, but basically say you don't have to stop, but you get to get the heck up out of here.

To criticize anything in the that report, which is based on these concrete communiques, is to blindly follow your team and condone the sexual assault of children. I don't mind you supporting your team, but who is supporting the victims? Who is ensuring this doesn't happen again? Who is working to change the the culture so that it errs on the side of caution rather than wins? I can tell you it isn't the students, and it isn't Bob Harrison. BTW, why do you think the AP writer decided to include Harrison's employer in the story?

Putting sports first is a common problem in our society. My stance on stadiums is clear, yet the public votes for them with the winning margin almost certainly from some voters support their team. Domestic disturbance calls for law enforcement are always higher during major sporting events like the Super Bowl. Think to your workplace. What is the most common water cooler talk? Sports usually, especially around bigger events.

Before resuming planning and urban development talk, let me close this post with this quote from Emmert.

One of the grave dangers stemming from our love of sports is that the sports themselves can become 'too big to fail' - or even too big to challenge. The result can be an erosion of academic values that are replaced by the value of hero worship and winning at all costs.

It seems despite this crime and penalty, some at Penn State still haven't reset their priorities. If they can't put the cessation or even punishment of sexual assault on kids ahead of the football program, what can they?

Managing Transit within Individual Fiefdoms

Almost a year ago today, I discussed how some area suburbs were trying to increase transit options in their municipalities that do not currently have service.

In March, Mesquite opened an express route from their downtown connecting to the Lawnview Station on the Green Line.

However, Allen and McKinney have seen nothing concrete from their efforts yet. Monday's Metro section in the Dallas Morning News contained a story about why there has been a delay for those northern suburbs.

The short version is one of my concerns about this piecemeal approach. DART has inhibitions about approving a program that pumps non-service-area riders into the first station of the Red Line, forcing others further in to stand on the Downtown-Dallas-bound trains. Those others are also more likely to reside in a DART service area city and therefore are also more likely to pay the sales tax. As it stands, DART will receive nothing from the two suburbs.

Sadly, in the current system (political, not infrastructural), the only solution I see is an increase in capacity. But again, that has costs associated and who pays what will be at the heart of this matter.

As I mentioned in the previous post, this is one of the many drawbacks with a transit system's service area being decided by individual cities and paid for with their sales tax allocations. Until a fundamental change totally re-designs the way we fund, operate and administer transit service in the region, this will be more common as the region grows outward. More and more outlying suburbs will try to find a way to keep their sales tax and still fund transit and the current payers will look out for their interests first.

In the end, it is the residents who will have the drawbacks.

Retail Targets for Downtown Dallas

There is a prevalent idea around these parts about just what kind of retail needs to exist in the urban core. The basic premise is that Downtown Dallas can't compete with the suburbs on a one-to-one basis. So, in order to attract customers, the retail and restaurant offerings have to be unique, and not available anywhere else in the region.

This line of thinking makes a lot of sense and I don't disagree with it entirely. The thinking is that someone won't pass by three Gap's to get to one located Downtown. However, I do believe this is an overly simplistic, and in some cases archaic, view.

First, this assumes that everyone lives far away from Downtown. As more and more people live in the urban core, this is less and less and issue. People who live in the core have similar desires and consumption habits as their affluent suburban counterparts.

The idea of only destination retail Downtown also suffers from a lack of context when it comes to urban design. Classic urban design areas have withstood the test of time, literally many millennia. Meanwhile, the typical shopping mall and strip center have a lifespan of only several decades. On top of that, preferences for building and patronizing these places has fallen over the years, in favor of...more urban style developments. So for some folks, they'd rather drive past all the other Old Navy's or Olive Garden's. So, if from that angle, is it reasonable to assume that "average" retail offerings would be appealing in Downtown?

