Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
AJNEOA, what I basically get from your postings (and VA Yankee's) is that you think any urban rail is too expensive and inefficient to be worth it. Why, then, does it work so well all over the world, particularly in countries much poorer than the US?
See, I don't think light rail is expensive for what you get in return. The problem is that Americans are maxed to the hilt with wasteful spending. We can't afford to fund practical transportation because we're hooked on the impractical, ridiculously expensive transportation we have right now (if you calculated the amount of money people spent on their cars per year, including gas, and viewed it as a tax, it would be astronomically high - and don't get me started on all the new infrastructure in the exurbs).
I think the younger generation is more in tune with the ridiculousness of our current driving and developmental patterns and are more supportive of light rail. The older generation, however, will continue to fight public transportation tooth and nail. Their credit cards are maxed out, and there dream was always to live where there were no sidewalks or buses.
I already pointed out how Pittsburgh, which is renowned for its "amazing" BRT, has average overall bus speeds. BRT is all shock and awe, with little to no substance. It's, at best, a diversion. It's trying to divert people's interest in reliable, high-speed public transportation towards a far inferior, cheaper substitute.
Not at all. Urban rail is effective in different forms and in the right setting. My point all along has been that in the case of Richmond, I think the cost of light rail is prohibitive to getting needed transit projects funded and is not in the best interests of those in the city. There are several other priorities to moving people around the city.
You keep saying that rail is good and buses are bad, and while I prefer rail, you're completely ignoring that the right project for Richmond may not be rail. If the city rams an expensive glory project down the metro's throat, resulting in poor ridership and negative perception, further transit improvements will be stalled indefinitely. Moreover, you continue to state that rail is always good, yet one of your examples (Nashville) has been a big expensive failure. Whether a system runs on rails or wheels is but a very minor part of making an implementation successful.
Here's an article that also highlights what I'm trying to say:
Quote:
The obvious question is: which mode is appropriate in my city? Is my city ready and willing to change zoning regulations so that high density mixed use buildings can be built at rail stations? If not, then BRT is the clear choice because without high density rail will not be successful. Do I expect enough passengers to ride my proposed light rail system so that I can operate three car trains that can carry up to five hundred people every ten minutes or more during the peak period? If not, then BRT is the clear choice because I will not have enough passengers to overcome the increased cost of operating rail. While one three car light rail train can carry as many people as eight regular sized buses, if I am not filling up the train I do not need the extra capacity.
^^ Yet the Nashville system is VERY different than Light Rail. While LRT would act more like a streetcar running through dense areas, The Music city star in Nashville is a commuter rail line which only stops at about half a dozen exurban areas. Also, I would think that the city is set up for Light rail (as it was originally constructed around streetcars) Furthermore, I think a streetcar or light rail line/system would gain support, as there tends to be a sort of nostalgia amongst Richmonders (especially considering we had the 1st electric streetcars)
Furthermore, considering the fact that the the current administration is willing to push for a Ballpark in the bottom, I have a feeling that they would be willing to switch to higher density along the line.
^^ Yet the Nashville system is VERY different than Light Rail. While LRT would act more like a streetcar running through dense areas, The Music city star in Nashville is a commuter rail line which only stops at about half a dozen exurban areas. Also, I would think that the city is set up for Light rail (as it was originally constructed around streetcars) Furthermore, I think a streetcar or light rail line/system would gain support, as there tends to be a sort of nostalgia amongst Richmonders (especially considering we had the 1st electric streetcars)
Furthermore, considering the fact that the the current administration is willing to push for a Ballpark in the bottom, I have a feeling that they would be willing to switch to higher density along the line.
Yes it is very different (as I called out earlier in this thread). It was a point that that poster had made in a previous post, and the fact that "rail" is being used so broadly. Rail is not successful because it was built or because it's more enjoyable to take. It's only successful if it serves a population and receives adequate ridership.
In terms of Richmonders having streetcar nostalgia...can you clarify? I get the concept, but is there really a definite love for streetcars, even though most who currently live here never experienced them? I mean, I'm with you, but most everyone I know in Richmond lives around their car with the constant reminder that you can get anywhere in Richmond in 10 mins.
Also, I'm not sure what an overbearing mayor who's forcing the city into a ballpark has to do with light rail. It still requires funding, agreement and execution. If light rail is targeted only for within the city limits, that probably makes it much more likely...although only BRT is being talked about at this point.
