Chicago, Inglewood, Minneapolis and commercial corridor redevelopment | Stadiums, arenas, and downtown transit malls

I was reading an article about Minneapolis' transit (bus) mall, Nicollet Mall ("Nicollet Mall tries to look beyond retail in latest attempt at reinvention," Minneapolis Star-Tribune), and I was struck by this paragraph:

The Downtown Council is creating a “Nicollet Mall prospectus” for prospective investors. It will include an inventory of vacancies, points of contact, any relevant incentives or financing tools and outline civic leaders’ priorities and ideas for the mall.

I made such a suggestion, that commercial district revitalization programs needed all this information at their fingertips for each property in their district, when I was doing consulting in Pittsburgh in 2008!  

This image makes Nicollet Mall look prety fun.

And considering all the articles over the past ten years about Nicolett Mall (e.g., "Revamping Nicollet Mall as a 24-hour district is one idea for downtown Minneapolis," "Frey’s plan to take buses off Minneapolis’ Nicollet Mall next year meets resistance") it should have already occurred to them.

(WRT the bus proposal idea.  It's true.  A bus mall is not a congenial places.  Buses are loud.  And that was my experience with Nicolett Mall quite some time ago.)

Similarly, when I first got involved in Main Street commercial district revitalization c. 2002 at some point I came across an article by Neal Peirce, "Main Street Niches in a Mass Sales World," making the point that revitalization is a process that takes a couple decades, and never really ends.

I wrote about that at the onset of covid, "From more space to socially distance to a systematic program for pedestrian districts (Park City (Utah) Main Street Car Free on Sundays)," making the point that commercial districts should have been planning for multi-modal access long before the distancing requirements arising from covid best practice.  Also see "A point about pedestrianizing streets: Boulder; Alexandria, Virginia, Cleveland Park, DC."

Lots of empty space around SoFi Stadium.

The LA Times has an article about Inglewood's Market Street commercial district, "Inglewood’s downtown still struggles. Can it spark to life before World Cup, Super Bowl?," and how it languishes despite its proximity to SoFi Stadium and Intuit Dome, home to the LA Clippers basketball team.  From the article:

The sports and entertainment corridor along Prairie Avenue has become a major economic driver for the city of Inglewood, with SoFi Stadium grossing over $175 million in revenue and bringing in 1 million visitors in 2023 alone, according to Billboard.

And yet, on most nights, Inglewood’s downtown is subdued and inactive. While a few longstanding businesses have managed to attract regular customers on the otherwise empty street, many others have closed due to rent hikes and eminent domain to make way for planned transit centers.

SoFi had the Super Bowl in 2022 and the Washington Post had an article, "A home Super Bowl is good for the Rams. But is SoFi Stadium good for Inglewood?," about how the rest of the city didn't seem to be experiencing improvement in the face of the stadium.

My criticism is that you shouldn't be allowed to build such facilities without adjacent access to high frequency rail transit.  Inglewood now is planning various surface transit improvements including a couple of bus hubs on Market Street ("Project Overview -- Inglewood Transit Connector").  Ultimately they were supposed to get a People Mover mode to connect to the LA Metro--at least ten years after the stadium opened.  But that doesn't seem to be happening (" A $2.4B Rail Project For The 2028 L.A. Olympics Has Been Suspended—Here’s What’s Happening Instead," Secret LA).

My thought was um, why don't cities develop mitigation/improvement plans in association with stadiums and arenas before they open, including funding from the team owner as a condition of the contract?

Not having such plans is why I've developed "Framework of characteristics that support successful community development in association with the development of professional sports facilities" as a way for a community to try to get the best possible outcomes from sports facilities deals.

From the Axios article, "Renderings: New project looks to transform United Center, West Side."

I don't know if Chicago is getting funding from the owner of the Bulls basketball team, but in association with the construction of a new arena there, they are preparing an improvement plan for the adjacent district ("Chicago seeks to make the West Side's Madison Street shine again," Chicago Sun-Times).  From the article:

... the thoroughfare is the focus of a city study aimed at helping bring new retail, housing and other activity to three miles of Madison Street, stretching from the shadow of the United Center to the heart of K-Town.

“Madison [is] probably the most visible and historically significant commercial corridor on the West Side,” Chicago Department of Planning Supervising Planner Brian Hacker said of the Madison Street Corridor Study. “We’re looking at the levers that we can pull as a city planning department — zoning, regulatory, environmental ... to facilitate development.”

Madison Street could see a rebirth, according to plans being developed by the city and and West Side community groups.Pat Nabong/Sun-Times 

It’s not a bad time to rethink Madison Street, particularly within the study’s boundaries that include the Near West Side, East Garfield Park and West Garfield Park.

