Cafe La Petit Roche

[Architect]

Embrace a vision??? Please. That's the argument every time there's an opportunity for the govt to come in and spend some money. Sometimes it's worthwhile, and sometimes it's not. But please don't suggest that those with "vision" see it this way, because that's just liberal economics. OK, you like the idea...I get it. And I'm neither sold nor willing to say "no". But a vision? Sometimes people's visions are wrong... Talking to me about what things were like 50 years ago is crazy. Once again, the car is a integral part of 95% of Arkansans life. And while a few downtown dwellers will likely try to live without, it's won't ever come close to "paying the bills". And while people in town for various conventions or tourism will likely ride it, the trolley alone will not bring in $$.

Parking ISN'T a problem in downtown LR. I'm there all the time...I know. Light rail will likely replace nothing in LR and will be a tourist fancy. I'm neither proud of it nor embarrassed by it, but I AM concerned when people talk about continued growth with little care towards the cost/benefit analysis. And that's where we are with LR on most issues today.

I understand what you're saying EJC, but the point is that if we want to affect change or improve upon a current condition, we have to start somewhere....and I'm a die-hard conservative.

[Aporkalypse]

I understand what you're saying EJC, but the point is that if we want to affect change or improve upon a current condition, we have to start somewhere....and I'm a die-hard conservative.

I guess my way of looking at it is that it shouldn't have been done at all if it wasn't going to be done right. Right now we basically have the equivalent of an airline starting flights to NYC and LA and nowhere else. If they connected a dozen cities theyd' get a lot further. Until River Rail goes more places you want to go it won't be very useful. I still think connecting it to the bus station and via a short shuttle from there to the airport would greatly expand access.

I disagree with EJC about the parking. The River Market has major parking issues on weekend nights and for big events at the arena. The CBD itself has always had a major parking crunch because of its employees. This is part of the whole debate right now about the county paying for its employees' parking. That would be a major budget cruncher for Pulaski Co. I live in Dallas and parking downtown is more abundant here than in LR.

[EJC]

I guess my way of looking at it is that it shouldn't have been done at all if it wasn't going to be done right. Right now we basically have the equivalent of an airline starting flights to NYC and LA and nowhere else. If they connected a dozen cities theyd' get a lot further. Until River Rail goes more places you want to go it won't be very useful. I still think connecting it to the bus station and via a short shuttle from there to the airport would greatly expand access.

I disagree with EJC about the parking. The River Market has major parking issues on weekend nights and for big events at the arena. The CBD itself has always had a major parking crunch because of its employees. This is part of the whole debate right now about the county paying for its employees' parking. That would be a major budget cruncher for Pulaski Co. I live in Dallas and parking downtown is more abundant here than in LR.

I manage to park downtown for weekend activities almost every weekend. It most certainly is not a problem. Now, when there are big events, there are parking issues...and frankly that's true everywhere. And yes, the rail can and does help that...I even ride it for that purpose over to NLR for events. But once again, we don't build something like this for the occasional event.

Your original premise makes much more sense in that building where sustainable usage exists would be valuable. Bottom line: no one knows whether "sustainable usage" exists in LR. The idea of going to the airport sounds fetching, and perhaps it would be valuable...but as with everything else, I'd like to see cost/benefit on that. The cost would be enormous compared to what we've seen thus far. Would the benefits be so as well?

[skirby]

EJC,

You talk about the cost/benefit of the trolley but when did the cost/benefit of most government projects matter? When do city parks pay for themselves? Will the Alltel Arena ever return the money that was spent on it? Will the Statehouse Convention Center return the money that was spent on it? Some projects enhance the quality of life and I think this is one of them.

[EJC]

EJC,

You talk about the cost/benefit of the trolley but when did the cost/benefit of most government projects matter? When do city parks pay for themselves? Will the Alltel Arena ever return the money that was spent on it? Will the Statehouse Convention Center return the money that was spent on it? Some projects enhance the quality of life and I think this is one of them.

They ALL matter...and yes there is a cost/benefit even for parks. And if you don't think that Alltel arena, convention centers, and other major construction items should be put to the test, then you are missing a vital piece to the puzzle with EVERY construction project. Benefits, in terms of parks, are certainly more difficult to put into dollars and cents and hence quality of life is factored, but a cost/benefit analysis is valid nonetheless. To think otherwise is to allow, or worse, encourage irrational government spending. A pariah. Based upon your latest comments I can only conclude that you and I are clearly at opposite ends of the spectrum here. Further discussion not warrented (between us).

[Architect]

They ALL matter...and yes there is a cost/benefit even for parks. And if you don't think that Alltel arena, convention centers, and other major construction items should be put to the test, then you are missing a vital piece to the puzzle with EVERY construction project. Benefits, in terms of parks, are certainly more difficult to put into dollars and cents and hence quality of life is factored, but a cost/benefit analysis is valid nonetheless. To think otherwise is to allow, or worse, encourage irrational government spending. A pariah. Based upon your latest comments I can only conclude that you and I are clearly at opposite ends of the spectrum here. Further discussion not warrented (between us).

