Norfolk Light Rail and Transit

[Case]

That seems a bit far fetched. How much development did the bus stops drive? What time period was the light rail completed? For example, if someone else's light rail was completed right before the real estate mania took off, then it might be easy to say the light rail drove the expansion, when really other factors drove it.

Who can tell.

HRT isn't self sustaining .... I don't think blight rail will be either?

Bus stops can not reasonably be compared to rail stops..apples and oranges...

Based on what I have seen in other cities.. If I had the money.. I would buy up all available land around future transit stops. Transit based developments on these sites may not happen immediately or even in 2 - 3 years after the LT is competed but they will happen. I would start picking up property around the Ballentine and Ingleside stations. (which may be one of reasons some people in Ingleside fear this project).

I think NSU has lost its mind in raising objections to this project which would raise the desirability of land in and around its campus. Hopefully they will see the light or $$ signs.

No one should think of this as quick fix but rather an investment in a long term growth plan.

[hoobo]

The problem with public transportation is that the public seems to think it should be self-sustaining--that users should pay the entire cost of the system. No one ever looks at roads that way. People get upset when we talk about putting tolls on roads or increasing the gas tax. Does the public think that roads magically appear and don't demand ever-growing o&m costs? Sales and income taxes among others go to pay for roads. If someone uses the subway or walks/bikes everywhere, they still pay into the road system. Shouldn't that also apply to public transportation? Neither roads nor public transport are self-sustaining. Rather, they should be viewed as two complementary components of our transportation system.

[Glassoul]

Bus stops can not reasonably be compared to rail stops..apples and oranges...

Based on what I have seen in other cities.. If I had the money.. I would buy up all available land around future transit stops. Transit based developments on these sites may not happen immediately or even in 2 - 3 years after the LT is competed but they will happen. I would start picking up property around the Ballentine and Ingleside stations. (which may be one of reasons some people in Ingleside fear this project).

I think NSU has lost its mind in raising objections to this project which would raise the desirability of land in and around its campus. Hopefully they will see the light or $$ signs.

No one should think of this as quick fix but rather an investment in a long term growth plan.

It doesn't create much new net development money, it mostly just shifts it around. Rather than develop property 'a' in the suburbs, you just develop property 'b' near the train station intead. Rather than put the Starbucks near some strip mall, you place next to the train station. How do you account for something like if the land would have been re/developed anyway? Let's say someone decides to build a 40 storey building on the snyder lot in 3 years time. Do you attribute that development to the new civic rail station across the street? Of course not, but that's not how it gets counted. Something less drastic perhaps. Let's assume someone buys a few of the older homes near one of the non-DT stations and builds new townhouses in their place. You can interview the developer. 'Would you have redeveloped the property anyway had it not been for the new rail station here?' (If he answers 'yes'), you can still ask whether it affected his decision to build. If he answers 'yes' how much of the redevelopment money of the redevelopment do you attribute to the rail line? (Answer: All of it. I have friends who are consultants for companies that do this type of work). You can argue for the resulting denser development patterns on environmental grounds, but it doesn't stand up to economic ones, unless you happen to be the original landowner near the station (a point I agree with you on the strange NSU objections, maybe they can't develop or lease the land out?). And from my view from one of the most mass-transit oriented cities in North America (and as someone who almost exclusively relies on mass transit), you only see the type of commerical development that you are all dreaming of in the most affluent sub/train stations, those that would have seen that type of development happen anyway. The station only served to concentrate that development. It is typically only AFTER a company moves to a location or establishes a large operation that you BRING mass transit TO THEM.

The other problem for those in favor of a mass transport system is that once the real costs of this starter line are realized by the general populace, there could very well be such a backlash that the starter line stays just that... The inflated ridership numbers, ignoring the operating costs, etc. can all do irreperable harm to the future of developing the system.

Edited October 15, 2007 by Glassoul

[RJWGMU]

It is typically only AFTER a company moves to a location or establishes a large operation that you BRING mass transit TO THEM.

What makes you think that? I would have to see proof about that because I can tell you that in Northern Virginia, companies build next to the metro stops, not the other way around. If it were as you have said, the metro in DC would have been extended out to Dulles and Tysons Corner quite some time ago!

[Glassoul]

What makes you think that? I would have to see proof about that because I can tell you that in Northern Virginia, companies build next to the metro stops, not the other way around. If it were as you have said, the metro in DC would have been extended out to Dulles and Tysons Corner quite some time ago!