Yet the Nashville system is VERY different than Light Rail. While LRT would act more like a streetcar running through dense areas, The Music city star in Nashville is a commuter rail line which only stops at about half a dozen exurban areas. Also, I would think that the city is set up for Light rail (as it was originally constructed around streetcars) Furthermore, I think a streetcar or light rail line/system would gain support, as there tends to be a sort of nostalgia amongst Richmonders (especially considering we had the 1st electric streetcars)
Exactly. The reason light rail would need to be focused on Richmond is because light rail only works properly in densely built neighborhoods. The only way light rail could work in Richmond's suburbs is in a "park and ride" scenario, but if you already live out that far, you're probably the type that wouldn't want to give up your car anyway. Only severe traffic congestion or astronomical gas prices would convince your typical suburbanite to take light rail to work.
So why should the suburbs support light rail? Simple. A booming Richmond would be a boon to the whole region. As you probably already know, the U.S. has transitioned to a "creative economy". Whether you think that was an advisable path or not, it's the truth. And the other truth is that creative people overwhelmingly prefer regions with bustling urban centers. They don't want to live in the suburbs.
Google, Facebook, and other major tech companies that most people would kill to work for have had to hire bus services to ferry workers from urban centers to office parks. Because otherwise, those people would just work for a startup in San Fran or Seattle. That's how strong the demand is for culture and urbanity in the so-called creative class.
Richmond is the region's economic ticket to the future, and growth there will eventually trickle down to the suburbs in a big way, raising everyone's boats. Of course, maybe you don't want Richmond to grow. Maybe you don't want it to support a major local economy. But the fact is, it continues to grow regardless. It's not a choice. It's just reality.
Also, My plan, which would run out to short pump is perfectly suited for park and ride. On top of that, it is close enough to plenty of apartment complexes and lets not forget the mall, and West broad villiage, so I dont think ridership will be as much of a problem than it would be if let's say it went out to north side, or mechanics ville.
Yes it is very different (as I called out earlier in this thread). It was a point that that poster had made in a previous post, and the fact that "rail" is being used so broadly. Rail is not successful because it was built or because it's more enjoyable to take. It's only successful if it serves a population and receives adequate ridership.
In terms of Richmonders having streetcar nostalgia...can you clarify? I get the concept, but is there really a definite love for streetcars, even though most who currently live here never experienced them? I mean, I'm with you, but most everyone I know in Richmond lives around their car with the constant reminder that you can get anywhere in Richmond in 10 mins.
Also, I'm not sure what an overbearing mayor who's forcing the city into a ballpark has to do with light rail. It still requires funding, agreement and execution. If light rail is targeted only for within the city limits, that probably makes it much more likely...although only BRT is being talked about at this point.
My point with the Music City Star, was that it was different because it serves a much lower density at much fewer intervals, that has nothing to do with enjoyment. Furthermore, I used the "nostalgia" point to point out that there would initially be more support for the project, even from those who may support it.
Furthermore, I beg to differ that it takes 10 minutes to get anywhere in the city, especially along the planned route. I know for example that it can take 10 minutes just to get a few miles up broad st. Furthermore, calling the interstate trip between downtown and Short pump a "10 minute drive" is a joke, especially during commute hours. What's more significant is that I've noticed an increase in traffic congestion, and people complaining about how hard it is to drive downtown and find a place to park (one of the biggest reasons for light rail), and lastly, If such auto centric cities Like Charlotte or Houston can construct light rail, then I really do fail to see why it would be a problem here in Richmond. Also, you mention that people in RVA drive alot. I dont think this is a reason not to have light rail, but rather a reason FOR Light rail, and should be a problem to be solved.
Lastly my point with the mayor was that if city hall would be willing to push for an unwanted stadium in the bottom, than we can expect that they would be willing to push for light rail, especially considering that the benefits are more pronounced, and it would benefit a wider range of people. Also, I have heard (from Architecture Richmond) that the cost to build a new stadium could easily cover building a light rail line, so If the city is willing to spend over 100 million on a stadium I think they would also be willing to spend on light rail, especially considering that success is more predictable with an LRT system.
Status:
"Let this year be over..."
(set 21 days ago)
Location: Where my bills arrive
19,219 posts, read 17,091,524 times
Reputation: 15538
Catching up on all the posts I still have questions. If a LR system was implemented where would it be serving, what would it's ridership be? There is still a city-centric tone to much of the posted dreams that views the burbs as something that's their with no real purpose. Let me ask what makes a city? Is it physical size, population, how it's incorporated? To me the "center" is where the jobs are, where people need to get to, which community has the impact. I am sure that traveling to certain locations takes more 10 minutes but how are you going to educate riders to take 30 or more minutes to uses LR to shop? It would seem securing a sizable commuting base would be a start but where would they be going to? I also don't think that their is any kind of nostalgia for the trolley system that was 70 years ago..
I just read where a trolley is being implemented to allow those in the "food desert" to shop at Kroger's, I will be curious to see how many choose to take advantage of this option.
Now that the Ball Park in the Bottom seems to be on a crash and burn course how long till they move on a viable solution or will they wait till the Squirrels threaten to leave???