EJC - As much as you protest, its never that black-and-white. Cities have a responsibility to deliver and improve quality of life. Much, if not most of that is not quantifiable, and certainly not financially self-sustaining (such as ANY public transportation). If they were, we wouldn't owe any taxes.

Most here seem to feel that at least marginally, the trolley service is a progressive step toward a short-term benefit for city visitors and hopefully a long-term "artery" infusing life and ciruclation in the urban core. I respect your thoughts here, and trust you feel the same.

[EJC]

EJC - As much as you protest, its never that black-and-white. Cities have a responsibility to deliver and improve quality of life. Much, if not most of that is not quantifiable, and certainly not financially self-sustaining (such as ANY public transportation). If they were, we wouldn't owe any taxes.

Most here seem to feel that at least marginally, the trolley service is a progressive step toward a short-term benefit for city visitors and hopefully a long-term "artery" infusing life and ciruclation in the urban core. I respect your thoughts here, and trust you feel the same.

Oh, I certainly respect your thoughts, and simply disagree to a large extent. Cities, and governments in general have a responsibility to their residents to work in their best interests and, in large part, as these residents wish. By virtue of that, they are driven to improve quality of life in a sustainable, moral fashion. To do anything to the contrary would either put them at odds with current residents or in a morally questionable position with future residents. Either of those is wrong.

It is certainly understood that there is SOME cost to all of this "betterment", and that comes in the form of taxes. But, those taxes must represent some value or benefit. Defining that benefit isn't black and white, but it is worth defining. And that is something that we should all strive to do and we should definitely strive for our government to do since it takes this money from we the taxpayer and we cannot "vote" with our dollars in government as we can with our "private" dollars.

So, back to the trolly, yes there is a cost, and yes, this cost could be greater than the actual revenue and still be a net benefit. That benefit must be derived and measured in terms of increased property values locally/citywide, decreases in air/noise pollution, greater access to the city, etc. I never said that it had to be financially self-sustaining on it's own usage revenue...rather I simply mentioned that there should be sustainable usage...and substantial usage. The problem is that for most of those benefits to become reality, usage must be substantial and sustained. This is the only part I have serious questions about.

Beyond that, if people want a widget that costs as much as this is costing and does not derive most of the benefits listed above, then then they are asking for an irresponsible waste of taxpayer dollars...their own and their childrens!

[Mith242]

I really don't know where I'd put this at so I figured here would be good enough. Recently Little Rock was named the third most affordable metro (over 500,000) to buy a home. Notice how the south pops up the most. On the other end it's no big surprise California dominates the most expensive list. Anyway, just thought it was interesting.

http://www.bizjournals.com/specials/pages/68.html

[Architect]

I really don't know where I'd put this at so I figured here would be good enough. Recently Little Rock was named the third most affordable metro (over 500,000) to buy a home. Notice how the south pops up the most. On the other end it's no big surprise California dominates the most expensive list. Anyway, just thought it was interesting.

http://www.bizjournals.com/specials/pages/68.html

Interesting how Des Moines totally dominated the list of the top 25 with respect to Median Household Income...wow. Its a cool town. For what its worth, LR's income is greater than Baton Rouge, OKC, Tulsa, Memphis and Knoxville...of our immediate neighbors. Conversly, look at that LOW income in McAllen and El Paso. Yikes.

[cocothief]

This may have been covered in another topic, but how do you think the recent release of the LRSD from the federal DESEG oversight will impact LR/NLR?

I heard a blurb on KUAF about possibly restructuring of the Pulaski County school district to seperate off Jacksonville.

Smaller school districts could greatly benefit the metro, IMHO.

[Architect]

This may have been covered in another topic, but how do you think the recent release of the LRSD from the federal DESEG oversight will impact LR/NLR?

I heard a blurb on KUAF about possibly restructuring of the Pulaski County school district to seperate off Jacksonville.

Smaller school districts could greatly benefit the metro, IMHO.

Personally, I fail to see ANY benefit whatsoever to ANOTHER districut in Pulaski County. The discussion years ago (by the courts) was to consolidate the whole county. Frankly, there should be one district per county in Arkansas (this is done in Florida people). This proposal is preposterous.

[cocothief]

Personally, I fail to see ANY benefit whatsoever to ANOTHER districut in Pulaski County. The discussion years ago (by the courts) was to consolidate the whole county. Frankly, there should be one district per county in Arkansas (this is done in Florida people). This proposal is preposterous.

The current system has been in place for decades, meanwhile those who can afford in LR send their kids to private academies or head for the greener pastures of Cabot, Benton, Bryant and Conway, citing "better schools" as one of many reasons to flee.

I tend to think there might be a positive benefit to downsizing the bureaucracy of PCSSD or LRSD given that the current set up obviously hasn't exactly been a magnet to entice people to live in LR.