East of the study area, construction will soon begin on the 1901 Project, a $7 billion effort by the Reinsdorf and Wirtz families to turn those barren parking lots around the United Center, 1901 W. Madison St., into a new neighborhood and entertainment district.

(Of course, the question is why didn't the basketball team owners do such a project to begin with, instead of making barren an area already distressed.)

Insights from HafenCity and IBA_Hamburg for Baltimore's Howard Street corridor

This article is another in the series of pieces I am doing for the "Europe in Baltimore" project by the European Union National Institutes of Culture.

-- "Lessons from HafenCity and IBA_Hamburg applied to Baltimore’s Howard Street corridor

Howard Street is the main light rail corridor in Baltimore. Despite or because of the presence of the first generation light rail system--which is heavy and bulky and is complemented by an equally heavy-grained street treatment--the corridor isn't successful, with myriads of empty buildings and surface parking lots.

However, on the southern part of the district, the developing Bromo Tower Arts and Entertainment District is bringing renewed energy to the the area, which provides new opportunities for revitalization, especially as the area east of the corridor, especially Charles Street, has seen significant improvement over the past few years, including leasing of many ground floor spaces that had been previously vacant, and the conversion of some buildings to residential along with some new construction of residential multiunit buildings.

Note that when I worked for Baltimore County, I made some unheeded recommendations with regard to transit expansion planning there, starting with connecting the subway and the light rail at the Hutzler Building, see "From the files: transit planning in Baltimore County."

When Baltimore builds the Red Line light rail system, it would be nice if at the same time they could upgrade the vehicles on the current line.  As the representatives from Hamburg commented, "it isn't light rail, it's heavy rail."  But that isn't in the budget so far.

I know it's way too expensive, but I also wonder if it would be worth doing a cut and cover tunnel for the light rail on Howard Street.  A lot of the light rail that Sound Transit is building in Seattle is being put into tunnels, although they are boring the tunnels, not doing cut and cover.

Testimony regarding Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Options to address FY2010 Budget Gap

Public Hearing #547

Thank you, Members of the Board of Directors of WMATA and General Manager Catoe, for the opportunity to submit testmony on the above-referenced matter. I am Richard Layman of the Citizens Planning Coalition, a DC-based advocacy group concerned primarily with stabilizing, maintaining, and extending the qualities that make living in the District of Columbia so worthwhile. Due to a prior commitment, I am unable to testify in person.

CPC is convinced that one of the key pillars upon which the city’s economic and competitive advantages rests is the wide array of transit options serving residents, employers, retail and entertainment businesses, and visitors.

Furthermore, the richness and depth of transit services available within the metropolitan region and specifically the City of Washington allows for optimal mobility without requiring automobile ownership--more than 30% of the city’s households do not own cars—they are dependent, by choice or by need, on a robust Metropolitan Transit Network* and efficient services provided through an interconnected transit network. (At the same time, by using transit, and not owning a car, households can save as much as $6,000 in disposable income for each automobile that is foregone in favor of transit use.)

------

* The Metropolitan Transit Network has been defined conceptually by the Citizens Planning Coalition, extending concepts expressed in the Transit Network Element of the Arlington County Master Transportation Plan. This definitional framework has been attached to this testimony as an appendix.

------

Of the four options that WMATA is considering to make up for the current loss in revenue, the Citizens Planning Coalition supports Option 4 as it has the fewest number of service cuts.

Other testimonies recommend making changes to the service in ways that can optimize service provision without resulting in real changes in the amount of service, and we support those recommendations.

CPC does not support reductions in hours of service during which the Metrorail system is open and in operation (i.e., opening later in the morning, and closing earlier in the evenings, or closing earlier on weekends). In general, CPC believes that a world class city and region should provide as much high quality transit service as possible, even if this means higher fares.

We would like to take this opportunity to communicate to the Board and executive leadership of WMATA our thinking about the positioning, pricing, and marketing of transit service in the metropolitan area, because this should shape how questions of "level of transit service," "level of transit quality," the robustness and completeness of the transit network," and pricing are addressed.

We believe that despite the past year's many system failures on the subway system, that overall the quality of service and the area served by the Metrorail system, complemented by bus service, and that compared to most regions in the United States, residents of the Washington Metropolitan Area generally and especially residents of the center city enjoy high quality transit service that is almost incomparable (only cities like San Francisco, Chicago, and New York City's boroughs of Manhattan and Brooklyn have comparable service, in addition to the Canadian cities of Toronto and Montreal).

Despite this reality, public transit in the DC region is treated as if it were a second class service, second to the automobile, and only used by people, especially the impoverished, who have no other choices.

