Richmond Region Transportation

[Icetera]

Ultimately, at least two North/South routes will be needed.  Given that, I am thinking of a two phase plan where the first line runs Belvidere-Chamberlayne/Broad/14th-Hull/Belt/Midlothian (RED).  This adds coverage to VUU, Gilpin, VCU, Broad Street overlap, Old Hull Street stretch, Southside Plaza/VA and then onward to the Midlothian/Chippenham development node.  The next line (PURPLE) is then added to run all of RT-301 to which point the RED LINE is adjusted to continue West on Broad and then North up Arthur Ashe.

Phase 1

 

Phase 2

[eandslee]

2 hours ago, Brent114 said:

Route 1 (or 301) would be great.  It could connect the future Green City with downtown. 
 

Defense Supply —-> Green City  would be a great route.   Then extend the Broad Street line out to Reynold’s Crossing.   
 

And paint the lanes red already! That money was allocated at least a year ago. 

Amen to all of this comment...especially, the red paint - Get it DONE Richmond!!

[I miss RVA]

These are all good - the only major missing component -- and it's something the city REALLLLY wants -- is connecting a BRT line to the GRTC transfer plaza downtown. Which requires some kind of an approach to downtown from the north along Leigh Street - with a turn south at 8th -- and likely a northerly approach on the return trek from Manchester either along 9th or 7th. Having two PULSE lines running east-west on Broad would be interesting - but I wonder if it would be overserving the same stretch of the city?  The purple line on your second map is the only "pure" north-south line -- and I honestly think it's one that the city will HAVE to implement, regardless of running another north-south route through the core sections of downtown (City Center/Financial District/Riverfront). Unfortunately, I don't think "north-south" can be solved with a single route because no matter which way it's routed, SOME place gets cut out of the mix.

I like the three routes you have there, @Iceteraand that it includes Scott's Addition -- particularly Greater Scott's/Diamond District north of the Acca Bridge. What if -- to satisfy the city's desire to connect the GRTC transit center -- just one small adjustment was made -- go east-west via Leigh from A.A. Boulevard to 8th and 9th (or 9th and 10th - depending where the actual GRTC transit station is ultimately built) - then to Broad, and follow Broad to 14th south to Manchester and along Hull Street, as you have proposed.

Edited January 6, 2022 by I miss RVA

[Icetera]

54 minutes ago, I miss RVA said:

These are all good - the only major missing component -- and it's something the city REALLLLY wants -- is connecting a BRT line to the GRTC transfer plaza downtown. Which requires some kind of an approach to downtown from the north along Leigh Street - with a turn south at 8th -- and likely a northerly approach on the return trek from Manchester either along 9th or 7th. Having two PULSE lines running east-west on Broad would be interesting - but I wonder if it would be overserving the same stretch of the city?  The purple line on your second map is the only "pure" north-south line -- and I honestly think it's one that the city will HAVE to implement, regardless of running another north-south route through the core sections of downtown (City Center/Financial District/Riverfront). Unfortunately, I don't think "north-south" can be solved with a single route because no matter which way it's routed, SOME place gets cut out of the mix.

I like the three routes you have there, @Iceteraand that it includes Scott's Addition -- particularly Greater Scott's/Diamond District north of the Acca Bridge. What if -- to satisfy the city's desire to connect the GRTC transit center -- just one small adjustment was made -- go east-west via Leigh from A.A. Boulevard to 8th and 9th (or 9th and 10th - depending where the actual GRTC transit station is ultimately built) - then to Broad, and follow Broad to 14th south to Manchester and along Hull Street, as you have proposed.

The problem with that is there is no easy access from Broad up to Leigh from anywhere West of VCU.  This means either a 10 minute trek from Scotts Addition/Science Museum Station to the likely Bowtie Station or a 10-15 minute ride to the transfer station, then another 10+ min ride to get back to Bowtie and beyond. 