[Aporkalypse]

The current system has been in place for decades, meanwhile those who can afford in LR send their kids to private academies or head for the greener pastures of Cabot, Benton, Bryant and Conway, citing "better schools" as one of many reasons to flee.

I tend to think there might be a positive benefit to downsizing the bureaucracy of PCSSD or LRSD given that the current set up obviously hasn't exactly been a magnet to entice people to live in LR.

I see where both of you are coming from and I don't have good answers.

I think the PCSSD will strengthen before long. Maumelle's new school will have a lot more pull than Oak Grove and will be considered very good whether it actually is or not. In addition, LRSD's borders are fixed and as LR grows west I wonder if we won't see Pulaski Robinson grow and become a much better school. It has tons of potential.

Maybe this will offset some of exodus to surrounding counties, Maumelle and far West LR are much closer than Conway, Benton, or Cabot to most employers.

[abdintp]

The current system has been in place for decades, meanwhile those who can afford in LR send their kids to private academies or head for the greener pastures of Cabot, Benton, Bryant and Conway, citing "better schools" as one of many reasons to flee.

I tend to think there might be a positive benefit to downsizing the bureaucracy of PCSSD or LRSD given that the current set up obviously hasn't exactly been a magnet to entice people to live in LR.

Hi. I've never posted here, but I guess this a fine place to start.

I think this statement that "those who can afford in LR send thier kids to private...or head for...Cabot," etc, affords an incomplete view of the circumstances. I went to LRSD schools from K through 12, graduated from Central in '05, and am from an upper-middle class family that lives in Hillcrest. Almost all of my friends at Central were also from upper-middle class families who lived in Hillcrest, the Heights, Quapaw, Leawood, etc. I realize that this fact is quite problematic, but that's an entirely different issue.

While the instance of 'white flight' in the LR metro is significant, we should not draw the conclusion that it is complete, or that lack of white people equates to a poor educational system. Two examples:

I attend of one of the most prestigious universities in the country/ world (University of Chicago), and very few Arkansans go here, but about half of those who do went to Central, and none went to schools from the suburbs.

My elementary experience at Pulaski Heights Elementary was incredible--the principle and the teachers have hugely influences where I am now, and I think of those days still with great fondness.

The amount of community dialogue and interest in the LRSD is clear in that there are often public protests about this and that (c.f. the Dr. Brooks fiasco), and that there is great representation of blacks and women among those who are speaking out. Essentially, the LRSD is an immensely imperfect project, but one with a lot of vision, a lot of public support, and one which is being used and can be used even more as a tool to heal strife among different parts of our community.

Now that I'm going to school in Chicago, I am astounded by how relatively integrated LR is. This may seem absurd to you, but many Midwestern and North-eastern cities are highly more segregated, and are severely lacking in inter-race interaction; I am blown away by the racial tensions here (I live on the South Side, in one of the few racially diverse neighborhoods of Chicago, and am affronted with these problems daily).

This map may further understanding:

http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/su/maps/chicityeth2000.jpg

The stereotype they teach even Southerners is that we're way behind on racial relations, I guess because we did such a bad job for such a long time. That's just not true. LR is way ahead of Chicago in bettering the black community and in improvement of individual attitudes toward race.

While I am far from believing the people of LR to live in peace and racial harmony, I can't help but be proud of how much more we can talk and act on racial problems in LR than in Chicago, and how much less disillusion there is at home, and this is something we need to all be proud of and work to extend within our community.

So, in short cocotheif, your statement isn't wrong, just incomplete, and I apologize for being so long-winded; this is just an important matter to me.

About downsizing the District, I can't imagine it happening, but I agree that it's a good idea. More bureaucracy is rarely a good thing, and smaller districts would help parents and students feel they have more of a voice and are granted a greater role in determining what goes on in their schools.

[johnnydr87]

Hi. I've never posted here, but I guess this a fine place to start.

I think this statement that "those who can afford in LR send thier kids to private...or head for...Cabot," etc, affords an incomplete view of the circumstances. I went to LRSD schools from K through 12, graduated from Central in '05, and am from an upper-middle class family that lives in Hillcrest. Almost all of my friends at Central were also from upper-middle class families who lived in Hillcrest, the Heights, Quapaw, Leawood, etc. I realize that this fact is quite problematic, but that's an entirely different issue.

While the instance of 'white flight' in the LR metro is significant, we should not draw the conclusion that it is complete, or that lack of white people equates to a poor educational system. Two examples:

I attend of one of the most prestigious universities in the country/ world (University of Chicago), and very few Arkansans go here, but about half of those who do went to Central, and none went to schools from the suburbs.

My elementary experience at Pulaski Heights Elementary was incredible--the principle and the teachers have hugely influences where I am now, and I think of those days still with great fondness.

The amount of community dialogue and interest in the LRSD is clear in that there are often public protests about this and that (c.f. the Dr. Brooks fiasco), and that there is great representation of blacks and women among those who are speaking out. Essentially, the LRSD is an immensely imperfect project, but one with a lot of vision, a lot of public support, and one which is being used and can be used even more as a tool to heal strife among different parts of our community.