We make this assessment based on the fares charged for the service, the focus on keeping fares low, and the various comments by board members in discussions on these issues.

I moved to the city in 1987. At that time, city bus fares were 75 cents and the base fare on the Metrorail system was 85 cents.

In constant dollar terms, if the fares had risen at the level of inflation, in 2009, the bus fare would have been $1.42 (it is $1.35) and the base fare on the Metrorail system would be $1.62 (at off-peak it is $1.35 and $1.65 during peak hours of service).

In short, while WMATA's personnel, maintenance, and energy costs have increased and the service profile was expanded (the green line opened, and stations were added to the system on the blue line in Maryland as well as the infill station at New York Avenue) throughout this period, fares have remained relatively constant, but actually are lower in 2010 than they were in 1987.

It should be no surprise that the budget is constantly under stress.

Like anyone else, I would prefer to pay as little as possible for transit service. However, I recognize (and the system should be marketed along these lines) that public transit (provided the origin and destination of my trip is optimized to favor transit) saves me time, money (compared to owning a car), and hassle (I don't have to find and/or pay for a place to park), and rather than wait 10-20 minutes for the next subway train, the opportunity costs involved in waiting mean that I would rather pay more directly money in higher fares, than bear the opportunity and indirect costs of having to wait.

Instead, fares on the WMATA system are priced amongst the lowest of any major transit system in North America. (Recognizing that unlike most systems, fares rise on the Metrorail system as distance increases, even though the per mile fee is biased in favor of longer trips, coming at the expense of users in the system in the center city, where trips tend to be shorter.)

Rather than criticize the general focus on keeping fares low, we must recognize that this is seen as a compassionate response to concerns about social equity and ensuring that access and mobility is made available and provided to people of lesser means.

But every time service is cut (cuts in rail and bus service frequency, elimination of bus routes, reduction in train sizes), especially on buses, where demographics of ridership demonstrate that lower income households rely on the bus service for mobility (and the fare price structure, especially the relatively low cost weekly passes, favors use), the reality is that equity is significantly impinged.

Maybe riders are forced to use a relatively high-cost taxi, travel in a convoluted fashion, use a carsharing service, or rent a car, etc.--any of these options are much higher cost than transit. Maybe riders choose not to undertake a specific trip, or not to get a particular job, because of the high "costs" that a crippled transit imposes on access and mobility.

A transit system that doesn't go where you want when you want, relatively quickly, is not a low cost system, even if the fares are "low," because to get where you want to go you have to spend a lot of time to accomplish your trip.

How can that be equitable? In short, crippling the bus and rail service by maintaining low fares keeps the system constantly focused on reducing costs, and results in a constantly reduced service profile.

Transit planning should be a separate endeavor from transit operations. By default, WMATA is both the region's transit planner and the region's transit operator.

But decisions about the level of service, level of quality, and the breadth of the transit network shouldn't be made by the transit operator, but by the region. In response to such metrics and preferences, WMATA in turn should demonstrate how to meet these preferences, what level of revenue is required, and offer options, including a discussion on fares, and appropriate farebox revenue levels, necessary to achieve the provision of the specified level of service, quality, and network robustness.

Other transit systems across the country have faced significant problems concerning revenue and service effectiveness. The St. Louis region is currently going through a region-wide public planning process concerning the role of transit in the region. For many years, Chicago has been dealing with similar issues. And the San Francisco Transit Effectiveness Project (a multi-agency city government initiative) addresses comparable concerns.

All of these processes have involved significant citizen participation and input, as well as deep and wide discussions throughout their respective regions, including the widest possible participation and involvement of stakeholders at all levels.

In order to restore trust in the WMATA system generally, and to come up with a common understanding about the role of transit in the region, pricing, and metrics for level of service, level of quality, and the breadth of the transit network, the Citizens Planning Coalition recommends (as it has been recommending for at least 4 years in various writings) that WMATA embark on a similar public planning and participation process.

It is extremely important that this be a participatory process rather than a dog and pony show seemingly seeking citizen input, without allowing for the possibility of real substance.

(Also see the article, "Crowdsourcing helps the Chicago Chamber of Commerce Find More Bus Riders," from Government Technology Magazine, on an initiative seeking proposals for improvements in the quality and breadth of the transit system in the Chicago region. As well as discussions in the Toronto Star on the "transit camp" and other independent citizen initiatives focused on improving local transit.

Thank you.

Respectfully submitted,

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix
Washington Metropolitan Transit Network
Working Document – Version 2.0, April 17th, 2009
Citizens Planning Coalition

A framework for an all encompassing DC-MD-VA transit network

This framework is predicated on a large base of transit users, a high-capacity transit network to move people around, connections to destinations that people want to visit, and activity centers that are visited regularly (especially the workplace). Buses running on routes with few riders aren’t cost effective. As articulated, the Washington Metropolitan Transit Network functions within a broader, multi-state, Regional Transit Network.

