Shelter-in-place orders be damned, the Dallas City Council did hold its regularly scheduled briefing yesterday via teleconferencing and with relatively few technological hiccups. And while the end of the meeting brought some COVID-related debate around a proposed eviction ordinance (more on that soon), it was comforting to settle into a few presentations revolving around the usual, drab city business. The most interesting briefing addressed the city’s revived effort to steer development around so-called Transit-Oriented Developments.

Transit-Oriented Developments, or TODs, are central to the long-promised benefits of Dallas’ light rail network. When DART originally proposed the system back in the 1980s, the hope was that new rail stations would spur on new developments of dense housing and commercial real estate. Despite the agency’s continued touting of its TODS, redevelopment around DART stations has only happened sporadically, perhaps most visibly at the Mockingbird Station. Yesterday’s presentation drove home how little development has actually been directly generated by the region’s light rail system.

Here are some of the most interesting numbers:

Many of Dallas’s urban challenges can be summed up in a single term: land use. Whether we are talking about affordable housing or public transportation, income inequality or fixing streets, quality public schools or walkability, at its core, we are really always talking about land use.

Our massive investment in light rail doesn’t work? That’s because the city has developed with insufficient density around stations to make them useful. We can’t afford to fix the streets? That’s because our low-density development model means we have more street surface area than tax base to pay for it, and our highway system has made it easy for new investment to continually seek-out cheaper, under-developed locations outside the city. Our schools are underfunded? That’s because for 70 years land use decisions have allowed urban neighborhood to erode and an endless succession of competing suburbs to spring up to siphon off students, teachers, and taxes from the inner city. At the end of the day, all of Dallas’ urban problems are land use problems.

Which is why a new trend that is being adopted by a number of cities around the world caught my eye.

More than a year after the city started fining contractors for illegally occupying streets and sidewalks, staff believes they aren’t going far enough. As such, they’re asking for Council approval to charge contractors higher fees to work in the public right-of-way, both as a way to generate revenue and to get them to finish their jobs quicker. They also want to increase daily fines.

The City Council’s transportation committee was briefed on the plan on Tuesday, learning that Dallas has the lowest lane and sidewalk closure fees of all the major cities in Texas. That causes streets and sidewalks to remain closed longer than needed and sometimes to even be used for storage of equipment.

Under the new fees, a 61-day closure of a 100-foot lane would jump from $366 to $1,514. The fee per square foot doubles after 121 days and triples after 180, hopefully incentivizing contractors to hurry up. (If you’re in and out within 60 days, you’ll pay just $.012 per square foot a day. If your work takes up the right of way for 180 or more, you’re looking at $.096. It hikes to $0.288 a day if your job occupies a second lane or sidewalk.) The city estimates it will increase revenue from fees from $1 million to $3 million in 2021 and, as a byproduct, “incentivize contractors to remove their barricades as early as possible.”

If you’ve been following this website for any amount of time, you’ll recognize our Dallas Hates Pedestrians series. North Oak Cliff Council member Chad West even brought it up during the meeting. The very first of those, published a whole two years ago, expressed pent-up frustration over this very issue: a mess of equipment near a downtown parking garage that swallowed up a full lane of traffic as well as a sidewalk.

“I am so happy this topic has been brought up,” West said. “If you go to a walkable city like New York, you’re never gonna have a sidewalk that’s closed off for weeks at a time without scaffolding to walk under.”

The city has begun the second phase of its long-percolating mobility plan, asking residents to (broadly) select their priorities for how Dallas invests in its transportation system. Some of the survey’s questions are a little vague—for instance, do you prefer sinking money into “big projects” or spreading it out across “smaller projects.” But the thrust of it is clear: do you prefer your tax dollars to go toward adding infrastructure for bikes, pedestrians, and public transit, or do you prefer to continue to focus on the vehicle?

The survey kicks off by asking you to select your priorities: equity, housing, safety, environmental sustainability, economic vitality, and innovation. Then it asks you to pick your tradeoffs: you have finite money, so do you prefer spreading out transit dollars evenly across Dallas or focus on neighborhoods where “the economic need is greatest?” From there, you get to apply one-to-five stars to your preferred scenario: invest locally, adding hundreds of new miles of bike lanes and transit space; invest regionally, adding more ways to get out of Dallas; or keep things basically as they are.

The results currently are a rather small sample size; about 75 people have taken it so far, according to the log. But the majority are siding with improving Dallas’ transit system to accommodate safe, alternative ways for people to get around without a car. And most respondents want the money prioritized in neighborhoods that haven’t received the same amount of love and attention from City Hall. That could obviously change once a few hundred more people take the survey.

Last week, I received a couple of photos from a FrontBurnervian who was concerned about folks who are disabled visiting Bishop Arts. There were two photos of torn-up sidewalks at either end of Bishop Avenue, a stretch sandwiched between Eight Street on one side and an alley on the other.

Here:

A block east, our correspondent found the handicapped parking behind Paradiso occupied by a pair of dumpsters and a storage container, which you see atop this post. Krystal Sarna, a spokeswoman for the restaurant, said this: “They were put there temporarily as we work with the city to pave part of the alley behind the building to accommodate the trash trucks. ADA inspectors were aware before they were placed there.”

After being sent the photo, the city said Code Compliance determined that the location of the dumpsters was indeed a violation and “are working to get them into compliance.” The sidewalks were torn up due to telecommunication utility work, and its completion was delayed by rainfall.

“A City inspector from Public Works visited the locations on Jan. 28 and found that the access ramps around the construction areas were not blocked off and are still accessible, along with other access ramps in the surrounding area. It was determined the sidewalk sections under construction are compliant with ADA regulations because the area can be accessed using the other available open walking paths.”

The most illuminating moment of last Friday’s Death and Life of Dallas Transit symposium, which was put on by the Coalition for a New Dallas, was a simple pie chart projected on a screen by public transit consultant Jarrett Walker. Walker is the nation’s leading bus guru. He has led the network design processes for many of the most successful bus network revamps in recent years, including in Houston, Columbus, Richmond, and Auckland, New Zealand, and he’s also worked on transit with city governments in Seattle and Minneapolis. Last year, the Dallas Area Rapid Transit board hired Walker to look at its own system. On Friday, the pie chart offered our first glimpse of what that might entail.

The chart depicted the share of bus routes in DART’s current system that are designed around providing either coverage or ridership. Today, according to Walker’s analysis, DART’s bus system devotes around 43 percent of its routes toward maximizing the system’s overall coverage, and it dedicates around 56 percent toward enhancing ridership. There is also around 1 percent of routes that are duplicates—redundancies in the system.

At a glance, the chart reinforces common knowledge about DART’s system. The bus network neither excels at offering a reliable transit option nor connecting people to the places where they would like to go. But the breakdown reveals something more.

As Walker explained to the 200 or so people who had gathered in the debate hall in the Old Parkland campus, bus networks can only do one of two things. They can focus on maximizing the amount of space they cover or they can focus on providing the most reliable service. By prioritizing neither and splitting the number of routes dedicated to those two functions down the middle, DART’s current bus system reflects an inability on the part of DART’s board to decide what kind of bus system it wants.

In other words, the problem with DART is DART’s leadership, which has not decided what DART wants to be. The result is a system that tries to do a little bit of everything—to have it both ways with regard to ridership and coverage, and, therefore, it is a system that doesn’t do a good job of anything.