Richmond Region Transportation

[I miss RVA]

Thanks for taking and posting these, @eandslee-- it's good to see an update, even if this transfer parking lot is very much problematic.

If I recall - this is still only supposed to be a TEMPORARY solution, correct? I honestly can't imagine leaving what's little more than a surface parking lot with small medians to serve as bus boarding platforms in the heart of what's supposed to be one of the prime redevelopment blocks in City Center. I believe the overall City Center SAP has been calling for some kind of high-density development here. I hope and pray GRTC's "final" transfer station is INSIDE of or at least PART of a larger overall structure and isn't just a surface lot.

I'm not at all thrilled with this. For a permanent solution, given the development potential in City Center - this is beyond unacceptable. For Christ's sake, if they're going to build a downtown transfer station, then how about they do it right?

Edited January 9 by I miss RVA

[Hike]

13 minutes ago, I miss RVA said:

Thanks for taking and posting these, @eandslee-- it's good to see an update, even if this transfer parking lot is very much problematic.

If I recall - this is still only supposed to be a TEMPORARY solution, correct? I honestly can't imagine leaving what's little more than a surface parking lot with small medians to serve as bus boarding platforms in the heart of what's supposed to be one of the prime redevelopment blocks in City Center. I believe the overall City Center SAP has been calling for some kind of high-density development here. I hope and pray GRTC's "final" transfer station is INSIDE of or at least PART of a larger overall structure and isn't just a surface lot.

I'm not at all thrilled with this. For a permanent solution, given the development potential in City Center - this is beyond unacceptable. For Christ's sake, if they're going to build a downtown transfer station, then how about they do it right?

It looks temporary and hope so too, in the meantime, and while waiting for other surrounding parcels, blocks to be built out, over what will likely be years, having a “tidier” location for this seems acceptable until whatever the next move is.  

[I miss RVA]

6 minutes ago, Hike said:

It looks temporary and hope so too, in the meantime, and while waiting for other surrounding parcels, blocks to be built out, over what will likely be years, having a “tidier” location for this seems acceptable until whatever the next move is.  

Agreed - as long as this isn't what's envisioned as permanent. Unfortunately, given the pace of what will be built out and when, I'm afraid you're 100% right - it will take years - which means we'll be stuck with this surface transfer lot for quite a while. I'd love to hope that by 2030, the situation will have changed - but I'm not going to hold my breath.

[Downtowner]

Wow that transfer station has really come a ways since I was last working at the children’s hospital. I parked at 800 Jackson street down there across from j sarge and passed this every day walking to work at the children’s hospital. It was just a bunch of excavators and machinery staged every time I walked by there. Oh the children’s hospital has really been looking Amazing on the inside. My company gets pictures on our job app all the time. Our medical gas plumbing team just got a huge certification that allows for occupancy of patients or something like that. I’ve been in Charlottesville working on a 10 story office building but we are just doing a tenant upfit. I technically am hired by Moore’s electrical and mechanical but I’m not starting there until I move to Winchester. There may be a day where I will travel to Richmond for big jobs and I can just crash at my parents. Going to miss rva come July august but I’ll always be back to visit friends and family. 

[wrldcoupe4]

This is likely one of those things where the funding came in before the long term vision was ready. So build what you can today or lose the funding to another city. 

[I miss RVA]

37 minutes ago, wrldcoupe4 said:

This is likely one of those things where the funding came in before the long term vision was ready. So build what you can today or lose the funding to another city. 

Exactly.  And better do it now before we go into what I fear will be a funding "black hole" for the next two-plus years.  (Not sure how much lag there is regarding passed/signed legislation and funding being actualized - but after a certain point, it seems like things will look pretty grim legislatively until at least 2025.)

Edited January 9 by I miss RVA

[KJHburg]

Richmond is darn near the bottom of this list and that is a good thing.  The cities in the USA that lose the most hours due to rush hour congestion.  Richmond #72 out of 80.  Worst city?  NYC Best city for commuters?  Greensboro NC which is completing their new 47 mile beltway I-840 Monday.  

https://infogram.com/1pwxmkwrynd237cvnn79v99yn5u95679dn5?live

https://www.copilotsearch.com/posts/cities-that-lose-the-most-time-in-rush-hour-traffic/

Washington DC metro?  #22  Charlotte #40  Raleigh #54

I would be pointing out this obvious fact to the DC business community. 