Actually, I dont think the LRT ride would take 30 minutes. Plus, Mu plan heavily covers the major employment areas of Henrico (willow lawn, the Airport, Shortpump, and Innsbruck).
Also, I don't think nostalgia is the right word. Rather, I should say an increase in interest of what it would be like to have a streetcar (at least that's what I've seen first hand).
Lastly, I think it's important to note that the city daytime population heavily increases during workdays (I believe percentage wise it has one of the largest daytime population increases in the nation).
Anyway, I know I posted this a while back, but please look at this if you have further questions.
VA Yankee, you keep viewing the city and suburbs as separate entities. Fact is, most investment in America has been pouring into the suburbs for decades, while urban cities have been frequently neglected. But it's all tied together. Broad Street, for example, runs through the city and suburbs equally.
So now you have to ask yourself: is the Richmond region better with Richmond as a fully functioning, vibrant, and healthy urban center, or as an area of strategic disinvestment? Whether annexation truly is or isn't the answer (and there is certainly room for debate), I think it's reasonable to say that most American metropolises could stand to benefit from more regional cooperation.
You can't look at suburban tax dollars directed at the central city as a complete loss. A stronger Richmond will benefit the suburbs greatly. Do you think Greater Richmond is better off having the Richmond of today or the Richmond of 20 years ago? I think that's another important question to ask when considering major investments in the city.
And on the topic of light rail, do you really believe that BRT performs better than light rail? Ignore the cost. I'm posing this from a pure performance standpoint. I really don't think you can argue that BRT is superior in that aspect.
If it all comes down to cost, than you're saying America can't afford railways. You're saying America can't afford urban cities. Well, I refuse to believe that. I think we can afford it. We just have to change the way we think.
My point with the Music City Star, was that it was different because it serves a much lower density at much fewer intervals, that has nothing to do with enjoyment. Furthermore, I used the "nostalgia" point to point out that there would initially be more support for the project, even from those who may support it.
I know that. I used that as an example because "one is lonely" used it. I get the difference between commuter rail, light rail and streetcars/trams. "one is lonely" keeps saying that BRT is no good and rail is good across the board...when this is not really true. It's all about right-sizing the implementation to the needs of the specific city in question.
Quote:
Furthermore, I beg to differ that it takes 10 minutes to get anywhere in the city, especially along the planned route. I know for example that it can take 10 minutes just to get a few miles up broad st. Furthermore, calling the interstate trip between downtown and Short pump a "10 minute drive" is a joke, especially during commute hours.
You can beg to differ all you want, but that's the perception. It doesn't matter what you or I want; the fact is that people frequently talk about how easy it is to get around Richmond, especially when they're moving from places like DC.
Quote:
What's more significant is that I've noticed an increase in traffic congestion, and people complaining about how hard it is to drive downtown and find a place to park (one of the biggest reasons for light rail), and lastly, If such auto centric cities Like Charlotte or Houston can construct light rail, then I really do fail to see why it would be a problem here in Richmond. Also, you mention that people in RVA drive alot. I dont think this is a reason not to have light rail, but rather a reason FOR Light rail, and should be a problem to be solved.
Why is people driving another reason for light rail? If congestion isn't a real problem (being in heavy traffic or being delayed 15 mins is nothing btw). If I live in Willow Lawn and I have a car, what's my incentive for riding light rail? Assume I don't like transit, and I have a family with a tight schedule.
I hate driving and use transit most of the time (when it's available). However, just because I prefer it, doesn't mean that people driving is a "problem to be solved". Even if that were true, good luck fighting that battle.
Quote:
Lastly my point with the mayor was that if city hall would be willing to push for an unwanted stadium in the bottom, than we can expect that they would be willing to push for light rail, especially considering that the benefits are more pronounced, and it would benefit a wider range of people. Also, I have heard (from Architecture Richmond) that the cost to build a new stadium could easily cover building a light rail line, so If the city is willing to spend over 100 million on a stadium I think they would also be willing to spend on light rail, especially considering that success is more predictable with an LRT system.
A stadium in the bottom is not even close to the same thing as Light Rail. Like I said in my last post, if you're talking about Church Hill to Willow Lawn, then there's a better chance for that. However, Mayor Jones will not have the clout to force light rail on the counties, which already said they want nothing to do with the project. The cost is also much greater.
I get the impression that you've never been part of a major project before. Politics, influence and money are first and foremost in getting something like this complete. People on this board are certainly free to state what they want, but just saying you want it doesn't mean it's going to happen. There's a reason that so few transit projects get completed; they're insanely expensive, the general public prefers cars, and municipalities are all competing for the same federal subsidies.
Last edited by AJNEOA; 05-26-2014 at 01:25 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
