Fort Worthology » Infrastructure

Smart Pro-Streetcar Op-Ed Shows Up in Star-Telegram

Kevin Buchanan — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 15:17:44 +0000

A pro-streetcar op-ed has appeared in the Star-Telegram. Written by Mike Brennan, planner at Fort Worth South, Inc., the op-ed lays out the case for the streetcar in well-reasoned terms, including directly taking on the criticisms from both the Star-Telegram Editorial Board and certain members of the City Council. An excerpt:

It’s not “political spin” or “flowery language” to cite the documented economic effects of a modern streetcar system; there is irrefutable empirical evidence from streetcar cities, including those visited by council members and other city leaders two years ago.

To many, before this discussion started, a return of the streetcar sounded more like a tourism gimmick than a game-changing modern transit system. Two years into the discussion, however, most of us actively working to revitalize our central city would never call the proposed modern streetcar a gimmick. We have seen how the competitive advantages of walkable, transit-oriented urbanism have returned and how modern streetcar systems are transforming central cities into sustainable economic engines.

Read the rest of the op-ed here.

Charlotte Observer – Streetcar is Sound Strategy, not Silly Frill

Kevin Buchanan — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 16:15:47 +0000

Couldn’t help but notice this editorial from the Charlotte Observer’s editorial board on their own modern streetcar project. Note the similarities in the issues, right down to the FTA grant win – and contrast the Observer’s forward-looking, hopeful, and progress-oriented attitude with that displayed by the Star-Telegram’s editorial board in their own misleading anti-streetcar editorials.

Our peer cities are getting it. It would be nice if the Star-Telegram and certain City Council members didn’t seem to be OK with Fort Worth falling behind in competition with our peer cities for the hearts, minds, and dollars of the future by trying to put a stop to our own project.

Long-term, Charlotte’s vision must be to lure denser, more cost-effective development to areas with already-built infrastructure. Low-density sprawl sucks up large sums of public money to extend sewer lines, roads and public services over wider expanses.

The streetcar may look like a frill. It isn’t. It’s a fiscally sound investment, and part of a prudent long-range strategy.

Near Southside Bike Parking Improvement Plan Progress

Kevin Buchanan — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 14:47:33 +0000

You may recall that not long ago, we announced a major new bike parking improvement plan for the Near Southside. This project is near and dear to our hearts, because we’re directly part of it – the Near Southside Bike Parking Improvement Plan is a joint venture of Fort Worth South, Inc., Trinity Bicycles, and Fort Worthology.

We’ve selected numerous sites across the Near Southside for a dramatic increase in available bike parking. Phase One is funded and the city’s already on-board, and now we’ve made some more progress.

We met recently with our contractor, Fort Construction, to do measurements for the installation. Trinity Bicycles made a template of the rack mounts, and we chalked out the dimensions of the rack groupings, using the sidewalk in front of Spiral Diner as our test case. As mentioned before, the racks that will be installed are simple “staple” racks, more cost-effective and more immediately recognizable as bike racks than the long-standing Texas-star “lollipop” racks previously installed by the city.

While we’re not completely ready to announce how many racks will be installed in Phase One total, it’s looking like our initial estimates are going to be pretty close, so there is going to be a huge increase in bike parking for the Near Southside. The desire, subject to final figures and site-specific considerations, is to have a minimum of three racks at each location, and up to five racks in higher-demand spots. That’ll mean parking for 6-10 bikes per location, at a wide range of popular Near Southside destinations. We’re also going to save the lollipop racks and are looking into using them to fill out some lower-demand parts of the district later on.

With our contractor on-board, we’re also starting to order the racks themselves, and are in process of getting permits with the city. We’re hoping that it won’t be much longer before you’ll start to see some great new bike parking infrastructure going up all over the Near Southside.

We’re really thrilled to be a part of this project, and can’t wait to show how things progress.

Star-Telegram Publishes Misinformation-Filled Editorial on Streetcar Grant – A Fort Worthology Editorial

Kevin Buchanan — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 15:30:02 +0000

Note: in a sense, everything here is an “editorial,” I suppose. This one’s admittedly much more acerbic than our usual fare, though – hence the additional qualifier. Ye be warned.

The saga of the Fort Worth Modern Streetcar project’s recent Federal Transit Administration grant win continues. Now, the Star-Telegram has published an editorial from their Editorial Board urging the city to leave the grant money on the table, and questioning the need for a streetcar.

Now, there are plenty of questions about the streetcar project that need to be answered – nobody’s denying that. We’ve got some of the best transit planners in the world – HDR, Inc. – working on them right now. What’s not helpful is the city’s major newspaper’s editorial board publishing such an error-and-misinformation-filled screed against the project while it’s still in its formative stages.