Precisely! Dulles and TC developed in spite of NOT having mass transit. Now mass transit is being brought to them, somewhat relucantly in the case of TC as I understand it. My point is that companis typically regard transit for their employees as only a minor to moderate consideration, but not a top 5 factor in deciding where to build. Companies may indeed build near a metro station, but in most of those cases, the company would have built in the city regardless. In other words, how often do you hear about a company relocating or passing over a city because it didn't have available land near a metro/train station to build? An advocate of public transit can (and does) argue with these flimsy economic numbers that the development occured because of the mass transit, when in reality it would have occured regardless. Now most of the commercial development you see to the immediate area of a transit station is service based, and services are a very hard thing to measure properly, since maybe you eat breakfast each morning at the convience store next to the station now as opposed to the Mcdonald's at the intersection to your neighborhood. Maybe the dry-cleaners near the transit station now gets your business instead of the small store in the local strip mall. Has the transit station, in these cases, created new economic development? In the strictest sense of the word, yes new buildings had to be built, but does it add economic value for the city? Dubious.

And again, the ratios put up by advocates only considers the construction costs, not the (much higher $$$) long-term operation costs, or the fact that the citzens of the entire city end up subsidising those few who live around the station and use it on a daily basis.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not against mass-transit in general. I just happen to think this PARTICULAR solution to this PARTICULAR region is not going to come up all roses as the advocates of the system have led many people to believe. And because of the way it is being sold, it could end up dooming any future mass-transit oriented projects.

Edited October 15, 2007 by Glassoul

[Padman]

I'd like to echo what Hoobo said a little. Light rail won't be profitable for a long time, if ever, but it may open up new possibilities for our region, especially if our local land use plans support ridership. Cities are a lot like organisms. You have to spend money on them, feed them and sustain them if they are going to survive. Many cities suffer from poor circulatory systems, including ours.

[Sky06]

saw a special on norfolk light rail on channel 48, nnn. it was really cool. one of the nuggets that i walked away with, and did not previously know, was that apparently light rail brings in a significant amount of private investment - a 3:1 ratio. So, if it ends up costing 200 million to pull this thing off, then companies will invest 600 million in the area. that is, it isn't just a means of transportation, but is actually an economic engine. that, to me, is almost as important as the pragmatics of transportation.

has anyone else heard this 3:1 figure? does it seem accurate?

I've not heard any ratio, but I have heard over the years of the business impact of mass transit. Companies like that.

Those numbers are very accurate. Look at any numbers for other light-rail projects in the country and that is just the average ratio. Also, it was interesting in that TV short to see that a Fort Norfolk light-rail stop will be added in the future.

Good, I think that's a major stop.

The problem with public transportation is that the public seems to think it should be self-sustaining--that users should pay the entire cost of the system. No one ever looks at roads that way. People get upset when we talk about putting tolls on roads or increasing the gas tax. Does the public think that roads magically appear and don't demand ever-growing o&m costs? Sales and income taxes among others go to pay for roads. If someone uses the subway or walks/bikes everywhere, they still pay into the road system. Shouldn't that also apply to public transportation? Neither roads nor public transport are self-sustaining. Rather, they should be viewed as two complementary components of our transportation system.

Just the way people are. They want things for nothing.

Edited October 15, 2007 by Sky06

[scm]

Uh...Paul Fraim mentioned such a routing in his remarks at the FFGA SIgning Ceremony.

Well, then get the pens out. If Paul Fraim mentioned it, then all must align with his thinking. I see that his desires to keep DePaul as Norfolk's exclusive charity hospital got deservedly thrown out on their keester. Guess the Mighty Oz isn't all that powerful in many realms.

If Portsmouth wants LR extended (and it appears Ken Chandler does -- he worked in Arlington, so he sees what TOD could do for Portsmouth), then it will be politically unthinkable to spend more money in Norfolk until you get other cities desires met. I applaud Norfolk for stepping up to the plate and making the money available for the initial local portion. But it is "Hampton Roads" Transit, not "Norfolk" Transit. I am willing to bet you get some segment operating in VB before this ODU alignment happens -- just because of the politics.

All you fanciful thinkers need to look at where the traffic originates from, and where it is destined. LR is a solution to congestion, and an alternative to SOV usage. The capital investment required demands ROI -- and that is SOV trips removed from the roads. It isn't for "international students" to discover downtown. It has to offer something SOV travel doesn't offer -- regained time. it does that by traveling on dedicated ROW -- not city streets. it does that by moving large densities of travelers through our water chokepoints. It does that by getting SOVs out of the section of 264 between Pembroke and 64, Indian River and 64, and 64 up to Tidewater Drive (except for bridges and tunnels, our only real congestion) -- by offering faster travel. And that won't happen at street level.