An obvious flaw with destination retail is the price point. Urban areas are supposed to be all-inclusive. If the retail and restaurant products require a hefty penny, that excludes all lower-class folks and most middle-class people as well. If what we are encouraging actually encourages people to not patronize the area, reducing its vibrancy, isn't that fundamentally backwards?

This is one of the main reasons, especially outside of the urban design, that Victory struggled.

One of the biggest impediments, once again excluding current urban design, is the transportation system. There are three conflicting issues that make Downtown Dallas inconvenient.

1) The city's urban core was built prior to the automobile. This meant the urban area was based around walking and then transit (specifically the streetcar). Even after the automobile was introduced and into the first couple of decades of the 20th century, the design stayed steady. Therefore, most everything within a three mile radius of downtown is still based on this mode.

2) In an effort to modernize Downtown for the car, planners and traffic engineers shoehorned in a freeway system with wide roads to facilitate travel to the freeways, decimating parts of the urban environment. However, these additions did not make Downtown auto-friendly, further complicating the local transportation system. It is no longer as transit-friendly, the auto additions alienated the pedestrian and Downtown is still not as car-friendly as the suburbs, which were built with cars as the priority.

3) The transportation system helped foster in a transition from mixed-use to office park. This saw large scale evacuation of a varied retail landscape in Downtown.

So, as it stands right now, Downtown is inconvenient to drive to, taking transit is inconsistent and walking came be uncomfortable. Tell me why any business would locate here?

I initially started pondering this idea when I thought of just how many unique places that were opened in redeveloped buildings had closed: a wine-crafter in the Davis Building, several versions of a club in the old bank vault within the Davis, a furniture store in the Davis, a knick-knack shop in the Kirby, a clothier in DP&L, and numerous restaurants not found anywhere else. So if the thought is we can't do more common retail and unique retail can't stay open, what are we to do? The answer in just a moment.

But first, I don't want this to come off like I am pro-chain and anti-local, though in a region as large as this those labels aren't so concise. Some of my family's most common destinations are local. However, there are large amounts of people who don't prefer something that they don't know.

I think the answer, then, has to be that Downtown include some of everything, especially if we as a city can remedy the transit problem. If more of the retail locates along the transit mall in downtown, it becomes really convenient.

Think back to our modern shopping areas. There is usually a mix of destination and common retail. Downtown Dallas was the original outdoor shopping mall. If we can reintroduce that proper mix of retail, I believe can be again.

The False Promise of Signal Timing

Oftentimes, opponents of transit will offer where they say transit money should be invested. These include things like capacity increases, new roads or highways and programs like intelligent transportation systems or other things like signal timing to reduce delays caused at stop lights. It is that last one that I want to dissect.

First, let me say what I think should be obvious in this scenario. If it were as easy as the pundits insist, it would have been done already. I have railed against the power traffic engineers have in planning our neighborhoods, communities and cities. This is a common tool they have. But there is a reason every street can't be timed.

In an urban area, the distance between intersections is very short. This is a big reason why traffic engineers love one-way streets in urban settings. It gives them a measure of control over traffic flow.

One-ways are also preferred for timing because cross streets that have traffic flow onto those streets can be controled by traffic lights. Turning from a one-way to a one-way is no different than a right on red. On two-way streets, a left turn has to cross a divergent traffic stream. This time spent waiting reduces traffic flow, which is a violation of traffic engineers thinking. That is also why there are turn lanes, but in urban areas, where real estate is scarce, that is not as easy to do.

There are other micellaneous factors as well. One of my favorites is a human behavior, and unable to be solved in a traffic engineers handbook of formulas. A common example, if a visitor is new to an area and completely unfamiliar with the surroundings, they will naturally drive slower. This conflicts with the commuter who drives in every weekday and is trying to get to the office as fast as they can. The commuter will change lanes to pass the slower driver and lane changing has proven to slow traffic. All this has a negative impact on timing because it isn't measurable.