Let’s go through this editorial’s points and see what we can find that’s wrong with it:

On Jan. 26, the City Council authorized an application for the grant. Council members Danny Scarth, Carter Burdette and Jungus Jordan objected, saying the city should research the idea before committing to it.
They were right.

We have been researching it. We’ve been researching it, in one form or another, since the 1970s (as a commenter on last Friday’s post pointed out). We are researching it even further as we speak. There’s an effort by certain council members (a few of which are named above) and certain city leaders (such as people at the S-T’s Ed. Board) to paint this as some sort of “rush” into a streetcar project, when it’s anything but.

And since we’re actively researching it right now, with extremely talented planners, it’s misleading to suggest otherwise and irresponsible of the S-T’s editorial board (can’t be any more specific, since there’s no byline) for them to suggest that there hasn’t been a ton of research and planning already.

(By the way, there was something in Friday’s S-T article about the grant, a quote from Councilman Jungus Jordan that our planning efforts to this point have been by “laymen,” which is just flat-out wrong. The previous streetcar study before the current HDR one, for example, was put together by a group that included professional city planners and developers.)

The city’s share of this project would be $26.8 million.

Wrong – we don’t yet know what the city’s share of the eventual first streetcar line would be, because we aren’t finished selecting and planning what that first line would be. So, the S-T’s editorial board doesn’t know any more than we do. It could be this much, but we don’t know yet, and the editorial board is wrong to say otherwise.

The FTA grant does require a local match, and it seems like there’s been an effort by some to suggest (or at least, not correct the impression) that the local match is $26.8 million, but that is completely factually incorrect. The $25 million Federal grant would require a local match of $6 million – far less than is being suggested. Beyond that, we don’t know yet – and neither does the Star-Telegram’s editorial board, so they have no business trumpeting that figure like it’s a fact to kill progress before we’re even finished.

Part of this is due to the original FTA grant application being for a “downtown circulator” along a specific route, but I know for a fact that conversations with the FTA since the application was made are indicating that Fort Worth should be able to change the specifics of the route and still get the $25 million. The Star-Telegram’s editorial board is assuming we’re locked into that old downtown circulator line, which doesn’t look to be the case.

With the council struggling to make up a $77 million budget shortfall, even to the point of possibly eliminating property tax homestead exemptions and raising the tax rate, the thought of spending millions on a streetcar project is sheer folly.

This is complete and utter misinformation, and it speaks volumes that the S-T’s editorial board is trying to tie streetcar funding to the city’s budget problems. There’s something very intentional behind this. That, or they’re either not paying attention, or don’t care.

As has been said time after time, both here, by the streetcar planners themselves, and by city leaders who actually have a clue, the streetcar is extremely unlikely to require money from the city’s general fund. The exact funding sources are being determined by HDR, but it’s likely that the funds will come from a combination of Tax Increment Finance (TIF) districts, potential Public Improvement Districts, and other such sources outside of the general fund. A TIF, for example, is set up specifically and only for public infrastructure improvements, everything from new sidewalks to streetcar tracks. That doesn’t take money away from swimming pools, police officers, or street maintenance across the city.

The streetcar will likely wind up with various layers of funding, just like every major project in Fort Worth, and it’s very unlikely it’ll take money from the general fund.

And this is also ignoring the economic benefits of the streetcar project – of course, the S-T dismisses those with its next paragraph:

The flowery language about “job opportunities” and “stimulating the redevelopment of walkable urban neighborhoods with a variety of housing choices” is political spin on an idea whose time is not now.

You heard it from the Star-Telegram Editorial Board: talking about job opportunities brought about by the development and investment a streetcar line encourages is mere “flowery language.” I’m wondering at this point if this editorial isn’t some kind of performance piece commenting on the increasing irrelevance of local newspapers. Does the S-T’s editorial board really want to go on record during times of economic stress as saying that encouraging new investment and job growth by investing in a modern transit system is just “flowery language?”

There are businesses and investments right now who have opened in central city Fort Worth in locations they’ve picked specifically because they’re on potential streetcar lines. The economic growth brought about by modern central city rail transit isn’t a fairy tale – it’s been seen across the United States.

What “idea” is job growth a “political spin” on, Star-Telegram Editorial Board? Does that even make sense? It reads more to me like the Star-Telegram Editorial Board is going on the record as being against job growth through investment in better mobility.

The S-T Ed. Board similarly dismisses stimulating growth of walkable urban neighborhoods and providing a range of housing choices for Fort Worth residents. I was unaware that the Star-Telegram’s editorial board was operating through a wormhole from the year 2000, when gas was cheap and free of supply issues and the suburban home-building industry was roaring. It’s amazing that our sole major newspaper’s editorial board is so out-of-touch with reality.