Now that I'm going to school in Chicago, I am astounded by how relatively integrated LR is. This may seem absurd to you, but many Midwestern and North-eastern cities are highly more segregated, and are severely lacking in inter-race interaction; I am blown away by the racial tensions here (I live on the South Side, in one of the few racially diverse neighborhoods of Chicago, and am affronted with these problems daily).

This map may further understanding:

http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/su/maps/chicityeth2000.jpg

The stereotype they teach even Southerners is that we're way behind on racial relations, I guess because we did such a bad job for such a long time. That's just not true. LR is way ahead of Chicago in bettering the black community and in improvement of individual attitudes toward race.

While I am far from believing the people of LR to live in peace and racial harmony, I can't help but be proud of how much more we can talk and act on racial problems in LR than in Chicago, and how much less disillusion there is at home, and this is something we need to all be proud of and work to extend within our community.

So, in short cocotheif, your statement isn't wrong, just incomplete, and I apologize for being so long-winded; this is just an important matter to me.

About downsizing the District, I can't imagine it happening, but I agree that it's a good idea. More bureaucracy is rarely a good thing, and smaller districts would help parents and students feel they have more of a voice and are granted a greater role in determining what goes on in their schools.

Great first post. Welcome.

It's great to see some more college students getting involved at UP lately.

I go to Washington University in St. Louis, and I have to agree with you based on what I've experienced. St. Louis is notoriously segregated, and the community around WUSTL is very homogenous for the most part (other than the Delmar Loop about 15 min. away). When I was visiting, student-hosts off-handedly remarked about this. I'm not sure I can say how this compares to Little Rock, because I tend to only go to popular areas in Little Rock, i.e. malls and downtown, which tend to be diverse.

I can't help but think that part of Little Rock's progressiveness in regards to racial matters--relative to other areas--stems from the Central High crisis (see that thread in forum).

P.S. I have a friend from ASMSA (class of 07) who should be attending University of Chicago next year. Small world.

[abdintp]

Great first post. Welcome.

It's great to see some more college students getting involved at UP lately.

I go to Washington University in St. Louis, and I have to agree with you based on what I've experienced. St. Louis is notoriously segregated, and the community around WUSTL is very homogenous for the most part (other than the Delmar Loop about 15 min. away). When I was visiting, student-hosts off-handedly remarked about this. I'm not sure I can say how this compares to Little Rock, because I tend to only go to popular areas in Little Rock, i.e. malls and downtown, which tend to be diverse.

I can't help but think that part of Little Rock's progressiveness in regards to racial matters--relative to other areas--stems from the Central High crisis (see that thread in forum).

P.S. I have a friend from ASMSA (class of 07) who should be attending University of Chicago next year. Small world.

I think I saw a blurb about your friend in the Observer part of the Arkansas Times this week. Something about memorizing digits of pi, sheesh.

I visited St. Louis and WashU my senior year, and remember being a little surprised by the economic and racial dichotomy which I suppose is very similar in Chicago. Still... Chicago's better. I don't wanna take sides, but Chicagoans definitely see your city as an inferior, dare I say crappy, place to live.

Anyway, I look forward to possibly running into your bud from ASMS(A?) on campus next year, and thanks for the reply.

[abdintp]

Start of the system or not, it is not being used. And the numbers bear this out. I too would love to see usage increase and hence the worthiness of increased lines. But that is speculative at best and more likely wishful thinking considering the demographics and the general mindset of Arkansans.

I know I missed out on this discussion, and really wish I hadn't but I thought I might be able to bring some much-needed rapport to or try and find a middle ground. The argument that extending the trolley would greatly benefit the communities to which it went (for example the Main/ Capitol corridors, or Main St all the way to the Harvest Foods at 17th) was--as I understand it--countered by an argument that, although a great idea in theory, building these lines is unfeasible and economically in poor judgment, both having wtinessed the low ridership on the current RiverRail lines, and by the supposed lack of necessity for public transport of this kind along these corridors.

First, I would like to point out one thing that y'all have mentioned rarely if at all: the future of the environment. The fact of the matter is (and I know you don't need lecturing), the world is warming up, and we need to stop it from doing that, or--for example--Arkansas will be too dry to grow rice anymore. Everyone in Arkansas drives, and riding the bus is under almost all circumstances a last resort and a signifier of low economic status.

This perception is not universal in the US (many rich Chicagoans ride the bus daily), and needs to change NOW in Arkansas. Buliding a trolley system which demonstrates the joys, eloquence, and utility of public transit can be an excellent first step toward a less car-dependent Central Arkansas.

Unfortunately, as has been mentioned, the trolley currently serves only very walkable areas, and therefore is more than anything else a tourist attraction. I agree whole-heartedly that the trolley should be extended to the Capitol or all the way into the Quapaw Quarter, because this would make the trolley a viable means of transport in downtown LR rather than a plaything, and I think it should be built as soon as possible.