The reasoning behind the overlap is that, from the ridership I see, the stretch from VCU Med to Science Museum has the heaviest ridership (especially to VCU/VUU).  Beyond that segment, the ridership drops significantly so having busses running the whole route at a higher frequency would see a lot of waste at the endpoints.  By overlapping routes on the busy stretch, frequency (aka capacity) is effectively doubled where it matters without underutilized buses at those endpoints.  This also means reuse of stations, rather than building new ones only a few blocks away, and a reduction in trackage when we hopefully reach light-rail.  This type of overlap is common in metro systems such as Chicago's Loop, NYC's 1-2-3 and 4-5-6 lines, and  DC's Yellow and Silver Lines.

I also do not think there is much push to bring the Pulse system directly into the transfer station when it is only a 1-2 block walk.

[I miss RVA]

6 hours ago, Icetera said:

The problem with that is there is no easy access from Broad up to Leigh from anywhere West of VCU.  This means either a 10 minute trek from Scotts Addition/Science Museum Station to the likely Bowtie Station or a 10-15 minute ride to the transfer station, then another 10+ min ride to get back to Bowtie and beyond. 

The reasoning behind the overlap is that, from the ridership I see, the stretch from VCU Med to Science Museum has the heaviest ridership (especially to VCU/VUU).  Beyond that segment, the ridership drops significantly so having busses running the whole route at a higher frequency would see a lot of waste at the endpoints.  By overlapping routes on the busy stretch, frequency (aka capacity) is effectively doubled where it matters without underutilized buses at those endpoints.  This also means reuse of stations, rather than building new ones only a few blocks away, and a reduction in trackage when we hopefully reach light-rail.  This type of overlap is common in metro systems such as Chicago's Loop, NYC's 1-2-3 and 4-5-6 lines, and  DC's Yellow and Silver Lines.

I also do not think there is much push to bring the Pulse system directly into the transfer station when it is only a 1-2 block walk.

Oh I agree with the overlap and actually prefer it. I posted my suggested alteration just as a demonstration to show what the city is looking to do since in the City Center SAP they were focusing on inclusion of the GRTC transfer hub. That's the city's doing.

The overlap on Broad could work quite well if the schedules are synchronized so that red and blue lines a spaced sufficiently apart. Station reuse would certainly reduce startup costs of the second (red) line. 

[DowntownCoruscant]

Thursday evening, my wife and I caught the virtual meeting for the Staples Mill Study Area (stretching from Hungary Rd. to the I-64 interchange, but not exclusively so: it also covers a bit of Broad and Brook). It was facilitated by a traffic engineering company with some VDOT people on hand too. About 50 people watched it. 
 

The gist is to identify problems with this area and propose long-term solutions with a eye toward multi-modal transportation. The most glaring issues right now are traffic and safe pedestrian/bike access - the existing sidewalks are unsafe due to being so close to a high speed roadway. The presenter showed a map projecting there will be dozens of “red” intersections in this area by 2040 under a no-build scenario. Red is roughly translated as “this is hell.” So, they will look into various fixes from signal timing to infrastructure changes.

The presenter somewhat vaguely referred to dedicated travel lanes along Staples Mill. I don’t know what she meant by that. Although one of the goals is to provide safe and affordable transit for people working in this area or providing a connection to jobs in downtown or Short Pump, she also said the Pulse will not have a Staples Mill spoke.

Interestingly, one of the goals of this study is to foster TOD around the Staples Mill Amtrak station. This portion was also vague, but the presenter did say the long term vision was for the station to be in close proximity to its current location. This comment, along with another one saying a goal is to reduce the sea of surface parking lots in the study area, suggests to me that everything around the current station may be redeveloped into a more efficient model. 
 

This was a preliminary meeting. A second will follow in the summer. There’s also an online survey that remains open through next week.

[ancientcarpenter]

13 hours ago, DowntownCoruscant said:

Thursday evening, my wife and I caught the virtual meeting for the Staples Mill Study Area (stretching from Hungary Rd. to the I-64 interchange, but not exclusively so: it also covers a bit of Broad and Brook). It was facilitated by a traffic engineering company with some VDOT people on hand too. About 50 people watched it. 
 

The gist is to identify problems with this area and propose long-term solutions with a eye toward multi-modal transportation. The most glaring issues right now are traffic and safe pedestrian/bike access - the existing sidewalks are unsafe due to being so close to a high speed roadway. The presenter showed a map projecting there will be dozens of “red” intersections in this area by 2040 under a no-build scenario. Red is roughly translated as “this is hell.” So, they will look into various fixes from signal timing to infrastructure changes.