It’s happening in Fort Worth, and it’s happening all across the country: the central city is being reborn. People aren’t only settling on the fringe of town in single-family homes anymore. It’s disappointing that the S-T’s editorial board still can’t process thinking of the central city as anything more than an office park and a theme park for people from the ‘burbs to enjoy on weekends, but it doesn’t change the fact that encouraging central city redevlopment, walkable mixed-use growth centers in central city neighborhoods, and a range of housing choices is an idea whose time isn’t just now, but has been for some time now. If Fort Worth is to compete in the modern age, we can no longer just assume that everybody’s going to be living at the edge of town and driving everywhere we go – it’s unsustainable from postions of the economy, environment, and infrastructure. And it’s not how our peer cities are doing things anymore – but the S-T editorial board is apparently OK with us failing to be competitive.

(The Editorial Board railing about the cost of the streetcar and then dismissing redevelopment of our center city showcases how much they miss the point – it costs huge amounts of money to pay for infrastructure for new sprawl, S-T Editorial Board.)

First, there’s the $26.8 million in local money needed for the downtown circulator alone. The grant application says the city will seek commitments next month from the downtown and Lancaster tax increment financing districts to cover that cost.
Even if that works, it means $26.8 million in incremental tax revenue that the city will not get — while it’s clear that more tax revenue is sorely needed.

This is so misleading that it’s insulting. It’s also factually incorrect. In basic terms, a Tax Increment Finance District creates a an area where the value of property in that district is set at a base level (the level it’s at when the district is created). The tax revenue from that base level continues to go into the general fund of the various taxing jurisdictions. Then, revenues from any increase in value (due to new investment in the area) stay in that area. What I mean by that is, that extra revenue is put back into the TIF’s area in the form of public infastructure improvements. It can pay for everything from new sidewalks to new street trees to street reconstruction to new bike racks to sewer improvements to streetcar lines.

In other words, the extra revenue in a TIF district is used to pay for public improvements in that district – meaning those improvements aren’t coming out of the general fund. Those improvements, in turn, help to spur more development and investment in the TIF district, which means more revenue for the TIF, which means more investment, etc. etc. all of which leads to new jobs, new businesses, and more economic vitality – all without taking money from the general fund, where the city’s budget shortfall is.

To put it another way, if you took $26.8 million from a TIF to build a streetcar line, you aren’t taking one damned cent away from the city’s general fund, because the TIF is already there, and that money wouldn’t have gone to the general fund anyway because of the TIF. That TIF money can only be used for infrastructure improvements (and it’s money that the general fund doesn’t have to spend on those improvements).

So it’s blatantly misleading and untruthful for the Star-Telegram Editorial Board to be accusing the streetcar project of robbing the city of $26.8 million in tax revenue when that money could only be used for infrastructure improvements in that specific area because there’s a TIF district already in place, and has been for years. If the streetcar project doesn’t use that money, then some other project in that area will – it’s not going to go to the general fund even if the streetcar project dies tomorrow. That’s what TIF districts do.

That the Star-Telegram’s editorial board is trying to insinuate that the streetcar TIF funding would take money otherwise headed for city income is, in my view, either jaw-dropping negligence of the facts or a purposeful attempt to mislead the citizens of Fort Worth.

Further, the need for a downtown circulator has not been shown. The council-appointed committee and some other residents have demonstrated their desire for streetcars, but not yet the need. Public buses and the “Molly the Trolley” people carrier already serve downtown well.

As stated earlier, the route can be changed, so the S-T insisting that it’s a “downtown circulator” isn’t strictly accurate. More to the point, saying that buses and Molly “serve downtown well” really depends on your definition of “well.”

Buses – even fancy ones like Molly – simply don’t have the draw of streetcars in terms of ridership. People who would never step on a bus, even one as nice as Molly, will ride a streetcar. It’s due to a wide range of factors – the fixed guideway making the route easier to figure out, the exact arrival times via electronic signage making the system easier to use, the steel-on-steel rolling system making the ride smoother and more comfortable, the electric power making the ride quieter, and more. If we’re serious about impacting our congestion and air quality problems, better rail transit in the central city is critical. Our buses aren’t enough to cut it anymore – streetcars will encourage more people to get out of their cars and onto our streetcars and sidewalks, growing the health and vitality of the central city in a myriad of ways.

The Star-Telegram Editorial Board, however, seems content with business as usual. They’re OK with doing the same thing over and over and expecting it to keep succeeding – but the world is changing. The young up-and-coming generations of professionals, families, and creatives are changing. Business as usual isn’t enough for them. If Fort Worth’s going to compete on the modern stage, we have to be thinking differently. We’re a major city now, whether the S-T Editorial Board likes it or not, and business as usual will cripple this city in the long term.