I'll use Downtown Dallas as an example. I'll start with the Elm/Main/Commerce corridor. Elm and Commerce are opposite one-ways and Main is in the middle with a lane in each direction. We'll worry about the intersections with the north-south streets later.

Map of Downtown Dallas. I'll reference this and add crude Microsoft Paint edits. 

Starting with Elm, running west, it is easy to time them, it is one way. Taking the speed limit as the base, it is easy to measure distance and time and change the lights accordingly. It is easy to set how long the lights cycle through the green, yellow, red cycle. There are no conflicts at this point with other streets.

In a similar fashion, starting on the west side of Commerce and running east, the lights can be timed.

Both Elm and Commerce are now timed, and traffic flows freely.

No let's add a few cross streets. I'll use St. Paul and Ervay, since they are similar to Elm and Commerce. The timing here would begin at the point of intersection and work out. So at Ervay and Commerce, to Ervay and Elm, timing is measured, then using the same method described earlier, the rest of the lights are set down the street. This is repeated on St. Paul. The difficulty is low in getting each intersection timed

So far so good. All these lights are timed.

Now comes the impossible part. Main Street is two-way. If a timed direction is set at both ends of the street, running toward the other end, sooner or later the timings are going to meet. In part because the block dimensions are different, but also because we have two converging directions, Main can never be timed for both directions.

The two converging directions make timing signals virtually impossible on an urban two-way street.

Now to further hammer home the point, let's add a north-south, two-way street to the mix. The problem here is amplified from the previous example. Now we have an intersection that isn't just a one-way to a one-way, but we have a full four directions. If we had a hard time timing one street with two directions, how can another work? Which direction takes priority?

Here's the problem intersection, with no ability to time every intersection on both streets.

Lastly, let's add up just the six streets we looked at. The four one-way streets were well-timed, but the two two-ways were not. What happens though, when we add those two two-ways to the already timed intersections?

Just these six streets, without counting the others in Downtown, have no hope of being timed.

If all the other streets are taken into account, with their varying directions, different dimensions and different access points, there will never be any true timed streets. The best we can get is what we have now, some that are, others that aren't.

The last point I want to leave you with is this, if greater and faster traffic is bad for the urban environment, as I have discussed in numerous posts on this blog, why do we want to increase capacity and speeds on urban streets. Shouldn't the idea be to slow down traffic, thereby making pedestrians feel safer and therefore more likely to have a vibrant urban core?

Dallas Freeway Division, a Pictorial Tour

Prior to the posts at the beginning of the month, I just assumed (you know what that means) that it was readily accepted that freeways were a divider. Certainly, even among the highway supporters, planners know this. And if you surround yourself with similar viewpoints, there is just no way of seeing the other side.

I was taken aback when Michael Lindenberger, the DMN transportation writer wrote the following on his blog page about my Trinity Parkway post:

2.  ”There are no counterpoints, no rebuttals, no yeah buts, freeways divide the urban landscape. There is a clear delineation between Downtown and Deep Ellum, Downtown and Uptown, Downtown and The Cedars, Downtown and the Industrial/Riverfront Blvd area. Even Knox-Henderson, a singularly defined neighborhood, is clearly divided between east (Henderson St) and west (Knox St).”

The toll road, he says will divide Dallas over again.

That’s a hard one to swallow if you ask me. I mean, the north and south fo the city are divided alright — but it’s the river and the vast, vacant floodway that does the dividing, not a new six-lane highway within that natural barrier.

Of course, the if his point is that the road will divide downtown from the recreational areas planned for the floodway, or from the river itself, he may be on firmer ground. (Turns out, that’s exactly the point he is making, as he makes clear in a more recent post. You can read it here to decide whether you buy it.)




Now he doesn't come right out and say I don't think that freeways divide Downtown from the rest of the urban core, but there is enough gray area in there that I decided to go out with my camera and snap photos of various angles and viewpoints to illuststrate why and how freeways divide urban areas.