The presenter somewhat vaguely referred to dedicated travel lanes along Staples Mill. I don’t know what she meant by that. Although one of the goals is to provide safe and affordable transit for people working in this area or providing a connection to jobs in downtown or Short Pump, she also said the Pulse will not have a Staples Mill spoke.

Interestingly, one of the goals of this study is to foster TOD around the Staples Mill Amtrak station. This portion was also vague, but the presenter did say the long term vision was for the station to be in close proximity to its current location. This comment, along with another one saying a goal is to reduce the sea of surface parking lots in the study area, suggests to me that everything around the current station may be redeveloped into a more efficient model. 
 

This was a preliminary meeting. A second will follow in the summer. There’s also an online survey that remains open through next week.

This is great, thanks.

 

A little off topic: I bike quite a bit in RVA (avatar wasn't obvious)? Today I rode about 50 miles from fan to Cap Trail and so on. From fan area I took grayland bike lane all the way to Oregon Hill. Then the bike lane disappears. Next bike lane is on Franklin and I have to hodge-podge my way there just for it to end again so I have to hit a bunch of Virginia Assembly routes and some harsh cobblestone to get to the Cap Trail. We really need connect more bike lines continuously as a means of RVA transport (and leisurely activities). Bike lanes just stopping is a good start with what we have but I hope almost ever road discussion includes bike lanes moving forward... it's a big deterrent for bikers when they know they have to put their safety in jeopardy to ride a certain route.

[Brent114]

I’m actually surprised by how quickly bike lanes are being added.
A few years ago the folks along Brook Road fought tooth and nail to keep that route from happening (they failed).  I assumed every potential bike lane was doomed.  Much to my surprise every few months new lanes are put in with little to zero fanfare.  I’m optimistic that we’ll have real connectivity soon.  

 So far my biggest disappointment has been the Monroe Park renovation (the park turned out great, no disappointment there).  They missed an opportunity to add a bike lane along Franklin and Laurel (connecting Floyd and the bike lane  along Franklin.  Riding bikes through the park isn’t the best idea. 

[I miss RVA]

The following maps are courtesy of our good friends over at the rva/Reddit site. I'm always happy when I see SO many responses of folks, especially from the current younger generations who never lived to see RVA's old streetcar lines yet wholehearted lament the loss and call for some kind of restoration of them or implementation of a legit light-rail system in the city and metro.

My parents - long-since faithfully departed -- were young adults when the streetcars ran their last routes in Richmond. I missed seeing the street cars take their final laps around the city by some 13 years.

Streetcar photographs courtesy of the Richmond Times-Dispatch

 

[I miss RVA]

Seeing all of this makes me wonder:

Since there is a wonderful push to celebrate the city's tricentennial in 2037 - I'd be curious to know if perhaps another initiative -- to implement citywide light-rail service by 2049 - the centennial of the last running of the streetcars in Richmond -- could be undertaken? That would give the city and the metro a full 27 years worth of population growth, economic growth, and hopefully would provide more than enough impetus to restore street-level rail service in the city where it all started. Obviously we 'celebrated' the centennial of when RVA streetcars first started rolling back in 1988 - but of course, given the population and economic dynamics of RVA there was no way even one single rail line would have been built to coincide with the centennial.

So what about 2049 (although, provided I even make it that far, I'll be 86 - turning 87 - sheesh!!) -- 100 years since the streetcars stopped rolling in Richmond? Mind you, I absolutely want rail service back underway in the city WELL before then - but I ask the question: is 27 years enough time to allow for enough population growth (city and metro) and economic growth to get the powers that be up off their keesters and actually put something like this into place?

Thoughts?