Which, as you’ll remember, is a refrain from another major Fort Worth leader – Mayor Mike Moncrief, who said exactly that in his State of the City address:

Commuter Rail, street cars, and other alternative modes of transportation also remain a priority for me and this City Council. Unfortunately, Fort Worth and other major metropolitan areas are finding out the hard way what a mistake it was to design and build cities around automobiles years ago. Friends, we cannot continue to focus solely on building more roads for more vehicles. That’s counter productive at best.
Business as usual is dead!
North Texas requires a transportation overhaul. No more band-aides, no more patches—a complete overhaul!

And yet, the Star-Telegram Editorial Board is a big endorser of business as usual. They’ve come out against innovation, modern transportation choice, and investing in our city’s infrastructure to grow an economy of the 21st century – and they’re doing it via an editorial full of misdirection, misinformation, and factual errors. Makes one wonder what exactly happened behind the scenes as that editorial was being written.

I hope all of you out there write in to the Star-Telegram and voice your support for the Fort Worth Modern Streetcar project:

Letter policy

Submit via e-mail: letters@star-telegram.com

Mail: Box 1870, Fort Worth, TX 76101

Fax: 817-390-7688

Verification: Letters must include printed full name, address and day and home phone numbers for author verification purposes only.

Frequency: Writers are limited to one letter every 30 days.

Content: Must be the author’s original words. Suggested length is 200 words or less. Letters may be edited for space, clarity, civility and accuracy.

Questions: Call 817-390-7599 or contact Jill “J.R.” Labbe, Editorial Page Director

Cheers & Jeers policy

Submit via e-mail: letters@star-telegram.com

Mail: Box 1870, Fort Worth, TX 76101

Fax: 817-390-7688

Please limit your Cheer or Jeer to about 50 words. Full name, address and daytime telephone number are required. There are some restrictions on subjects. Items may be edited.

Questions: Call 817-390-7599 or contact Jill “J.R.” Labbe, Editorial Page Director

And don’t forget – tell Mayor Moncrief and the entire city council the same thing:

Mayor – Mike Moncrief – 817-392-6118 –mike.moncrief@fortworthgov.org
Mayor Pro Tem – District 4 – Danny Scarth – 817-392-6187 –District4@fortworthgov.org
District 2 – Sal Espino – 817-392-8802 –District2@fortworthgov.org
District 3 – Zim Zimmerman – 817-392-8803 -District3@fortworthgov.org
District 5 – Frank Moss – 817-392-8805 –District5@fortworthgov.org
District 6 – Jungus Jordan – 817-392-8806 –District6@fortworthgov.org
District 7 – Carter Burdette – 817-392-8807 –District7@fortworthgov.org
District 8 – Kathleen Hicks – 817-392-8808 –District8@fortworthgov.org
District 9 – Joel Burns – 817-392-8809 – District9@fortworthgov.org

EDIT: Here’s a great comment from reader Michael that further elaborates on TIF funding and its purpose:

“TIF districts are managed by a board of representatives from each of the participating jurisdictions who (as in all other parts of the city) collect property taxes from that particular district. These include, for instance, the City of Fort Worth, Tarrant County, Tarrant County College, etc. FWISD does not participate as they are severely penalized by the State for doing so.

Kevin gives a very good primer on how TIF districts work and, as he points out, it is extraordinarily misleading for the Star-Telegram to mischaracterize this as coming out of the general fund. The very purpose of Tax Increment Financing is to make long-term investments in public improvements (infrastructure) that will stimulate growth. The increase in property value (which is taxable as it would be under any other circumstances) supports the financing of these public improvements.

Therefore, the intent is to invest in public improvements that will support future growth – think of the improvements along Magnolia over the past decade which have attracted very significant and positive development; the result is the transformation of a once blighted neighborhood into a thriving part of Fort Worth which contributes far more to the local economy and tax rolls (including sales tax to the general fund) than it ever would have without those improvements.

TIF districts typically last about 20 years after which all collected property taxes – including those above the base amount – are distributed as they would be in any other part of the city. This is exactly how Fort Worth is going to address its budget shortfalls – through Growth, by supporting a strong business environment that will attract new development, increase property values (and the tax revenues generated by them), increase sales (thus generating sales tax), new jobs (meaning increased consumption in the area), and by pulling residents Into the city rather than out of it to neighboring cities.

One thing is certain… this is Not Amon Carter’s Star-Telegram any longer.”