 

[eandslee]

4 minutes ago, KJHburg said:

Richmond is darn near the bottom of this list and that is a good thing.  The cities in the USA that lose the most hours due to rush hour congestion.  Richmond #72 out of 80.  Worst city?  NYC Best city for commuters?  Greensboro NC which is completing their new 47 mile beltway I-840 Monday.  

https://infogram.com/1pwxmkwrynd237cvnn79v99yn5u95679dn5?live

https://www.copilotsearch.com/posts/cities-that-lose-the-most-time-in-rush-hour-traffic/

Washington DC metro?  #22  Charlotte #40  Raleigh #54

I would be pointing out this obvious fact to the DC business community. 

 

Birmingham, AL as sixth worst traffic?  Uh, something seems off here. This is one of the last cities I think of when I think of traffic problems. Also, Washington DC area needs to be higher on the list. It’s really bad up here - up there with NY and LA (I have first hand experience).  
 

Richmond’s always been favorable in the traffic department due to its expansive road system…plus lots of room to spread out. It’s definitely a selling point for those of us in the NOVA/DC area!

[KJHburg]

2 minutes ago, eandslee said:

Birmingham, AL as sixth worst traffic?  Uh, something seems off here. This is one of the last cities I think of when I think of traffic problems. Also, Washington DC area needs to be higher on the list. It’s really bad up here - up there with NY and LA (I have first hand experience).  
 

Richmond’s always been favorable in the traffic department due to its expansive road system…plus lots of room to spread out. It’s definitely a selling point for those of us in the NOVA/DC area!

it is based on extra time lost in rush hour traffic not so much the total commute.  Commutes are longer in DC for sure than a Birmingham but when it is peak there I guess the delays mount up.  I noticed Raleigh has an intense rush hour hour and half vs Charlotte's 2 plus hour rush hours.  

[I miss RVA]

8 minutes ago, eandslee said:

Birmingham, AL as sixth worst traffic?  Uh, something seems off here. This is one of the last cities I think of when I think of traffic problems. Also, Washington DC area needs to be higher on the list. It’s really bad up here - up there with NY and LA (I have first hand experience).  
 

Richmond’s always been favorable in the traffic department due to its expansive road system…plus lots of room to spread out. It’s definitely a selling point for those of us in the NOVA/DC area!

RVA has always punched WAY above its weight in terms of just how expansive the highway system is in and around the city and metro relative to overall population.  One can only hope that our ranking on this list would only serve to further make us an attractive option to businesses (and residents) looking to relocate from more congested (and equally more expensive) metro areas to a more cost-friendly metro.

[plain]

Richmond is going to stay way ahead of the curve for years to come, especially post-Pandemic (see below). Before 2020, traffic was starting to get quite iffy around here:

 

The Powhite Pkwy was starting to get jammed again (almost to levels like before the main toll plaza in the city was reconstructed)

VA 288 was getting jammed up from West Creek to Hull Street Rd

I-295 was getting jammed up at I-95 and again at Mechanicsville Tpk

I-95 was having issues south of the city towards Chester 

 

I think the pandemic actually stopped the growing traffic around here, with many people (especially those in the call centers like much of West Creek) working from home now.

 

No matter how much population the Richmond area gains, traffic will never be as bad as NOVA or Hampton Roads because of one main reason: too many alternate routes available for us to get around it all, something that the other two metros severely lacks.

 

The only real problem spot now is the I-95/64 overlap, which will pretty much always forever and a day be congested until the end of time.

[I miss RVA]

1 hour ago, plain said:

VA 288 was getting jammed up from West Creek to Hull Street Rd

Oh really? That's interesting to me. How bad were the backups? West Creek to Hull Street is a LONNNNNG way. Was this southbound only? Or both directions?

[Hike]

1 hour ago, I miss RVA said:

Oh really? That's interesting to me. How bad were the backups? West Creek to Hull Street is a LONNNNNG way. Was this southbound only? Or both directions?

Prior to the pandemic and before my office moved to near the Ashland airport, I commuted on 288, heading south. I was going opposite of all the backups, luckily!  I got on at Patterson ave. going south and there were backups there on the North bound lane at Patterson then cross over the James and the exit to Huguenot, that was a huge backup, almost and at times, all the way to Midlothian, then a huge backup getting onto Midlothian, then, where I got off, Hull st. both directions, East and west backed up, plus prior to that Powhite pkwy. was busy. I’m sure the exit past Patterson, going further north and just past where I got on would have been bad, exiting to the other west creek for Capital One, then after that Broad and 64, which was probably pretty bad too. I don’t commute this way now or anywhere, I’m lucky,  pretty sure 288 isn’t even close to what it was. I notice now when getting out, morning traffic around town is not bad, it’s late morning, lunch and evening that are worse than they used to be. So, the answer I saw was North in the morning and south in the evening for the worst backups prior to the pandemic.