However, I don't think it's possible to build that trolley right now with the expectation that it succeed. The first thing necessary for any public transportation system to really succeed is public awareness and backing. We need the people of LR to get into the mindset that the bus and the train aren't just for poor people, and that these options are worhtwhile to people of from all economic backgrounds. The way, IMO as y'all say, of constructing this public mindset is to create one highly-touted mode of transport that is extremely successful. If people who are visitng downtown bear witness to a viable and bustling mode of public transport, the idea of feasibilty of such a mode will become ensconced in the public mindset.

This issue, indeed, seems paradoxical, for construction on such a trolley line cannot take place until there is public support, and public support stems from seeing the trolley do well. I think that the people of LR are forward-thinking enough that if they were shown the trolley would definitely do well, they would be willing to embark upon this project. By creating a corridor of high foot traffic that lasts throughout the day, and by demonstrating to LRers that the corridor was the perfect location for a trolley line, the people would be easily convinced.

Essentially, what I am saying is that if Main Street from Markham to 9th, or even (and especially) from Markham to 17th, became a bustling corridor of high-volume foot traffic, with:

1. many entertainment options to keep the street busy for an extended part of the day

2. wide sidewalks and a narrow street (possibly 2 lane all the way) to promote pedestrianism

3. a high density of inhabitants within 4 blocks of Main St.

4. mixed use buildings throughout the corridor

5. a continuous urban fabric block after block, with few gaps, to promote spacial interest and aestetics

6. a lot of buzz and interest in the area

this area would be extremely suitable for a trolley line, and that trolley would be very successful.

I think a few things this corridor has going for it are that people in the QQ are generally progressive thinkers and would be happy to take a trolley to work or shopping, adding to the regular crowd taking the train, and that parts of it have of their own accord developed or are developing as entertainment, residential, or commercial areas.

What the area needs is, renewed interest, Mr. Stephens to build in the places where he owns parking lots and refubish in the places where he owns buildings, and cooperation from the city in creating a District overlay wiht guidelines to protect important old buildings and restore the street to a vibrant urban community. After this the city can further its efforts by planting trees, widening sidewalks, increasing on-street parking, allowing two lanes of the street to be devoted to a trolley, and reducing parking lots directly on Main St. Many people in Central Arkansas are absolutely accepting of and excited by visually rich urban settings with mixed uses, as is shown by the popularity of the River Market. If properly planned, the Main St corridor can stage a return to its days of glory, and become one of the most important streets in the city. With the eventual addition of a trolley to this area, people will become aware of the potency of public transit, and it will be more and more popular throughout the city.

And the most exciting part about everything I've just said is that it is entirely feasible.

[turboturtle]

Essentially, what I am saying is that if Main Street from Markham to 9th, or even (and especially) from Markham to 17th, became a bustling corridor of high-volume foot traffic, with:

1. many entertainment options to keep the street busy for an extended part of the day

2. wide sidewalks and a narrow street (possibly 2 lane all the way) to promote pedestrianism

3. a high density of inhabitants within 4 blocks of Main St.

4. mixed use buildings throughout the corridor

5. a continuous urban fabric block after block, with few gaps, to promote spacial interest and aestetics

6. a lot of buzz and interest in the area

this area would be extremely suitable for a trolley line, and that trolley would be very successful.

And the most exciting part about everything I've just said is that it is entirely feasible.

Increase public transportation is a tactic for a strategic plan for a sustainable Central Arkansas.

Most of the LR citizens back the City's "City in a Park" initiative. Our City leaders need to lead the citizens through the next step. For example, buses equipped with bicycle racks is almost a no brainer. To connect the "City in a Park" plan to a strategic effort for a sustainable Central Arkansas (planet), will take a some planning and coordination, but it seems we have the raw materials. I think light-rail (like Salt Lake City) is more compelling. Let the Trolley exist for tourism, faster light-rail makes more sense for transporting the public from places outside the CBD (South of I-630, Airport, Conway, Cabot, Benton and Bryant).

[johnnydr87]

I think I saw a blurb about your friend in the Observer part of the Arkansas Times this week. Something about memorizing digits of pi, sheesh.

I visited St. Louis and WashU my senior year, and remember being a little surprised by the economic and racial dichotomy which I suppose is very similar in Chicago. Still... Chicago's better. I don't wanna take sides, but Chicagoans definitely see your city as an inferior, dare I say crappy, place to live.

Anyway, I look forward to possibly running into your bud from ASMS(A?) on campus next year, and thanks for the reply.

lol, I was comparing racial situations, not determining which city is "superior." I'm not trying to get involved in a pissing contest or anything--Chicago clearly wins.

[EJC]

I know I missed out on this discussion, and really wish I hadn't but I thought I might be able to bring some much-needed rapport to or try and find a middle ground. The argument that extending the trolley would greatly benefit the communities to which it went (for example the Main/ Capitol corridors, or Main St all the way to the Harvest Foods at 17th) was--as I understand it--countered by an argument that, although a great idea in theory, building these lines is unfeasible and economically in poor judgment, both having wtinessed the low ridership on the current RiverRail lines, and by the supposed lack of necessity for public transport of this kind along these corridors.