The first batch of pictures are taken with an eye towards the macro-view. In the sky deck of Chase Tower, one can see until the horizons ends. It is a great way to see the freeways effects from the bird's eye view.

This bit of Central Expressway connects US-75 with I-45.

The wide swath of land needed for this freeway has negative effects on Deep Ellum on the left and Downtown on the right. This extended bit of land is not a pedestrian-friendly walk. Also notice how the much of the land directly next to the freeway is for parking, another attack on the comfort level of the pedestrian.

Woodall Rogers east of Pearl and north of the Arts District.

Once again, the freeway makes a clear delineation between both sides of its border. On the left is the Winspear Opera House. On the Woodall Rogers side of that building is a wall and loading dock. Next to the Winspear is the Booker T. Washington High School of the Performing Arts, where on Woodall Rogers side is another parking lot. Across the street from the school is a full block-sized parking lot, though it is in the development plan to be a tower I don't know the design or setbacks, but don't suspect it to open up to the freeway). On the Uptown side, it is more of the same.

Woodall Rogers and the new deck park.

I like this picture because it shows that at some level, someone in the City gets it. Why build such an expensive park, unless their is some extreme positive, or in this case, a positive to mitigate an negative?

I added this one to show the upclose view from above. It is hard to determine from a cursory glance that a freeway is under here. None of the other pictures can make that claim, because that is the first thing that is noticed when viewing them. Finding the freeway has been easy until this past one.

Knowing what I know, I could tell from the picture (the circular exit ramp at the lower right, the drive-through bank adjacent to the park in the middle toward the top, the blank wall of the Nasher Sculpture Center near the lower left and the garage entrance and surface devoted to the car at the DMA) that at the bare minimum, this spine was an auto-throughway of some kind. Design issues aside, this area doesn't "look" like something runs through it. Panning out a bit will reveal the end of the park and the resumption of the freeway, but at this point above, there are fewer negative spillovers.

At the pedestrian level, it is much worse. In some ways, having an identifier is human nature. One of the first places people look at in regional maps is Downtown, since it is the bullseye of the hub and spoke system or DFW airport, since it is so massive. How it is used from a personal perspective is much more important, though, while also much less identifiable. In some ways, this gets to one of my main critiques about Downtown Dallas. Is great from a distance, but once inside, there is a lot that is lacking, just a bunch of pieces shouting for attention without working with the other parts.

Under Central Expressway, just south of Elm Street looking north.

Were it not for Univision Center on the right or the Hart Furniture Building on the left, there would nothing even close to resembling an urban area from this viewpoint. All the columns, streets, overhead noise, etc. are pedestrian suppressors. Add the fact that this is only a pass through, since nothing here would actually generate any pedestrian activity, and it is no wonder pedestrians are a rare sight here.

Elm and Olive looking east.

A garage on the right, parking lots on the left and a freeway straight ahead. What is there to walk to? There are a smattering of one-two story buildings just past the garage, but nothing to compensate for the huge hole of nothing that the freeway, parking lots and garage generate. Therefore, pedestrians are not as common as they should be if this were a vibrant urban area.

Main Street just before Ceasar Chavez, looking east.

On this part of Main Street, the urban environment is a bit better than the previous picture. There are no huge swaths of open parking, the built environment goes to within a block of the freeway on both the Downtown and Deep Ellum sides and there is a good bit of on-street parking. So why is the area still devoid of human life? There is no critical mass of urban amenities like you will find further in (picture coming) on Main St. Instead, the freeway generates no pedestrian activity and the remaining sides don't have enough activity to overcome that difficiency.

Main Street just west of Central Expressway looking east.

If this picture doesn't make your feel uncomfortable, then you have nerves of steel. Both sides of Main Street have a freeway ramp, as opposed to one for both Elm and Commerce and none for Canton. I don't think I have to spend a lot of time on this topic because I don't think crossing freeway ramps is on any list of recreational activities.