Edited January 23 by Hike

[I miss RVA]

Excellent interview in today's Greater Greater Washington with GRTC's new CEO - Sheryl Adams. She sheds some light on nuggets that, while we've known about them, it's really good to hear from the voice at the top of the mountain on the status of how they're coming along.

A couple of golden nuggets for us to feast upon:

• She confirmed that the new downtown GRTC transfer plaza in City Center IS TEMPORARY and that GRTC is looking for a permanent solution.
• The north-south PULSE BRT line is a front-burner project, as is extension of the PULSE Broad Street Line to Short Pump. Adams indicated the extension to Short Pump will be in place before the north-south BRT line is.
• Route 19 (which follows the route of the BRT extension) has been successful and is a catalyst for the actual extension of the Broad Street PULSE line.
• There is a big push to get additional federal funding for BRT maintenance - currently PULSE's dedicated BRT lanes are just 0.6 mile short of the benchmark to unlock those funds. Adams mentioned expanding the BRT lanes a short distance into Henrico as well as adding lanes around 14th and Main.

Really good story. 

https://ggwash.org/view/88480/the-greater-richmond-transit-companys-new-ceo-shares-her-vision?emci=39f50afe-57a9-ed11-994d-00224832eb73&emdi=d3ed6942-5ba9-ed11-994d-00224832eb73&ceid=27023838

[plain]

That is great news!! This just further confirms that Pulse is successful (it's definitely packed and been this way before the Pandemic/free fares, I've been riding it since the beginning).

 

I don't see too much of an issue extending the bus lanes west at all, but east is a different story, being that both 14th and Main are going to be problematic. Also, I hope the longer (articulated) busses come into play sooner than later, it's definitely needed. I know that some work needs to be done to the existing stations, hopefully they'll build the new ones to spec.

 

I hope that some kind of Park and Ride facility will be in the mix, especially on the western end. There needs to be a plan for this given it's still an issue at Willow Lawn.

[I miss RVA]

2 hours ago, plain said:

That is great news!! This just further confirms that Pulse is successful (it's definitely packed and been this way before the Pandemic/free fares, I've been riding it since the beginning).

 

I don't see too much of an issue extending the bus lanes west at all, but east is a different story, being that both 14th and Main are going to be problematic. Also, I hope the longer (articulated) busses come into play sooner than later, it's definitely needed. I know that some work needs to be done to the existing stations, hopefully they'll build the new ones to spec.

 

I hope that some kind of Park and Ride facility will be in the mix, especially on the western end. There needs to be a plan for this given it's still an issue at Willow Lawn.

Glad to hear it's so successful and that buses are packed! This bodes well for future service, methinks.

Articulated buses would be a real plus. If I recall, wasn't GRTC seriously looking at some back in 2021? As you said, station platforms would need to be lengthened to accommodate the longer vehicles - hopefully there will be funds available to make this a reality.

And you're spot on re: park and ride - especially considering how that situation has been developing at Willow Lawn. It would serve the PULSE line well that BRT be treated the same way light rail would be treated. There are plenty of park and ride locations in NOVA for the Metro - it would be good to add in a few for the PULSE as our system gets built out.

 

[123fakestreet]

16 hours ago, I miss RVA said:

•  Adams indicated the extension to Short Pump will be in place before the north-south BRT line is.

I'm all for expanding the BRT in any way, but the purpose of any BRT is for dense corridors. Is extending it to Short Pump in staying with that mission? Is that an effective use of the BRT system's purpose - the longer the route the more potential delays, is there going to be much use on any stops between WL and SP? Is it a good use of funding that could otherwise go to a much more needed north south on Chamberlayne/Jeff Davis and even a 3rd line out toward Midlothian?

I have said since before the project was even completed it should have a connector to Short Pump on one end and the airport on the other, but it should be an express shuttle from the last BRT station, not a full continuation of the line.

 

Edited February 11 by 123fakestreet

[eandslee]

11 minutes ago, 123fakestreet said:

I'm all for expanding the BRT in any way, but the purpose of any BRT is for dense corridors. Is extending it to Short Pump in staying with that mission? Is that an effective use of the BRT system's purpose - the longer the route the more potential delays. Is it a good use of funding that could otherwise go to a much more needed north south on Chamberlayne/Jeff Davis and even a 3rd line out toward Midlothian?