[123fakestreet]

1 hour ago, I miss RVA said:

Seeing all of this makes me wonder:

Since there is a wonderful push to celebrate the city's tricentennial in 2037 - I'd be curious to know if perhaps another initiative -- to implement citywide light-rail service by 2049 - the centennial of the last running of the streetcars in Richmond -- could be undertaken? That would give the city and the metro a full 27 years worth of population growth, economic growth, and hopefully would provide more than enough impetus to restore street-level rail service in the city where it all started. Obviously we 'celebrated' the centennial of when RVA streetcars first started rolling back in 1988 - but of course, given the population and economic dynamics of RVA there was no way even one single rail line would have been built to coincide with the centennial.

So what about 2049 (although, provided I even make it that far, I'll be 86 - turning 87 - sheesh!!) -- 100 years since the streetcars stopped rolling in Richmond? Mind you, I absolutely want rail service back underway in the city WELL before then - but I ask the question: is 27 years enough time to allow for enough population growth (city and metro) and economic growth to get the powers that be up off their keesters and actually put something like this into place?

Thoughts?

I'll give this the response I always do when light rail comes up. I'd love to see it, light rail is very cool. But BRT is functionally the same thing for like 1/20th the cost, both on construction and maintenance. For that reason light rail will not, and speaking in terms of fiscal responsibility, should not, happen.

Edited February 23, 2022 by 123fakestreet

[I miss RVA]

1 hour ago, 123fakestreet said:

I'll give this the response I always do when light rail comes up. I'd love to see it, light rail osvery cool. But BRT is functionally the same thing for like 1/20th the cost, both on construction and maintenance. For that reason light rail will not, and speaking in terms of fiscal responsibility, should not, happen.

A thought and a question for you. First the question:

I hear where you're coming from & certainly can't argue with you on the facts (BRT IS cheaper!) - but how do cities like Portland and Charlotte make it work so well for them? Both cities have implemented light rail systems (and there are plenty of other cities that have been or are doing so now) - and Charlotte is looking to expand their system. Is this yet another one of those functions of "market size" being the difference maker? (And RVA somehow seems to keep falling well short in terms of "requisite" market size in just about every conceivable area - like how tall our buildings are, light rail, air service, etc.)

The thought: whenever I hear the term "fiscal responsibility" as it relates to RVA development, I am immediately brought back to 1978 when the powers that be of the CRAC said "thanks, but no thanks" to Piedmont Airline's offer to place their primary passenger hub in Richmond. The commission held the position that it would not be "fiscally responsible" to undertake an admittedly massive financial investment in dramatically expanding/improving then-Byrd Field's infrastructure - such as a major terminal expansion and the costly but crucial construction of parallel runways to make the airport capable of handling significantly increased flight volumes. If I recall, the runway expansion portion also required land acquisition (something that has long-since happened - along with a new, modern airport master plan that calls for terminal expansion and construction of parallel runways - albeit some 40-plus years too late!!) Students of history know that when Piedmont approached Charlotte, the Queen City jumped at the opportunity (money and cost be damned!), and that city/metro has been laughing all the way to the bank ever since, given how exceptionally well that little partnership worked out.

So you'll please, kindly, forgive me while I clutch my stomach from the sudden cramping & nausea brought on by that term.

Edited February 23, 2022 by I miss RVA

[123fakestreet]

33 minutes ago, I miss RVA said:

A thought and a question for you. First the question:

I hear where you're coming from & certainly can't argue with you on the facts (BRT IS cheaper!) - but how do cities like Portland and Charlotte make it work so well for them? Both cities have implemented light rail systems (and there are plenty of other cities that have been or are doing so now) - and Charlotte is looking to expand their system. Is this yet another one of those functions of "market size" being the difference maker? (And RVA somehow seems to keep falling well short in terms of "requisite" market size in just about every conceivable area - like how tall our buildings are, light rail, air service, etc.)

The thought: whenever I hear the term "fiscal responsibility" as it relates to RVA development, I am immediately brought back to 1978 when the powers that be of the CRAC said "thanks, but no thanks" to Piedmont Airline's offer to place their primary passenger hub in Richmond. The commission held the position that it would not be "fiscally responsible" to undertake an admittedly massive financial investment in dramatically expanding/improving then-Byrd Field's infrastructure - such as a major terminal expansion and the costly but crucial construction of parallel runways to make the airport capable of handling significantly increased flight volumes. If I recall, the runway expansion portion also required land acquisition (something that has long-since happened - along with a new, modern airport master plan that calls for terminal expansion and construction of parallel runways - albeit some 40-plus years too late!!) Students of history know that when Piedmont approached Charlotte, the Queen City jumped at the opportunity (money and cost be damned!), and that city/metro has been laughing all the way to the bank ever since, given how exceptionally well that little partnership worked out.