Commerce and Ceasar Chavez looking east.

 Once again, there is development within a block of the freeway. But no people.

Also, have you noticed that in the last four pictures, it is hard to see the other side. That is crucial to a pedestrian experience. To the user, it is clear the end of the urban area is the freeway. To a user, it is clear that there are no people, signifying a do not enter sign to the brain.

Canton St looking east.

This one is more of the same. However, upon closer inspection, these buildings are built fairly close to the freeway. But, they aren't positive for the urban area, because...

Looking at the edge of the Camden Farmers Market, Canton and Good-Latimer looking west.

Camden Farmers Market, Canton and Good-Latimer looking southwest.

These pictures illustrate the back nature of designing by a freeway. Only one building looks inviting toward the street and from this corner. The rest are a blank walls, fences, garages or sparsely populated windows on the walls. Unless it is by car, very few would willingly approach this property from this vantage.

There was an attempt of some kind to mitigate some negatives of the freeway. A dog park was put under part of Central Expressway, hoping to help link Deep Ellum and Downtown.

Bark Park, under Central Expressway between Commerce and Canton.

If I take this one from the point of it is better than what was there and accept that this area will never be anything but a freeway, I like what was done. If I change that approach and say an urban area should be _____, then this area definately underwhelms.

Because the rest of the urban area still reflects being next to the freeway, this park is an island. The Camden apartments are right across, but as the pictures reflect, they don't open up to this area. Directly adjacent are streets on three sides and the back wall of a produce company.

Bark Park's west side.

Nothing says inviting like metal siding.

This park doesn't really link to its surroundings. Unlike what should happen in an urban area, this park and surrounding land uses feel like independent bits of their parts of the city, ignoring the other adjacent parts. This is directly attributable to the negative impacts of the freeway. Main and Market Streets are the exact opposite.

While this park is used, it is one of the lower attended dog parks in the City's park system. There are still negative aspects that freeways produce, noise, pollution and uneasiness the primary ones, that don't help boost use. The other sad fact is despite being in the middle of the Deep Ellum and Downtown border, very, very few actually walk here. Because the surrounding area is built more for the car, most drive, even those that live in the Camden property next door.

 Now take the pictures from above, showcasing the fragmented urban areas that the freeways spawned and compare them to the Main Street or Market Street corridors.

Main and St. Paul, looking west.

There is no obvious end to the Main Street District while inside it. In this picture, it seems to go on for a bit, while the end of the view corridor is bookended nicely by the Crowley/Sterrit complex at the far west side. For the first time in these pictures, we can actually see pedestrians. Here, unlike near the freeway, there is actually a reason for them to be here.

Market and Elm, looking north.

 Market Street shares many of the same pedestrian amenities as Main, which is also why they are the most walkable streets in downtown.

Now unlike the park scenario, there really is no building on either of these streets (at least the vibrant parts) that command attention. Each function well with the other, showcasing how the sun of the parts are really greater than the whole.

Now, I don't want this to sound like freeways are the only bad urban divider.

Dealey Plaza, looking west.

Here, the old rail bridge, which is currently used by DART trains, the Trinity Railway Express and Union Pacific freight trains, is clearly a divider between Downtown and the Riverfront area. I-35 is also in view in the picture, further dividing the areas. Dealey Plaza, thanks to a presidential assination, is the most visited spot in Dallas, but no spillover goes to Riverfront. The rail bridge and freeway see to that.

Ironically, it is fact that makes one of the negative aspects for the Trinity Parkway, dividing Downtown from the Trinity Park, a moot point. It is already divided. Anyone originating from Downtown going to the park is almost guaranteed to drive. Some may take transit in the form of a bus or future streetcar, but walking is all but guaranteed to be non-existent.

However, unlike freeways, other infrastructure investments, if designed right, don't have to be dividers.

West End Station at Market and Pacific, looking east.