[Henry_Ryto]

saw a special on norfolk light rail on channel 48, nnn. it was really cool. one of the nuggets that i walked away with, and did not previously know, was that apparently light rail brings in a significant amount of private investment - a 3:1 ratio. So, if it ends up costing 200 million to pull this thing off, then companies will invest 600 million in the area. that is, it isn't just a means of transportation, but is actually an economic engine. that, to me, is almost as important as the pragmatics of transportation.

has anyone else heard this 3:1 figure? does it seem accurate?

The 3:1 figure was given at the recent TOD seminar in Norfolk.

[Henry_Ryto]

I don't think any major regional mass transport company is self sustaining. And that's part of the problem. Locals have been sold on this $250M number. As you point out, none of these initial construction costs ever comes close to its proposed budget (see Charlotte) and Norfolk will be the one left to pick up the tab. HRT (and longtime supporters like The Pilot) have never been truthful about the true costs. The long-term operational costs (electricity, payroll, maintenance, etc.) will probably double or triple the total costs over 30 years.

As for the ridership numbers they're proposing? Pie in the sky. They say at a minimum 6k riders a day, I bet its 2/3 of that MINIMUM number. Sure it'll be a novelty at first for some people, but that will quickly wear-off. You will not get people standing in 85-100 degree heat and humidity for 10-15 mins on a daily basis 6 months out of the year to ride something that covers such a limited area; and having to pay something approaching $3 a round trip to boot.

Your statement doesn't contradict my point, the size of the pie doesn't change, they're simply redistributing the pieces.

Having looked at the projected per station boarding figures, they don't look that bad. I think three are off:

1. Plume Street - anyone think over 2k per day the current Kirn Library site?

2. Harbor Park - FTA regs won't allow them to use Tides traffic, so it will be higher.

3. Military Highway - the two busiest bus routes in South Hampton Roads (Routes 20 and 15) go there, making it an undercount..

Overall, a wash.

[scm]

Based on what I have seen in other cities.. If I had the money.. I would buy up all available land around future transit stops. Transit based developments on these sites may not happen immediately or even in 2 - 3 years after the LT is competed but they will happen. I would start picking up property around the Ballentine and Ingleside stations. (which may be one of reasons some people in Ingleside fear this project).

Case, you would be right in line with some of the savviest RE investors in the country. Annually, PWC puts out a well respected RE study, "Emerging Trends in Real Estate". Here is what last year's press release said:

As in previous years, Emerging Trends singles out infill, mixed-use projects as a favored type of development, offering greater convenience for busy professionals. Such projects also appeal to both empty nesters and their young adult offspring by providing pedestrian-accessible retail, restaurants, parks, supermarkets and offices. Transit-oriented development at subway or light-rail stations "almost cannot miss."

That is a development vision that HR needs to embrace, along with the regional decisions that support it. Parsons-Brinckerhoff put out a study in 2001 that found consistent increases in value for residential, retail, and commercial property based on proximity to subway or LR stations. But they also pointed to regional decisions that could accelerate that tendency. They are:

* Keeping urban growth and development in desired areas with such tools as urban growth boundaries, agricultural reserves, and greenbelts will help to increase the amount and intensity of development in station areas, which will in turn help to increase ridership.

* Development guidelines that locate major activity centers, government facilities, and residential uses on transit lines will support higher levels of ridership.

*

Development of a regional vision that puts transit first.

emphasis mine!

* Automobile restraint programs, such as restricting parking supply will encourage transit use by increasing the cost of using automobiles.

[levarforever]

Bus stops can not reasonably be compared to rail stops..apples and oranges...

Based on what I have seen in other cities.. If I had the money.. I would buy up all available land around future transit stops. Transit based developments on these sites may not happen immediately or even in 2 - 3 years after the LT is competed but they will happen. I would start picking up property around the Ballentine and Ingleside stations. (which may be one of reasons some people in Ingleside fear this project).

I think NSU has lost its mind in raising objections to this project which would raise the desirability of land in and around its campus. Hopefully they will see the light or $$ signs.

No one should think of this as quick fix but rather an investment in a long term growth plan.

Yeah, I know it might be a while before development around the light rail stations start booming, like you said 2 to 3 years after light rail is built...but they should definitely start now. It would be nice to see Norfolk develop transit villages like they've done in Arlington. Norfolk should come up with a specific development plan for the light rail stations in the lower density areas, instead of anticipating what may be developed there.

[scm]

I would start picking up property around the Ballentine and Ingleside stations. (which may be one of reasons some people in Ingleside fear this project).