Potential Streetcar Alignments Being Studied

Kevin Buchanan — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 14:53:08 +0000

The city has released some documents from HDR, Inc.’s current planning work on Fort Worth’s modern streetcar system, and one of the documents gives some more depth, information, and details on the potential starter alignments being considered and how they’re being measured. It’s important to note that at this stage of planning, the routes are not set in stone. There are several potential starter routes for the first phase of the modern streetcar system, and each is being evaluated according to a set of criteria. The end result might be one of these lines, or it might be a combination of parts of lines. These answers will come from the study currently underway by HDR, Inc. that is providing a blueprint for our modern streetcar system. This information comes from publicly-available planning documents posted to the City of Fort Worth’s official streetcar project web site, available as a PDF at the following link: DRAFT Technical Memorandum – Alignment Refinement.

The criteria that the potential starter routes are being measured against come from factors in successful streetcar systems in other cities, and the goals and issues that a Fort Worth solution could be designed to address. The criteria are focused on improving the development and mobility situation in Downtown and its surrounding neighborhoods. They reflect the objectives of the project as told to HDR, based on meetings with City of Fort Worth officials and staff, organizations like Downtown Fort Worth, Inc. and Fort Worth South, Inc., and the city’s Modern Streetcar Task Force.

The sort of criteria that these routes are being measured against include:

Existing and anticipated population in the alignment corridor
Existing and anticipated employment in the alignment corridor
Major destinations served
Developable land
Potential yield from TIF and other locally-generated sources
Assessed value base
Compatibility with city and TIF district plans
Relative lack of engineering or traffic management constraints
Estimated ridership
Capital and operating costs
Public and stakeholder support

The following routes are being screened against these criteria. Each is being analyzed as a potential stand-alone Phase 1 of the streetcar system. It’s expected that, once the evaluations are complete, potential combinations of these lines could also emerge as a starter project, but the initial evaluation is of each route alone. Note also that these descriptions are of the starter routes and do not include potential extensions to each route.

You’ll note that most of the lines include several segments that are the same as the other lines. HDR’s plans showcase how the starter lines can build together over time into a network, and how they can share most of the same trackage in Downtown.

Click on the routes for a larger view.

West 7th

The West 7th alignment is 3.0 miles end-to-end. From the Intermodal Transportation Center at 9th & Jones, the line heads westbound on 9th to Commerce, where it turns northbound and heads to 6th. At 6th, the line turns westbound on 6th to Cherry, where it makes a slight right to merge from westbound 6th to westbound 7th. The line heads westbound on 7th to Montgomery, where it then heads southbound to Camp Bowie, the terminus of the line. It heads back into Downtown using the same route – northbound on Montgomery, then eastbound on 7th – until it reaches Henderson. At Henderson, the line turns northbound on Henderson, then eastbound on 3rd. After heading eastbound on 3rd, the line turns southbound on Calhoun before turning eastbound on 9th to go one block to the terminus at 9th & Jones at the ITC.

North Main

The North Main alignment is 1.4 miles end-to-end. From the Intermodal Transportation Center at 9th & Jones, the line heads westbound on 9th to Commerce, where it turns northbound. It heads northbound on Commerce through Belknap & Weatherford and makes the merge onto North Main past the Tarrant County Courthouse. The line crosses the Paddock Viaduct (North Main bridge) where it is then envisioned that it would be integrated into the Trinity Uptown master plan. One option, shown here, would have the line turn onto a reconstructed Commerce and head north before turning westbound on NE 6th and then southbound on North Main to head back to Downtown. Once across the Paddock Viaduct, the line would merge from the bridge onto southbound Houston and continue southbound to 3rd, where it would turn eastbound and head to Calhoun. At Calhoun, the line would turn southbound and head to 9th, turning eastbound on 9th to go one block to the terminus at 9th & Jones at the ITC.

Trinity Bluffs

The Trinity Bluffs alignment is 1.4 miles end-to-end. From the Intermodal Transportation Center at 9th & Jones, the line heads westbound on 9th to Commerce, where it turns and heads northbound to 6th. At 6th, the line turns westbound and heads to 7th, where it heads further westbound to Henderson. It turns and heads northbound on Henderson to 3rd, where it turns and runs eastbound. Upon reaching Pecan, the line turns northbound and heads to Bluff, then eastbound to Samuels. It runs northbound on Samuels to the Cold Springs intersection, the terminus of the line. It then heads back to Downtown via Samuels, Bluff, and Pecan. At Pecan & 4th, it turns and heads westbound to Calhoun. The line then runs southbound on Calhoun to 9th, turning eastbound on 9th to go one block to the terminus at 9th & Jones at the ITC.