I took this picture of West End Station because it is the most used station in the DART system. Roughly 20,000 trips are generated to and from this point. Yet, as the picture shows, both sides of the station work in concert with each other. The new residential building on the left opens up directly to the street and rail station, as well as Lamar and Ross Streets. On the right is a historic warehouse waiting to be renovated. But, unlike the transportation investments made toward freeways, this area is far from adversely affected. Instead of looking inward and putting their backs to the street, this area is the reverse.
I could have easily taken a picture of the streetcar line in Uptown and said the same thing. It helps unify both sides, which freeways by themselves can never do.

Why the False Link between Stadiums and Economic Development Has Staying Power

My hide is chapped. Long time readers will know why if they happened to see the front page headline on Tuesday's Dallas Morning News. Above the fold, the paper read:

Arlington

Pinch-hitting for weak economy,

Rangers score for city, merchants

I bristled, then became introspective. My stance on this site is well known (and known and known). Is there a something new that I have missed. Have those who researched the topic over the vast many years missed something that Staff Writer Jeff Mosier has found out? Surely with such a dominant headline, there must be some hard hitting numbers and examinations of spending and tax data that really hits that idea (ahem) out of the park.

Turns out, no...not really.

Here's a sample of the lack of any actual data, complete with correlation being confused for causation.

Though it is difficult to quantify (emphasis mine), baseball is giving some businesses and Arlington's economy a noticeable boost.

This was the second paragraph. Turns out, there would be very little quantification, and what was there surely didn't even have a waffling positive response that Arlington is benefiting from the Rangers.

Arlington officials said they have not looked closely at the economic impact of the team this year. Sales tax payments lag, so numbers for April and May won't be available until this summer.

Some facts would have been nice for such a prominently displayed article. Funnily enough, this was the closest Mosier's article would come to an actual fact.

Arlington Mayor Robert Cluck said that no comprehensive studies are planned but that the city finance staff has estimated the economic impact of Ranger's games this year at $1 million each. He said that the city is on pace to break $50 million in total sales tax revenue for the first time, with the help of the Rangers.

Yes, of course no studies are ordered, they never are after the fact. Why study something that exists and doesn't need to be debunked. It is easier to turn a blind eye to these things and trumpet the perceived good news.

As for the math, at 81 homes games, the economic sales tax generated for Arlington, using Cluck's numbers, would be $6.7 million this year or 13% of the city's total, more if there is playoff games.

But, leading words like "for the first time," suggest that this is ground breaking. Prior to the football stadium's construction, Arlington was near the mid-$40 million collection range. Then the economy crashed. Now that the economy is rebounding locally, complete with unusual inflation during a recession, is it really that big of a surprise?

The rebounding sales tax numbers of an economy on the mend will be a common thread throughout the rest, illustrating why assuming an effect from correlation is a bad idea.

Even without a comprehensive study, Arlington Convention & Visitors Bureau officials can see the Rangers' effect on hotel bookings. Figures collected by the hotel research firm  STR Global found that the number of room nights sold  in Arlington in the first three months of the year was up 5 percent from the same period in 2011. The number of room nights increased 11 percent for April, when the Rangers season started.

Burress said said room rates also increase at the beginning of baseball season, which added to the economic impact.

So room nights are increasing in Arlington huh? Did Mosier check to see if Arlington is the anomaly or is it happening elsewhere? The answer is yes, Dallas, Fort Worth, Plano, Denton, etc. are all seeing increases in room occupancy. The economy is better, therefore hotels will do better. Notice it didn't say STR Global attributes this increase to the Rangers attendees.

As for the April spike, that also happens to coincide with the beginnings of summer travel season. In Arlington, it happens every year. Senior trips happen in which Arlington is the destination (of which the Rangers are an attraction to be sure, but not the only), graduations (UTA students walk at the beginning of May, as does the four high schools within the municipal limits), Memorial Day, etc. all happen around this time.