So you'll please, kindly, forgive me while I clutch my stomach from the sudden cramping & nausea brought on by that term.

I would guess Portland and Charlotte dove into their systems before BRT became popular and it was clear it was a thing that could be done.   Cue the Simpsons "Monorail" song.  Charlotte opened theirs in 2004, Portland's has been around much longer.

https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/ex/sustainablecitiescollective/explosive-growth-bus-rapid-transit-brt/20074/

BRT did not become widely popular in the US until around 2010.

Also, passing on expanding on RIC into a hub wasn't fiscally responsible, it was fiscally irresponsible. 

[I miss RVA]

2 minutes ago, 123fakestreet said:

I would guess Portland and Charlotte dove into their systems before BRT became popular and it was clear it was a thing that could be done.   Cue the Simpsons "Monorail" song.  Charlotte opened theirs in 2004, Portland's has been around much longer.

https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/ex/sustainablecitiescollective/explosive-growth-bus-rapid-transit-brt/20074/

BRT did not become widely popular in the US until around 2010.

Also, passing on expanding on RIC into a hub wasn't fiscally responsible, it was fiscally irresponsible. 

Thanks, @123fakestreet-- really good information on the more recent development and popularity. That would lead me to believe that we'll never see any kind of rail in RVA. Makes me wonder if some of those other cities will actually trade in their massive rail investments for BRT.

Re: RIC passing on Piedmont:  AMEN!!!  THANK YOU!!! 

[KJHburg]

Charlotte wants to do more rail but BRT does accomplish the same thing at a fraction of the cost.  Our instate rival Raleigh is doing all BRT and they will build it out before we could ever complete another rail line.  Here is their plan

New Bern Ave corridor is up first. Check out their videos and how it works and comes together.    I actually saw your BRT down Broad I think last visit to Richmond.  I liked it and more and more in Charlotte are calling for BRT here too. 

https://raleighnc.gov/bus-rapid-transit

Check out El Paso TX BRT line 

http://sunmetrobrio.net/

Edited February 26, 2022 by KJHburg

[rjp212]

As someone who crosses Mayo Bridge daily, I am relieved the city has proposed replacing the bridge with something more multi-modal.  While it’s historical, it’s been neglected for decades, and feels like a death trap.  
 

https://www.nbc12.com/2022/03/25/rehab-replace-richmonds-mayo-bridge-could-close-two-years/

Edited March 26, 2022 by rjp212

[Wahoo 07]

47 minutes ago, rjp212 said:

As someone who crosses Mayo Bridge daily, I am relieved the city has proposed replacing the bridge with something more multi-modal.  While it’s historical, it’s been neglected for decades, and feels like a death trap.  
 

https://www.nbc12.com/2022/03/25/rehab-replace-richmonds-mayo-bridge-could-close-two-years/

Hopefully the replacement will be capable of supporting light rail and/or a streetcar.

[I miss RVA]

3 hours ago, Wahoo 07 said:

Hopefully the replacement will be capable of supporting light rail and/or a streetcar.

Wait - I hear the preservationists and NIMBYs lining up offstage to start screeching "RESTORE!!! NOT REPLACE!!!!  IT's HISTORIC!!!" 

@rjp212-- it's been more than 20 years since I had the opportunity to drive across that bridge - and it felt like a death trap even back then! Hard to believe it's been around now for almost 110 years. And if I recall correctly, it was completely submerged in both the 1972 (Hurricane Agnes) and 1985 floods - and it was almost completely submerged (water was up to the deck (to the guard rails, even!) - just not completely OVER it) in 1969 (Hurricane Camille). That it is even still standing (given that fact alone) -- much less still "safely" drivable -- is probably a miracle on par with the splitting of the sea during the times of Moses.