Near Southside – Jennings Option

There are two potential Near Southside alignments being considered at this time. This is the Jennings option, which is 2.0 miles end-to-end. The Jennings option heads southbound on Houston from 3rd. At 9th, the line cuts over to Throckmorton headed southbound, then further over to Jennings. It heads southbound on Jennings past Lancaster and under the railroad tracks and I-30, continuing southbound on Jennings to Pennsylvania. The line then heads westbound on Pennsylvania to Henderson, turning southbound on Henderson to Terrell. The line turns westbound on Terrell to 6th Avenue, the terminus of the line. It heads back into Downtown eastbound and northbound via the same route – Terrell, Henderson, Pennsylvania, and Jennings – before reaching Throckmorton and heading northbound to 3rd, heading eastbound on 3rd back to Houston to head back to the Near Southside. It is important to note that the Jennings option does not directly serve the ITC, but provides a connection to the TRE and the future SW2NE train at the Texas & Pacific Station.

Near Southside – South Main Option

The second potential Near Southside alignment is the South Main option, which is 3.2 miles end-to-end. This alignment leaves the Intermodal Transportation Center at 9th & Jones heading westbound on 9th. It turns and heads northbound on Commerce then westbound on 6th. It then turns and heads southbound on Houston, crossing Lancaster, the railroad tracks, and I-30 then merging southbound onto South Main. The line heads southbound on South Main to Magnolia. It turns and heads westbound on Magnolia to 7th Avenue, where it turns northbound and heads to Terrell, the terminus of the line. It heads back into Downtown via the same route – 7th Avenue, Magnolia, and South Main – then turns eastbound towards Jones after crossing the railroad tracks, I-30, and Lancaster. It then turns northbound on Jones and heads back to the ITC at 9th & Jones, where it would then turn westbound onto 9th to head back out.

Near Southside & Rosedale/East Side – Rosedale Alignment

The Rosedale line is 2.2 miles end-to-end. It leaves the Intermodal Transportation Center at 9th & Jones heading westbound on 9th. It turns and heads northbound on Commerce then westbound on 6th. It then turns and heads southbound on Houston, crossing Lancaster, the railroad tracks, and I-30 then merging southbound onto South Main. The line heads southbound on South Main to Rosedale. It turns eastbound on Rosedale to Evans, which is the terminus of the line. It heads back into Downtown via the same route – Rosedale and South Main – then turns eastbound towards Jones after crossing the railroad tracks, I-30, and Lancaster. It then turns northbound on Jones and heads back to the ITC at 9th & Jones, where it would then turn westbound onto 9th to head back out.

Again, let us stress that these alignment options are still being measured against the design criteria. The exact starter alignment has not yet been selected, and may in fact be a combination of elements of multiple alignments. We’ll have more as the study by HDR continues. For more information on this process, head to the City of Fort Worth’s official streetcar project web site, where this data is available to the public as a PDF at the following link: DRAFT Technical Memorandum – Alignment Refinement.

Major New Near Southside Bike Parking Improvements on the Way

Kevin Buchanan — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 17:27:49 +0000

It’s not everyday that we get to report on something we actually had a hand in, but today is one of those days. Fort Worth South, Inc. wanted to improve the bike parking situation in the Near Southside as part of their larger goal of huge bike infrastructure improvements across the district, and they decided they wanted some outside help. So, they called us and Trinity Bicycles up and asked if we’d collaborate on a new bike parking improvement plan. After a lot of discussion, many meetings, and several in-the-field work sessions identifying parking locations, ideal setups, and more, we put together a comprehensive bike parking plan. Now, we’re happy to report, Phase One of the plan has been approved by the city and funded by the Near Southside TIF (Tax Increment Finance district), so we can give some details.

While we’re still finalizing the number of racks and such, we can say that this will be a pretty dramatic increase in bike parking, even in Phase One. At the moment, there are approximately 12 of the city-installed Texas star “lollipop” racks across the entire district. Most of them are on Magnolia Avenue, with two or three on 8th. Even in the best of cases, the Texas star racks are less than ideal – they look more like street art than bike racks, making them not obvious to riders, and there are simply too few of them and in too few locations. With the large increases in bike traffic in the Near Southside in the last year or so, thanks to the Magnolia Avenue bike lanes, groups like the Night Riders, and a continued increase in new urban residents, the existing bike parking infrastructure was becoming very inadequate to meet resident and visitor needs.

As mentioned above, we’re still finalizing all the numbers, so we can’t give a specific number yet, but we’re fairly confident that you can look forward to dozens of new racks in Phase One. Phase One will see new racks installed on Magnolia, Jennings, and South Main at a wide range of popular destinations. Each location will have multiple racks, with the number determined by current and projected future demand. The plan calls for simple “staple” racks, such as these:

These are cost-effective, easy to use, and instantly identifiable as bike racks. They’ll be installed right near the main entrances of destinations across the district. We hope that this will not only better serve the Near Southside’s existing bike culture, but also encourage more people to ride their bikes in the district, as well as serve as a model for the city on effective bike parking infrastructure (something not very well understood in Fort Worth, for the most part).