Where Mosier could have made his point is that they are up 11 percent when the Rangers play at home. When they are on the road, it is only 3 percent. That would be the beginnings of a causation. As it stands, there is no comparison, no depth, no factual numbers to back any claim up.

Later in the article, he cites James Shandor, the GM of the Arlington Hilton, who spoke about two guests, one from Seattle, one from Iowa. They were in town for business and then went to a Rangers game. Shandor said the guests couldn't wait to go to another Rangers game.

In the end, that means nothing. They weren't in town for the Rangers, so that is useless in proving the stadium as a positive. Then, how many times has any person on the planet said they would do something and then didn't? I said I would have the laundry folded by now, but it still sits in the dryer. Did they mean return to Arlington just to see a game later this year? Go to another tomorrow while they are still in town? Next year when they return for the same business trip? Ultimately is is anecdotal, and therefore useless. Setting public policy on hearsay is a bad idea.

Terry Clower, director of the Center of Economic Development and Research at the University of North Texas, said regular-season Rangers games probably wouldn't have a large effect on the regional economy. Much of the spending, he said, is from people in the Dallas area.

Clower said previous research even questioned the impact on Arlington. One of his graduate students conducted research about a dozen years ago and concluded that the Rangers made little difference in the city's sales tax revenue.

In the second to last column, he fianlly gets to the heart of the matter. Disposable income will be spent. The Rangers aren't generating new revenue, just redistributing it. It may work out for Arlington, if Dallas people, who would have spent it in their area, instead spend money there.

However, what is ignored is what is tax-exempt, which is virtually everything directly related to the stadium. Did you buy a hot dog? Arlington sees $0.00 in tax revenue (neither does the state for that matter). It is tax-exempt. Same thing with alcohol, ticket sales, stadium- or owner-owned parking lots, gift shops, etc. With stadiums, the vast majority of attendees are get in, get out. There is little ancillary spending. Why does the area get so jammed immediately before and after the event? Because that is all people are going to go do or see. Ultimately, the region actually loses out, since they get less revenue as awhole then they would have otherwise.

In the next paragraph, though, Mosier had to add this caveat.

Clower said he's not sure if that's true any longer.

"That was a different team and different attendance numbers," he said.

 So Mosier rebutted a researched fact with conjecture. BTW, the attendance number the Rangers are breaking these past couple of seasons were set about a dozen years ago. They are breaking, not shattering them. So therefore I am skeptical there is much difference, especially when inflation is factored in, unless you are the owner of the team.

Pam Dawson, mall manager of Lincoln Square, the closest large shopping center to Rangers Ballpark, said this year is unlike any she has seen. Ridership on the center's shuttle buses to Rangers games has approximately doubled from last year, when the team set an attendance record. The buses this year have averaged 500 to 600 fans, peaking at nearly 800.

"People are coming earlier, and they are in a good mood and happy to spend money," Dawson said.

She said she spent 2 1/2 hours in a meeting with the Rangers and city officials last month to discuss how to get fans to the ballpark faster.

Dawson, who called the Rangers "America's Team," said that as demand continues to increase, she is considering requiring fans to make a purchase at one of the stores to be eligible to park there for baseball games.

So what does this ultimately mean? Nothing. Is anyone surprised that people are taking advantage of free parking and a free shuttle bus? She said they are in a mood to spend money, but then why require a store purchase to park there? Shouldn't they already be doing that if they are in a good mood to spend? Once again, anecdotal evidence means virtually nothing.

In fact, overall, there was nothing with hard facts. The $50 million and $1 million number that Cluck threw out were estimates. No quotes from a business owner or hotel operator that said our numbers are X when the team is in town and Y when it isn't. No breakdown of what the economic dollars are being spent toward followed with a comparison of previous years. Just some lazy estimates, anecdotal quotes and hometown cheerleading. He also ignores that if there is increases, could there be another cause. If north Arlington is up in sales tax revenue and south Arlington is flat, then certainly a case could be made, but we don't see any of that.