Edited March 26, 2022 by I miss RVA

[DowntownCoruscant]

Also, is it too much to ask for a bridge that actually looks good? Manchester and Lee are just roadways over water. How about something pleasant to look at?

[I miss RVA]

25 minutes ago, DowntownCoruscant said:

Also, is it too much to ask for a bridge that actually looks good? Manchester and Lee are just roadways over water. How about something pleasant to look at?

According to NBC12, the new bridge will "look like" or "resemble" the old bridge - only with modern materials. Soooooo... we'll see. Back in 1913 when this bridge was built, there was emphasis placed on bridge architecture, including distinctive, decorative features. Mind you - we'll never see anything like a steel-girder cantilever style bridge spanning the James downtown (something akin to the Queensboro (59th Street) Bridge. But hopefully the new one will have some distinctive architectural features very similar to the old bridge. The concrete -- decorative -- guardrails/fencing ... the concrete street lamp posts - all are SO distinctive. Hopefully those elements can be in some way replicated or at least paid a little bit of homage without unduly increasing the cost of the construction.

My question is: how will the closure of this span affect new development in Manchester -- particularly in that VERY robust section of "lower" Manchester (from Commerce Road north to the river) where so much high-density development has been ongoing for several years now - and many more projects are in the pipeline?

[wrldcoupe4]

It was inspired by the Pont Neuf in Paris which interestingly also connected an island in the middle of the river. 

[I miss RVA]

37 minutes ago, wrldcoupe4 said:

It was inspired by the Pont Neuf in Paris which interestingly also connected an island in the middle of the river. 

Fantastic! I didn't know the history of the bridge.

It IS interesting because technically it's not one single bridge, but two bridges connecting Mayo Island to downtown and to Manchester. Technically, you're not on the bridge at all when you're in the middle of the island. I recall the recycling center that used to be on the west side of S. 14th Street, in the middle of the island. And can you believe baseball was once played on the east side of the island at old Tate Field? Babe Ruth is said to have smacked a home run into the James when the Yankees were in town to play the Richmond Colts, although that legend has been debated and it's been said that it was actually the Iron Horse -- Lou Gehrig -- and not the Babe -- who parked a tater in The Ruvvah.

Tate Field also hosted football. Who says RVA isn't a great sports town?

 

[wrldcoupe4]

1 hour ago, I miss RVA said:

Fantastic! I didn't know the history of the bridge.

It IS interesting because technically it's not one single bridge, but two bridges connecting Mayo Island to downtown and to Manchester.

Just now, wrldcoupe4 said:

1 hour ago, I miss RVA said:

Fantastic! I didn't know the history of the bridge.

It IS interesting because technically it's not one single bridge, but two bridges connecting Mayo Island to downtown and to Manchester.

Yep that is the same setup in Paris. Pretty neat. 

[Shakman]

Replacing the bridge will overcrowd our schools and ruin our whiney NIMBY way of live therefore it should be either be restored or left alone.

I would like to see a modern replacement with, as Wahoo stated, the ability to support transit.  A structure which has exterior lighting features.

Edited March 28, 2022 by Shakman

[I miss RVA]

26 minutes ago, Shakman said:

Replacing the bridge will overcrowd our schools and ruin our whiney NIMBY way of live therefore it should be either be restored or left alone.

I would like to see a modern replacement with, as Wahoo stated, the ability to support transit.  A structure which has exterior lighting features.

Given that the 14th Street Bridge (yes, it has always gone by both names in case folks are wondering why I insist on calling it that) has twice been fully submerged by James River floods and a third time ALMOST completely submerged (1969 - Hurricane Camille) -- I will be curious to know if the new bridge will be built at the same level - OR - will it be elevated above the 100-year flood level (which prior to construction of flood walls was 36 feet above flood stage - it's no doubt higher now because the flood walls hems in the water). Of course that would take the bridge completely OVER Mayo Island - which kinda defeats the purpose of the original design. Mind you, the entire island is below the 100-year flood level, which is why, despite some developers' attempts in the last 10 years to get zoning for commercial/office and even residential construction, nothing has happened on the island aside from what's there now.

Just curious what engineers might actually come up with.