As things progress, we’ll update everybody on how the plan is going, especially once we have a final rack count and all the locations finalized. With city approval and TIF funding in place, we’re getting closer to seeing the new racks being installed across the district.

Downtown Fort Worth Intersection Density Analysis & Comparison to Underdeveloped Lots

Kevin Buchanan — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 16:49:03 +0000

Our friend at Walkable D/FW has done a fantastically in-depth analysis of Downtown Fort Worth’s intersection density and convergence and what effect it has on walkability, following up on a similar analysis of Downtown Dallas and Downtown Portland.

With the understanding that the grid (of whatever form) provides the neural network of urban economies, the end result, I believe, is one that merges walkability and hierarchy of urban spaces in order to identify problem areas of the City. It is also fun to play with, tweaking various streets and blocks, two-way conversions from one-ways, and seeing the potential transformative effects those changes can have on real estate potential.

The following is downtown Fort Worth run through the same analysis as Dallas and Portland (and I will be doing more downtowns and like this one, hopefully tweaking and advancing the metrics and capabilities of the analysis).

After measuring intersection density per square mile and adding in the convergence factor (direction of streets, type of intersection, etc.), he then started weighting things by factoring in Downtown’s connections with the surrounding districts. On top of that, he factored in underdeveloped and underperforming lots downtown to show where Downtown has potential to grow – if the form of its streets is brought under control into a more walkable, pedestrians-first form.

One thing this reveals, is the off-center nature of downtown Fort Worth on its “island” and the potential for downtown to expand to the West.

In general, the Meta-Convergence analysis is best at showing opportunity areas where the density and real estate values are underperforming. Most often this is due to the vary roads creating the traffic. The design of the roads are strictly for cars and the buildings and people then withdraw from that road. This is “inside-out” urbanism.

…

When we add in a graphic for “under-performing” or underdeveloped sites we predictably see that most of the underdeveloped sites have a direct relationship with the locations of the car-oriented street framework.

The question then becomes, are these properties really underperforming? In my opinion, the answer is that the surface parking (or parking garages) are a direct market response to a terrible, unsustainable transportation design and network. Parking is the highest and best use, but not a great (or walkable) downtown does it make.

So while there is great potential in where red and yellow overlap, the responsibility lies on the public-side to overhaul the primary roads to something that can move more traffic in a people- and place-friendly manner.

Complete streets are 1) centripetal, in that they draw people to them rather than centrifugal streets which are repellent, 2) can move more traffic by moving less cars (meaning increased modal share via more efficient transportation modes), and most importantly 3) link to the vastly underdeveloped areas immediately adjacent to downtown.

These are the neighborhoods within the 1 to 3 mile radius of downtown where bikes and streetcars make the most sense and will leverage increased development.

This study reveals that the most potential lies along Henderson and W. 7th for both downtown expansion and inner-ring (outside of downtown) development. But the primary barrier to this potential is the overly wide, pedestrian unfriendly design of the both streets.

Here’s the graphic of weighted intersection density vs. underdeveloped lots that Walkable DFW assembled (intersections in red, underdeveloped lots in yellow).

It’s pretty similar to a map we put together ourselves showing similar lots in Downtown (red = surface lots, vacant lots, inappropriate development like bank drive-throughs, unengaging pointless “green space,” etc. while yellow is parking garages, blue = the wasteland around the I-30 ramps).

Complete streets and connections – two things Downtown Fort Worth is missing. Another quote from Walkable D/FW:

Having personally walked the downtowns of all of the above towns, the rankings of the three downtowns in terms of walkability matches my own sense. Downtown Fort Worth is very walkable, but only in the core between the convention center and the Tarrant County Courthouse.

In relation, Portland also has a much bigger downtown area uninterrupted by disconnective agents. Portland also has done a better job dealing with freeways, which are sunken with the urban grid extending across, maintaining walkability for a more consistent and broader area.

Similar to Fort Worth, Portland also has a river and waterfront forming an edge, however Portland, having removed a freeway have done a better job of breaking down the edge by creating a more publicly accessible riverfront park.

Read more at Walkable D/FW. It’s instructive to not only post about good things going on, but to also look at what we could be doing better if we’re really going to get serious about building a livable city and urban core.

Hyde Park & 9th Street Improvements

Kevin Buchanan — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 15:49:53 +0000

If you’ve been down around 9th Street in Downtown lately, you’ve undoubtedly noticed that the street has been shut down for construction. Here’s a look at what’s going on.

