2019
GDPC Mobility Task Force Monthly Summary Report
Nine of the TF members met on
Friday, January 25th to lay out and agree on an Operational Plan. Following
a general discussion of current mobility issues, we agreed to renew efforts to
approach and impact the various decision-making bodies in the region. These
include Dallas city and NCTCOG planning authorities. Later the chair and
several committee members exchanged notes on how to formalize operations for
the year.
Attendees: Andrew Ittigson,
Shenita Cleveland, Hazma Khan, Michael Veale, Matt Ables, Robert Prejean,
Jeremy McGahan, John Clarkson, Bud Melton (Sign-in sheet attached)
Meeting Notes:
Submitted by John Clarkson,
January 28, 2019 - Final version by Bud Melton, January 31, 2019
The Chair laid out a goal for
this kickoff session: to have an Operational Plan for the task force,
and to report to the GDPC Board in early February. This launched a lively
discussion of current regional planning issues we might attend to, including
the rapidly developing micro-transit scene and land-use trends.
Mike Veal shared that projected
Texas government revenue will not keep pace with needed transit infrastructure
for the region. In other words, we cannot afford our future, at least -- as
long as we assume private autos running on highways as the default
transportation mode.
New micro-mobility developments
last week include sit-down electric scooters introduced in Austin recently. Bud
attended the “Rise of Downtown Dallas” and learned a lot about downtown
stakeholder wants and needs. DART announced its new GoPass version 3.0 with
expanded capabilities. Download the GoPass 3.0 app to try it out.
Bob Prejean described the
predicament of the central city and inner ring suburbs where inequality is
growing, while more sprawl seems inevitable on the outer edges. We generally
agreed that current low-density and auto-centric paradigms are inconsistent
with a future that seems to be emerging, nor are we likely to grow the kind of
urban settlements (neighborhoods) where all can benefit. (see GDPC’s Agenda
for Change document, on file on the website.)
Nationally, despite the
emergence of peripheral campuses for Apple and Facebook, several noted that the
class of highly skilled “information professionals” increasingly prefer to live
closer to work, in vibrant urban neighborhoods- witness Amazon’s choice of
dense urban sites in NYC and DC for HQ2. Such places seem more likely than
suburban business parks to provide the talent to incubate new businesses (&
WeWork sites for example). Dallas’ luxury apartment boom in close-in
neighborhoods seems to bear this out. Whether that same generation will stay in
the city to have families depends on their eventual schooling choices as well
as mobility options.
Bud observed
that design, mobility and the natural environment, our three task forces, will
likely continually interact with each other - and should inform one another.
Task Force chairs have agreed to endeavor to keep in touch monthly.
We talked
about how our role in GDPC is different from our respective, but related jobs.
Bob suggested “we need to be either (advance) scouts, or the canaries (in the
mineshaft).” The group agrees with Mike Veale that “....we need to get something
done, ....to get tactical and take on small, achievable projects.”
Hamza reminded
us that Urban Design TF has zeroed in on a small but doable visioning project
for “Vermont Village”, and that perhaps our TF should take on similarly
concrete and achievable projects. We generally agreed that the question is
“what can we do, if anything, to impact public and private decision-making?”
How can we get “in the right rooms” early enough to be make any play on their
plans?
Veale
explained that a great deal of “socialization and solutioning” occurs in these
planning and project “rooms” before the public comment windows are opened. When
we typically appear to comment, it is too late for us to have any real impact.
He said there are a plethora of such bodies already doing this advance planning
and project work, including elected officials and staff in dozens of cities and
counties across the region. We have to be selective about which ‘rooms’ we try
to enter.
Bud, Mike and
Andrew laid out what might be the most germane decision-making entities for us
to work with more closely:
North Central Texas Council of Governments as they develop the 2050 Mobility
Plan,
The City of Dallas and its Long-Range Mobility Plan
development, specifically as they grapple with I-30 and
micro-transit/micro-mobility options. (Several mentioned plans for retirement
of central spur expressways in cities like Seattle, Milwaukee, SF, etc.
Tracking and reporting on these might be helpful.)
DART as
they deal with D2, and re-think how it uses data to deploy bus and
mini-transit/other options.
Bud suggested
another area of joint learning: keeping up with innovation at all mobility
scales, such as new public-private schemes, street designs, Autonomous
Vehicles, and data-driven traffic control. We need to stay abreast of these
developments and share them across the TF and with the larger membership.
Lunch-and-learns
are one vehicle. We
plan to share briefings or summaries of 100 words or less on significant
items as they arise. This may include letters to the editors of area news
mediums.
Bob pointed
out that these planning bodies follow a long but precise processes, which we
must engage with at the appropriate time, in order to have a voice.
As we came to
a close, Bud promised notes to follow and some formalization of our small
projects/ big ideas approach for the year. This will be in the form of an
Operations Plan.
Meeting ended
at 9:20 AM
Next meeting
is scheduled for 7:30am Friday, February 15, 2019 at Halff Associates’
Richardson office.