If the folks in Ingleside realized what they will have, then they would thank their lucky stars this station will be in their back yard.

Look at this house - 3586 Westmnster Ave On the market for $274K. Will be a five minute walk to a ten minute ride downtown, or eventually, a ten minute ride to VB TC. Once that happens, it will jump $25K over what ever the market is for that sq. footage, just because of the ease of access.

Being the big thinker that I am, I wonder if you could pick up the industrial site, west but still S of 264, across the inlet from this part of Ingleside (I think Titan has a mixed cement yard there), then build a foot bridge to connect Westminster to the LR station? WOW! How good would that be? LR access, waterfront, mixed use. Nice place for a waterfront restaurant -- perfect example of TOD.

[Henry_Ryto]

The FFGA has now been posted on the offical website at http://www.ridethetide.com

Edited October 16, 2007 by Henry_Ryto

[vdogg]

The FFGA has now been posted on the offical website at http://www.ridethetide.com

Thanks Henry.

[vdogg]

Light rail artwork ordinance Warning! .pdf file

[vdogg]

Light rail planners have lost track of reality

I dream of the day when people will come to understand that this is just a starter rail, and that more lines and extensions are currently being planned.

[cpeakesqr]

Light rail planners have lost track of reality

I dream of the day when people will come to understand that this is just a starter rail, and that more lines and extensions are currently being planned.

I said the same thing when I read that. The Virginian Pilot must pay people to be ignorant.

Edited November 3, 2007 by cpeakesqr

[Henry_Ryto]

Light rail planners have lost track of reality

I dream of the day when people will come to understand that this is just a starter rail, and that more lines and extensions are currently being planned.

This morning before the start of the City Council Retreat, Jim Wood and I were joking about the column.

SPEAKING OF WHICH...

On Day 1 of the City Council Retreat, the deadlock on Norfolk Southern ROW negotiations was revealed:

1. Norfolk Southern wants $40 million for the Virginia Beach portion of the ROW.

2. The City of Virginia Beach has offered per mile the same price the City of Norfolk paid.

LRT is on Sunday's Agenda as an action item. Stay tuned!

[vdogg]

This morning before the start of the City Council Retreat, Jim Wood and I were joking about the column.

SPEAKING OF WHICH...

On Day 1 of the City Council Retreat, the deadlock on Norfolk Southern ROW negotiations was revealed:

1. Norfolk Southern wants $40 million for the Virginia Beach portion of the ROW.

2. The City of Virginia Beach has offered per mile the same price the City of Norfolk paid.

LRT is on Sunday's Agenda as an action item. Stay tuned!

So, what you're saying is that Norfolk Southern is trying to gouge Virginia Beach? I think the council is right to hold out. There is no reason why Va. Beach should have to pay more. Hopefully a compromise to the deadlock can be reached.

[Henry_Ryto]

So, what you're saying is that Norfolk Southern is trying to gouge Virginia Beach? I think the council is right to hold out. There is no reason why Va. Beach should have to pay more. Hopefully a compromise to the deadlock can be reached.

Virginia Beach can always use eminent domian, asking the court to award the ROW at Norfolk's price.

[vdogg]

This would be a great opportunity for Norfolk and Va. Beach to work together for once. Since extending light rail into Va. Beach is integral to keeping it viable in Norfolk, perhaps mayor Fraim can use some of his pull to negotiate a deal with NS for Va. Beach?

[Glassoul]

Virginia Beach can always use eminent domian, asking the court to award the ROW at Norfolk's price.

So when it's a big evil corporation that owns the land it's cool for the government to use Eminent domain, but when it's a private individual citizen, not so much...

Edited November 4, 2007 by Glassoul

[vdogg]

I'll sign on to that. I'd have absolutely no remorse using eminent domain because this is a case where a corporation is actually impeding public progress. I'm sorry, but I don't see any other reason for them to charge Va. Beach more than Norfolk other than simple greed. I'll sleep very well at night knowing that NS was forced to sell at market value.

[Henry_Ryto]

On Day 2 of the Virginia Beach City Council Retreat, Council took up an item by Barbara Henley to make a decision on light rail within the next year. It passed...but not before it was watered down, eliminating a reference to a specific transit system to go down the Norfolk Southern Right-of-Way. Ironically, the waffling was led by our two HRT Commissioners (Jim Wood and John Uhrin).

As the Retreat adjourned, I leaned over to a pro-LRT business leader and whispered "They need to be lobbied on light rail". Let's see if we get some arm-twisting.

Edited November 5, 2007 by Henry_Ryto