9th Street itself is being reconstructed to create a more pedestrian-friendly experience walking from the Intermodal Transportation Center at 9th & Jones into the heart of Downtown. The length of 9th from Jones to Houston will feature wider sidewalks, brick sidewalk pavers, Cedar Elm street trees, and pedestrian lighting once complete. Above is an example section.

Where 9th runs into Houston, even more elaborate work is underway.

The long awaited remake of Hyde Park, and the reclamation of a parking lot into public space, is finally happening. 9th Street is going to be straightened out between Houston and Throckmorton into a conventional “T” intersection. In addition, the parking lot that has blighted the other side of 9th & Throckmorton across from Hyde Park (where once the old Fort Worth Public Library once stood) is going away as well. Several improvements come along with this:

A – Passenger Shelters – The T will be installing new bus passenger shelters on either side of 9th to create a new transit plaza sort of setup.
B – Intersection Improvements – 9th ends at Throckmorton in a conventional “T” intersection.
C – Panther Fountain Plaza – The space around the Panther Fountain in Hyde Park will be radically expanded, creating a much larger public space around the iconic fountain in the shadow of the Flatiron Building.
D – Library Plaza – What’s left of the old library lot, up until now simply a vacant blight with a parking lot, will become another new public space next to the Houston Place Lofts and the Bryce Building.

Something not called out in the above graphic is another significant public space improvement. What is now a street in front of the Public Safety & Courts Building (the previous Fort Worth City Hall) will be removed, and converted into a plaza in front of the lovely old Moderne structure.

In all, it’s a significant upgrade of public space in Downtown Fort Worth, something that apart from sidewalks is in very short supply. We’d hope that some thought is being given to doing something to engage and activate all the new plazas – besides the new Hyde Park, Library Plaza, and PS&C Plaza, there’s also the existing Federal Building plaza that’s a bit on the overscaled and empty side. If the city and downtown stakeholders want to see more use of these plazas, we hope they’d consider encouraging food vendors, etc. to set up shop to make up for the lack of ground-floor retail space around them (and something a bit more interesting than just a hot dog cart). We’d also hope that the doctor who owns the Flatiron Building would consider leasing its ground floor to a restaurant or other sort of business – with its large, operable ground-floor windows, it could make a great addition to the plazas.

The 9th Street improvements are also welcome, and makes getting to the ITC much more appealing. The experience of walking along 9th isn’t going to be great for a while, as there’s still the hulk of the Convention Center arena and the underused and flawed General Worth Square, not to mention a swath of parking lots between the ITC and the rest of Downtown that create a lot of dead space to cover.

And this all does beg the question – when, if ever, will Throckmorton (and the other one-way streets) revert to two-way? It’s a bit of an impediment to westward travel in the new arrangement, and two-way streets are generally better in terms of creating pleasant streets that pedestrians enjoy being on. There are still far too many one-way speedways in Downtown Fort Worth.

On the whole, though, this looks to be a good improvement. A parking lot is going away, there’s a lot more (and decently designed) public space coming to Downtown Fort Worth, and 9th Street itself will become a much more pleasant place to walk apart from the dead spots along its length. We really look forward to seeing the finished product.

Adams Street Narrowing

Kevin Buchanan — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 17:42:01 +0000

If you’ve been wondering what all the construction is on Adams Street in the Near Southside, it’s another street narrowing/streetscape project. The street’s been taken down in width and bulb-outs are being used to contain the on-street parking, to provide a slower, safer, more pleasant street and better parking setups. Work’s been underway for a while now and it looks like the project is finally starting to enter its last stages, so it shouldn’t be that much longer before it’s re-opened again.

Besides the various townhome developments on Adams (Texana and Oleander Place thus far), there’s the old Dunn Haven Apartments building on the corner of Adams & Magnolia that’s being turned into a marketing company’s headquarters, and the old (and awful) Fort Worth ISD Adult Education Center on the other corner is being remodeled into some kind of FWISD gifted & talented girl’s academy (and while the terrible design of the building isn’t being radically altered, it is at least getting a more interesting paint job to help break up the street facade into less boring components).

Trinity River Vision Presentation At Villa De Leon

Kevin Buchanan — Fri, 21 May 2010 14:25:17 +0000

Yesterday, the Downtown Neighborhood Alliance had a get-together at the luxurious Villa de Leon condo building over in Uptown’s Trinity Bluff neighborhood, and JD Granger from the Trinity River Vision was on hand to give a presentation on the latest TRV news & info. Here are a couple of photos from the presentation – JD talked about the progress on the bypass channel, the new bridge designs, Trinity Trail improvement projects around University/Rogers and the Naval Air Station, and many other aspects of the project. More updates on TRV projects are coming soon.