First, I would like to point out one thing that y'all have mentioned rarely if at all: the future of the environment. The fact of the matter is (and I know you don't need lecturing), the world is warming up, and we need to stop it from doing that, or--for example--Arkansas will be too dry to grow rice anymore. Everyone in Arkansas drives, and riding the bus is under almost all circumstances a last resort and a signifier of low economic status.

This perception is not universal in the US (many rich Chicagoans ride the bus daily), and needs to change NOW in Arkansas. Buliding a trolley system which demonstrates the joys, eloquence, and utility of public transit can be an excellent first step toward a less car-dependent Central Arkansas.

Unfortunately, as has been mentioned, the trolley currently serves only very walkable areas, and therefore is more than anything else a tourist attraction. I agree whole-heartedly that the trolley should be extended to the Capitol or all the way into the Quapaw Quarter, because this would make the trolley a viable means of transport in downtown LR rather than a plaything, and I think it should be built as soon as possible.

However, I don't think it's possible to build that trolley right now with the expectation that it succeed. The first thing necessary for any public transportation system to really succeed is public awareness and backing. We need the people of LR to get into the mindset that the bus and the train aren't just for poor people, and that these options are worhtwhile to people of from all economic backgrounds. The way, IMO as y'all say, of constructing this public mindset is to create one highly-touted mode of transport that is extremely successful. If people who are visitng downtown bear witness to a viable and bustling mode of public transport, the idea of feasibilty of such a mode will become ensconced in the public mindset.

This issue, indeed, seems paradoxical, for construction on such a trolley line cannot take place until there is public support, and public support stems from seeing the trolley do well. I think that the people of LR are forward-thinking enough that if they were shown the trolley would definitely do well, they would be willing to embark upon this project. By creating a corridor of high foot traffic that lasts throughout the day, and by demonstrating to LRers that the corridor was the perfect location for a trolley line, the people would be easily convinced.

Essentially, what I am saying is that if Main Street from Markham to 9th, or even (and especially) from Markham to 17th, became a bustling corridor of high-volume foot traffic, with:

1. many entertainment options to keep the street busy for an extended part of the day

2. wide sidewalks and a narrow street (possibly 2 lane all the way) to promote pedestrianism

3. a high density of inhabitants within 4 blocks of Main St.

4. mixed use buildings throughout the corridor

5. a continuous urban fabric block after block, with few gaps, to promote spacial interest and aestetics

6. a lot of buzz and interest in the area

this area would be extremely suitable for a trolley line, and that trolley would be very successful.

I think a few things this corridor has going for it are that people in the QQ are generally progressive thinkers and would be happy to take a trolley to work or shopping, adding to the regular crowd taking the train, and that parts of it have of their own accord developed or are developing as entertainment, residential, or commercial areas.

What the area needs is, renewed interest, Mr. Stephens to build in the places where he owns parking lots and refubish in the places where he owns buildings, and cooperation from the city in creating a District overlay wiht guidelines to protect important old buildings and restore the street to a vibrant urban community. After this the city can further its efforts by planting trees, widening sidewalks, increasing on-street parking, allowing two lanes of the street to be devoted to a trolley, and reducing parking lots directly on Main St. Many people in Central Arkansas are absolutely accepting of and excited by visually rich urban settings with mixed uses, as is shown by the popularity of the River Market. If properly planned, the Main St corridor can stage a return to its days of glory, and become one of the most important streets in the city. With the eventual addition of a trolley to this area, people will become aware of the potency of public transit, and it will be more and more popular throughout the city.

And the most exciting part about everything I've just said is that it is entirely feasible.

Interesting and thoughtful post. Having said that, LR is not Chicago, nor will it ever be. It grew to it's size, shape and format at a different time. Because of this, the car is an integral part of the Arkansans life. The if-you-build-it-he-will-come is not an acceptable model for responsible public spending. Now, if/when there is a substantial inner city population who also works downtown, then the argument could be made. But we're simply nowhere near the numbers that would be required to support this although your ideas could eventually lead to more volume. Even cities like WDC have trouble supporting it so it seems premature to think we're ready for it here. If people want to change the mentality of Arkansans to take the bus or the trolley, they first they'll have to change their mindset to live in much tighter quarters, and that isn't why most people who live in Arkansas choose to do so. It's the Natural State, and people who live in Little Rock typically want to feel closer to that. Having said that, there is obviously some interest in downtown living at this point as sales of downtown condos have been brisk, but even conceding this, they have been next to non-existant compared to home sales elsewhere. So the numbers still just don't add up.

Oh, and for what it's worth, (and completely off topic) while I agree that the world is heating up, we also know that Mars, Mercury, etc are heating up as well. What we don't know is what is truly causing this and we have some people making inflammatory comments suggesting that man is the cause of it all. That is a grossly arrogant viewpoint IMO. Earth has been hotter than it is today (even without man's help) on more than one occasion and has obviously gone through cooling stages as well. Much like the recent editorial "Apocalypse....When" my opinion is that Earth and the sun are far more in control of these events than man appears to be. So while I do wish to do my part to protect the environment, I do not hold to theory that mass rail transit in LR should be a part of that plan.