I have said since before the project was even completed it should have a connector to Short Pump on one end and the airport on the other, but it should be an express shuttle from the last BRT station, not a full continuation of the line.

 

I just can’t believe that there is not serious talk about the BRT line going out to the airport.  Why is Short Pump the priority here?  If anything, the Pulse should run out to the airport just as much, if not more so, than going out to Short Pump!  Geez folks!  This is part of why the airport grows as slow as it does…there needs to be heavy focus on supporting those who use the airport. The airport needs to be in just about every regional project discussion!  We need to make the airport accessible and easy to use so that folks don’t go to DC instead of using RIC.  The airport should be a major focus…and somehow it isn’t.  Just baffles me!  SMH…

[blopp1234]

17 minutes ago, eandslee said:

I just can’t believe that there is not serious talk about the BRT line going out to the airport.  Why is Short Pump the priority here?  If anything, the Pulse should run out to the airport just as much, if not more so, than going out to Short Pump!  Geez folks!  This is part of why the airport grows as slow as it does…there needs to be heavy focus on supporting those who use the airport. The airport needs to be in just about every regional project discussion!  We need to make the airport accessible and easy to use so that folks don’t go to DC instead of using RIC.  The airport should be a major focus…and somehow it isn’t.  Just baffles me!  SMH…

The problem is the lack of major roads from the current Rockets Terminus and the airport. The only major road connecting the two locations is 2 lanes (1 in each direction). Unless a road widening is proposed (which would be incredibly costly with the amount of right of way that would have to be acquired) it would be difficult to actually implement real BRT similarly to where it is most successful in Richmond (along broad).
 

Personally I think buying two train sets and adding a shuttle from MSS to the airport would #1 be more cost effective and #2 be faster and more reliable for those flying in to access downtown. Cities like Cleveland have done this pretty well and by adding a rail connection, it could make it easier to establish true regional rail in the future. Doesn’t have to be huge trains or incredibly high frequencies (maybe one train departing for downtown every 20 minutes). Seems like it would be pretty cheap to operate and wouldn’t need a ton of infrastructure improvements outside of rebuilding the spur to the airport and would be very attractive for those trying to get downtown.

 

As far as the extension to Short Pump goes, I don’t think it’s a bad idea. There are multiple places along that corridor that are urbanizing (ie. Innsbrook, Parham Rd, Glenside Dr) that would get a huge shot in the arm if BRT was introduced. The 2 main things that would need to be prioritized in construction would be dedicated lanes and sidewalks/multi-use paths along the entire corridor as without dedicated lanes, the project wouldn’t serve any advantage over existing service.

 

I agree and north south line should be more of a priority as the income demographics that use bud service the most are largely distributed along the Chamberlayne/Jeff Davis corridor far more than broad out to short pump, but money talks and if Short Pump wants BRT, then they will likely be moved up on the priority list as they have the money and political influence to get it.

[Wahoo 07]

When it comes to BRT expansion, the powers that be need to focus on lines that are the most likely to be successful.   Successful lines are paramount.  Aside from the benefits of mass transit, they prove the concept and open the door to more.  Skeptics of BRT, who would gladly pounce on any underperformance, would be silenced by thriving Pulse lines.  Being too ambitious here could turn the Pulse into the transportation version of the 6th Street Marketplace.  We'd never heard the end of it from the BANANA crowd.

While I am totally in favor of Pulse extensions and new lines, they need to focus on those that are most likely to succeed.

[123fakestreet]

27 minutes ago, blopp1234 said:

There are multiple places along that corridor that are urbanizing (ie. Innsbrook, Parham Rd, Glenside Dr) that would get a huge shot in the arm if BRT was introduced. 

money talks and if Short Pump wants BRT, then they will likely be moved up on the priority list as they have the money and political influence to get it.

It would give those places a shot in the arm, but they are doing fine as is. We want downtown and our urban core to have the shot in the arm.  If everywhere is getting it, nowhere is.

I'm pretty sure Short Pump is vehemently *against* the BRT extending out there.  They don't want "undesirables" that use public transport coming into their enclave.

[plain]

2 hours ago, 123fakestreet said:

It would give those places a shot in the arm, but they are doing fine as is. We want downtown and our urban core to have the shot in the arm.  If everywhere is getting it, nowhere is.

I'm pretty sure Short Pump is vehemently *against* the BRT extending out there.  They don't want "undesirables" that use public transport coming into their enclave.