This is part of why the public perception exists that these are good deals for the public. I took a critical eye, but if someone who wasn't versed in the subject looked at it, saw all these claims, they would conclude it has to be a great thing. However, looking at each individual claim in depth reveals they are worth near nothing. 0+0+.5+0+.5+0+0 is so low to be worthless.

As has been concluded over and over again, the only true beneficiary is the team and/or owner. The most expensive bars are in Uptown. The Rangers sell their beer for more. However, unlike in Uptown, the Rangers keep all the money, since none of it is taxable.

The other benefit they receive, and often overlooked, is the power of government, primarily in eminent domain. They save a ton, and sometimes more than the actual monetary contribution from the city to build their stadium, by having this power, claiming it is for the public good.

I can't help but think this was a story that was written when it was assigned. Only the quotes needed to be gathered and the words typed. Everything that was introduced as fact has existed as a reason before and is still as flimsy as ever. And like arguments and stories before this one, the only thing that was missing were actual numbers, facts and reasons.

Teardown as a Freeway Mitigation

A week ago, I posted a brief tour of various cities negative freeway effects. Some of those cities have instituted a few mitigation programs to minimize or eliminate their effects. Freeway demolition is a tool that is sparingly used, but as freeways approach the end of their usable lifespan, it is receiving a lot more attention.

A construction disaster collapsed the West Side Highway in New York. By policy, Portland lost Harbor Drive and Milwaukee demoed the Park East Freeway. An earthquake helped remove the Embarcadero Freeway. New Orleans is considering demoing the Claiborne Expressway (I-10) and back in New York, the Sheridan Expressway (I-895) is facing an uncertain future about its existence.

The one common thread through these examples is the relatively short freeway lengths. These were small spurs through the urban environment. However, another city may become the greatest freeway removal example to those promoting the urban benefits.

In the fourth example I gave in the case study post above, Baltimore's I-83, the Jones Falls Expressway, as a perfect example of an urban divider, separating the city from its parks. Well, turns out there is a movement afoot to remove it.

There are two options mentioned. The first was the typical stub. Less that a mile of the roughly 10-mile long freeway would meet the wrecking ball. For the map-inclined folks like myself, that is from Fayetteville St to Chase St in Downtown Baltimore.

Since it isn't Dallas related, I likely wouldn't have posted this if it was just that portion, especially since this proposal (I even think it is too early to call it a proposal) is still in the infant stage. What I want to post is that for the first time, an entire freeway is being talked about for removal.

In a sixty-page PowerPoint entitled "Fallsway: A New Downtown Neighborhood for Baltimore, MD," Edison shows the taking down of the JFX as key to redeveloping an area that would reach east to the blighted Old Town neighborhood (and beyond that to Hopkins Hospital) and west to Mount Vernon and the Downtown business district.

Johns Hopkins Health Care Center is at the complete opposite end of the 10-mile highway. That is huge!


The before shot. Note the clear deliniation of either side of the highway. There isn't a much clearer example of a freeway dividing the urban landscape. Add the fact that it is elevated and the pedestrian sure feels the division.

There is a directly parallel light rail line (MTA's Blue Line) six miles from Downtown. It is less than a mile away for the rest of the route. The only area this rail line doesn't serve that the freeway does is the hospital, but a bus route does (poor frequency would have to be addressed) and connects to both the Blue Line and the Heavy Rail Line that is color coded green. This would help transit use soar in this area.



The after. While there is still a clear visual seperation, the addition of parks and a taming of the street, not to mention the addition of urban buildings, will make the area near-seamless to the urban user.

Downtown's built environment would be helped out by either proposal, but just the idea of tackling a freeway removal in an outer area is virgin territory. It is just in the beginning of preliminary talks, but if this were to happen, the momentum of freeway removal will be huge.