[skirby]

To go along with the last post about the earth warming and its relationship to mass transit in LR. As we all know LR may face sanctions depending on ozone levels this summer. I read an interesting article on bio-fuels. One of the end results of bio-fuels is an increase in smog. I think LR would have a hard time developing a mass transit system that would be used by a large number of the public. The city was allowed to expend with the auto in mind and until development is changed to correspond to transit then nothing will happen. But who says transit must pay for itself? Look at the amount of money spent on roads. Another question about mass transit that no one talks much about is would the aging population be more likely to use it?

[EJC]

To go along with the last post about the earth warming and its relationship to mass transit in LR. As we all know LR may face sanctions depending on ozone levels this summer. I read an interesting article on bio-fuels. One of the end results of bio-fuels is an increase in smog. I think LR would have a hard time developing a mass transit system that would be used by a large number of the public. The city was allowed to expend with the auto in mind and until development is changed to correspond to transit then nothing will happen. But who says transit must pay for itself? Look at the amount of money spent on roads. Another question about mass transit that no one talks much about is would the aging population be more likely to use it?

Considering the billions of $ that are realized, in part, because of trucking/interstates, I'm not concerned that our roadways and interstates are paying off. Good thought regarding the elderly and mass transit...seems to make sense for at least a solid portion of that demographic. At this point, the AARP crowd does not appear to be a target audience for any downtown development (and perhaps with good reason).

[abdintp]

Interesting and thoughtful post. Having said that, LR is not Chicago, nor will it ever be. It grew to it's size, shape and format at a different time. Because of this, the car is an integral part of the Arkansans life. The if-you-build-it-he-will-come is not an acceptable model for responsible public spending. Now, if/when there is a substantial inner city population who also works downtown, then the argument could be made. But we're simply nowhere near the numbers that would be required to support this although your ideas could eventually lead to more volume. Even cities like WDC have trouble supporting it so it seems premature to think we're ready for it here. If people want to change the mentality of Arkansans to take the bus or the trolley, they first they'll have to change their mindset to live in much tighter quarters, and that isn't why most people who live in Arkansas choose to do so. It's the Natural State, and people who live in Little Rock typically want to feel closer to that. Having said that, there is obviously some interest in downtown living at this point as sales of downtown condos have been brisk, but even conceding this, they have been next to non-existant compared to home sales elsewhere. So the numbers still just don't add up.

Oh, and for what it's worth, (and completely off topic) while I agree that the world is heating up, we also know that Mars, Mercury, etc are heating up as well. What we don't know is what is truly causing this and we have some people making inflammatory comments suggesting that man is the cause of it all. That is a grossly arrogant viewpoint IMO. Earth has been hotter than it is today (even without man's help) on more than one occasion and has obviously gone through cooling stages as well. Much like the recent editorial "Apocalypse....When" my opinion is that Earth and the sun are far more in control of these events than man appears to be. So while I do wish to do my part to protect the environment, I do not hold to theory that mass rail transit in LR should be a part of that plan.

Thanks for the response. I'm not going to go into the global warming issue with you, because I see our view as irrevocably different here, but let me say that I'm in a class right now (called Global Warming) with one of the most important scholars on the topic, and we are learning how the release of CO2, frions, methane, etc. can be directly shown to increase the overall global temperature. There are plenty of solid arguments against man-caused global warming, and you don't have to believe that we are the main source of this problem, but you must agree that pouring more CO2 into the atmosphere is going to increase the overall global temperature, and since we want our planet's temperature to remain constant, we should cut back on carbon emisions, right?

Anyway, there are plenty of other good reasons for increasing the scope of the mass transit system in Little Rock. I agree with you [EJC] that such a system (in this case, the Main St trolley line) should not be constructed unless it can be proved that it will be a valuable and well-used system. I think that you are ignoring many of my arguments, however, that a high-traffic system is possible because you have it set in your mind that such a thing isn't possible. I'm well aware that LR isn't Chicago, but I find your argument that LR and Chicago grew differently and only the car is a viable mode of transport in LR, whereas public transport works in Chicago, to be highly fallacious. As you know, LR wasn't originally built for cars, but for carriages and subsequently a trolley system. It was a trolley line, not a car road, that made living in Hillcrest feasible and stimulated the growth of this community. There are many older parts of LR that are dense enough and set up properly to accomodate a viable mass transit system, be it by bus, trolley, or light rail. A city does not have to be enormous like Chicago to support rail and buses, just compact, pedestrian-friendly, and full of mixed-use spaces. There is a lot of literature to this effect.