At both the Regional and Metropolitan levels, the overarching networks are defined by their provision of foundational “trunk line” service. Differences between the Primary, Secondary and Tertiary subnetwork categories are defined by speed, capacity and reach of the service, and how it connects to nodes within the overarching Metropolitan Transit Network.

Meta (or Multi-state) Regional Transit Network: MARC and VRE service ideally combined into one multi-state compact and system, with service as far south as Norfolk and as far north as Wilmington, DE and Harrisburg, PA, west to Charlottesville, VA (or beyond), and connections to West Virginia, with intermodal stations connecting to heavy and light rail transit systems; supplemented by Amtrak. Water-based transportation services could augment fixed rail service. At certain nodes connections are made with the Metropolitan Transit Network.

Washington DC Metropolitan Transit Network: WMATA subway system; ferry system if added; cross-jurisdictional bus rapid transit; commuter services oriented to moving people between home and major job centers within the region, across jurisdictional boundaries (i.e., OmniRide from Prince William County, which provides commuter-oriented service to Metro stations and job centers, with an end point in DC [and back] or the MTA Commuter buses).

Suburban Primary Transit Network: public transit systems operated by Counties and Cities in the Washington region providing bus, streetcar, and light rail service within the suburbs, providing connections to major activity destinations, stations (nodes) within the regional transit network, and potentially providing cross-jurisdictional service.

Suburban Secondary Transit Network: intra-jurisdictional municipal transit service; private shuttle services.

DC Primary Transit Network: The DC transit network considers the WMATA subway stations within DC as a subsystem of the full WMATA subway network. The primary network is comprised of the 29 subway stations in the inner core of DC (see map below); the proposed streetcar system; high frequency Metrobus and MetroExtra--express or limited stop—service (i.e., 30s, 70s, S, 90s, X, 50s lines); Downtown Circulator bus service; cross-jurisdictional WMATA bus service.

DC Secondary Transit Network: the other 11 subway stations in the city; other WMATA bus service within the city (i.e., 60s, G8); secondary DC Circulator routes (Adams Morgan-Columbia Heights-McPherson Square, Union Station-Capitol Hill-Navy Yard); Georgetown Connector shuttle service; water taxi service if added (based on the likely impact of utilization, which is projected to be minimal).

DC Tertiary Transit Network: intra-neighborhood bus services; private shuttle services (i.e., Washington Hospital Center to/from Brookland Metro, university shuttle services, etc.). This proposed tier of service would be comprised of an intra-neighborhood transit service that could be free (depending on monies provided separately by DC), and oriented to getting people to and from within a neighborhood, to main transit lines and stations without having to drive, and including delivery of goods and services from local commercial districts. The Tempe Orbit bus system in Tempe, Arizona is one model for this type of mobility option.

The subway stations defining the boundaries of the DC Primary Transit Network are Foggy Bottom on the west, Stadium-Armory on the east, Van Ness on the northwest, and Brookland on the northeast. (Fort Totten, pictured on this map, is not included in the definition of the Primary Transit Network, based on urban design and population density.)

Not the last word on "pedestrian" malls

Bus Traffic on Nicollet Mall
Originally uploaded by Zach K

I have discussed this from time to time. Dave Feehan, president of the International Downtown Association, makes the distinction between pedestrian and transit malls. The "pedestrian" malls in both Denver and Minneapolis are really transit malls.

The Nicollet Mall in Minneapolis illustrates the necessity of focused development around the "pedestrian" mall. It appears as if land use and capital improvement planning is focused on extending the value of the Nicollet Mall by pushing retail there (including the new Target store), housing, and event venues--the Target Center is one block off the mall there. Plus hotels.

And wide sidewalks which allow for sidewalk cafes and comfortable places to walk.

In short, there is a layering of activity which focuses and concentrates people in that area, activating the spaces.

Someone wrote many years ago that plants don't activate spaces, people do. Without large numbers of people around--tens of thousands--pedestrian malls can't work.

In DC, about the only place where one could potentially work would be 7th Street NW, anchored as it is by the Convention Center, Verizon Center, the Smithsonian American Art Museum and National Portrait Gallery, the Landsburgh Theater, now the Harmon Theater too, even potentially the Historical Society (Carnegie Building) and the Central Library on 9th Street...

But even so, that doesn't mean that I believe in advocating for a pedestrian mall in DC. I'd rather spend more time making all places great, and supportive of walking, bicycling, and transit.

(Image by Zachary Korb, from Flickr. He also blogs in An Affair with Urban Policy)