Except that the GRTC bus #19 already goes to Short Pump (actually damn near to the Goochland County line), so their point would be moot.

[I miss RVA]

7 hours ago, 123fakestreet said:

I'm all for expanding the BRT in any way, but the purpose of any BRT is for dense corridors. Is extending it to Short Pump in staying with that mission? Is that an effective use of the BRT system's purpose - the longer the route the more potential delays, is there going to be much use on any stops between WL and SP? Is it a good use of funding that could otherwise go to a much more needed north south on Chamberlayne/Jeff Davis and even a 3rd line out toward Midlothian?

I have said since before the project was even completed it should have a connector to Short Pump on one end and the airport on the other, but it should be an express shuttle from the last BRT station, not a full continuation of the line.

 

While I don't have handy the source to quote directly, I believe the proposal for the Broad Street line extension is to add a total of three stations MAX between WL and SP - with Short Pump being the third station and one at Innsbrook. (I forget specifics about a third station).

To your question: extending PULSE to Short Pump is ABSOLUTELY within their mission. This corridor is increasing in development and density, and it is a proven commodity among urbanologists worldwide that conventional wisdom of "waiting" for demand is bass-ackwards. Rather, the mass/rapid transit inherently CREATES demand - and we are seeing this clear as day in Richmond, given all of the development that is in the pipeline along the current PULSE Broad Street line's corridor, both in the county and in the city. The old adage of "build a better mousetrap and they will come" is a truism that absolutely applies to mass/rapid transit. Looking at everything being developed along Broad, including in Scott's Addition - particularly the timing of when it was developed up until today - what came first - the development or the PULSE line? Most - if not ALL - of the development immediately along the corridor got underway only AFTER the PULSE line was built and operational.

Regarding whether the funding should go to the north/south BRT line vs the extension to Short Pump: GRTC wants BOTH, obviously. Assuming they DO in fact receive sufficient funding, whether they are placing the Broad Street Line extension as a "priority" over the north/south line can be debated. HOWEVER - I would contend that the extension is low-hanging fruit that is easier to develop for a variety of reasons:

1.) it's shorter distancewise

2.) fewer stations - and those locations are already identified

(and pairing 1 & 2 means the overall infrastructure investment is significantly less for the Short Pump extension)

3.) demand - even if latent demand - is, in fact, there. 

4.) planning - the Short Pump extension is in place whereas the planning process for the north/south route has just started.

While all four points are critical, the fourth is perhaps the most prescient. The routing for the north/south line hasn't been hammered out yet.  We don't yet know where the line will go, much less where stations will be established. This is still quite early in the process for the north/south line, and it makes no sense to delay expanding to Short Pump until the EXTREMELY long north/south line has been built out. GRTC/CVTA can get the Broad Street Line extension in place in a matter of a couple of years at most, provided funding is available. Construction from the ground up of the north/south line will take significantly longer - and since unfortunately it's still only in the planning phase, it's not out of the question that the Short Pump extension COULD be complete AND OPERATIONAL by the time shovels hit the ground to turn dirt for any portion of the north/south line.

Edited February 11 by I miss RVA

[Icetera]

On 2/11/2023 at 9:20 AM, blopp1234 said:

Personally I think buying two train sets and adding a shuttle from MSS to the airport would #1 be more cost effective and #2 be faster and more reliable for those flying in to access downtown. Cities like Cleveland have done this pretty well and by adding a rail connection, it could make it easier to establish true regional rail in the future. Doesn’t have to be huge trains or incredibly high frequencies (maybe one train departing for downtown every 20 minutes). Seems like it would be pretty cheap to operate and wouldn’t need a ton of infrastructure improvements outside of rebuilding the spur to the airport and would be very attractive for those trying to get downtown.

Maintenance facilities may be a big hinderance here but perhaps a deal could be made with CSX via ACCA yard (Fulton location is best but no existing facility).

[Flood Zone]

On 2/11/2023 at 3:34 PM, I miss RVA said:

While I don't have handy the source to quote directly, I believe the proposal for the Broad Street line extension is to add a total of three stations MAX between WL and SP - with Short Pump being the third station and one at Innsbrook. (I forget specifics about a third station).

If so, I'm not sure what the point even would be. That's too few stations to feasibly serve most of the service oriented jobs along Broad Street fanning out west, and there's already an express bus from I-64/Gaskins to downtown. 

I support public transit and would love to see the Pulse expand to Short Pump, but I've yet to see signs of a proposal that make sense, politically or spatially.