Your next point, that I'm arguing a "if-you-build-it" strategy is absolutely not true. That was the main point of that big long thing I wrote, that there needed to be a serious increase in the traffic and density of the Main St corridor before the trolley could be built and work well, that we can't build a trolley expecting it to stimulate growth in the area and eventually become a viable form of transit. That kind of thinking is--I agree thoroughly--logically backward. I thought that was clear. Perhaps, rather, you thought I was proposing building the trolley with the expectation "he-will-come" and ride the trolley after it is built, you're absolutely right. 'He' can't ride the trolley before it's built!

Next, in your assertion that "even cities like WDC have trouble supporting it," I am hard-pressed to find the antecedent of 'it,' except from the "if-you-build-it" phrase you use. I'm going to take the liberty of assuming that by it you mean a public transit system??, because DC has no trolley, rather an extensive, well-used heavy-rail system which is a far cry from the light rail/ trolley that we've been discussing. If this is the case, I disagree with you, based on personal experience on riding full Metro trains through the city, and by noting that there are many expansion projects planned both for the Metro rail and bus system, according to Wikipedia. In my experience, public transit doesn't get expanded in America until it's getting well-used in the first place.

Perhaps more of the argument you were trying to make is that LR can't support a fully-integrated heavy rail system, or even an extensive light rail system. If that's the case, I agree. That's simply not possible right now, and will take quite some time to come to fruition, if it ever will. Never in proposing a single, 15-block line was I asserting that there should be trolley lines all over LR. That's just plain dumb. I was supporting a single line that could display to Arkansans the utility of mass transit.

When you assert that people's mindset would have to change to have them wrap their minds around living in tighter spaces, I assume you are pointing out the difference between suburban developments and high-density city living. Although I agree that density is necessary to support mass transit (I stated that originally), I believe many Arkansans would have no problem moving to denser areas. There are already plenty of people who live in apartments throughout the city, many of them fancy, who would--IMO--be excited to replace to an apartment in the middle of a bustling urban environment. I agree that a huge asset of LR and Arkansas is its naturalness, but I don't think that people forfeit this asset by moving downtown. First, I don't see what is natural about many of these suburban subdivisions in the first place; a forest was torn down, hills leveled, and little to no attention payed to the natural landscape of these areas on development of these areas, anyway. Equally, people downtown will have quick access to the Riverfront Park, Clinton Park, and the biking trail that takes them out to the wooded and truly majestic bluffs on the NLR side and the ridge on the LR side. I have no idea how old you are, but the trend among my generation (the Millennials) is toward playing as well as living in compact, high-excitement urban areas. In Chicago over the last decade, there has been a huge wave of gentrification as upper-class (mostly white) yuppies, people my age but mostly a little older, moved into the city to seek an exciting lifestyle. The change in Chicago is huge, and similar trends are manifest in LR in the form of the River Market and renewed public interest in downtown. I understand if you are from a different generation (esp the Baby Boomers) that the trend has always been getting out, getting away, and getting there by car, but my generation doesn't think that way, and if pushed in the right direction would be extremely pleased to build a vibrant urban environment in LR. So, to address your point that the residential development downtown has been minimal, even if there aren't that many people living downtown, the trend is the opposite of what it was even a decade ago, and people will continue to flow into the River Market and eventually the Main St area.

So although I can see you've already decided where you stand on this issue, I hope you can see that many of your views are based in public realities that are correct but don't have to stay correct and are even now dramatically changing. I'm not saying you personally need to move downtown, or you personally need to ride the trolley, I just want you to see that this is really an economically feasible and viable dream, and something which would be a huge asset to our town.

THX

[EJC]

Thanks for the response. I'm not going to go into the global warming issue with you, because I see our view as irrevocably different here, but let me say that I'm in a class right now (called Global Warming) with one of the most important scholars on the topic, and we are learning how the release of CO2, frions, methane, etc. can be directly shown to increase the overall global temperature. There are plenty of solid arguments against man-caused global warming, and you don't have to believe that we are the main source of this problem, but you must agree that pouring more CO2 into the atmosphere is going to increase the overall global temperature, and since we want our planet's temperature to remain constant, we should cut back on carbon emisions, right?

Anyway, there are plenty of other good reasons for increasing the scope of the mass transit system in Little Rock. I agree with you [EJC] that such a system (in this case, the Main St trolley line) should not be constructed unless it can be proved that it will be a valuable and well-used system. I think that you are ignoring many of my arguments, however, that a high-traffic system is possible because you have it set in your mind that such a thing isn't possible. I'm well aware that LR isn't Chicago, but I find your argument that LR and Chicago grew differently and only the car is a viable mode of transport in LR, whereas public transport works in Chicago, to be highly fallacious. As you know, LR wasn't originally built for cars, but for carriages and subsequently a trolley system. It was a trolley line, not a car road, that made living in Hillcrest feasible and stimulated the growth of this community. There are many older parts of LR that are dense enough and set up properly to accomodate a viable mass transit system, be it by bus, trolley, or light rail. A city does not have to be enormous like Chicago to support rail and buses, just compact, pedestrian-friendly, and full of mixed-use spaces. There is a lot of literature to this effect.

Your next point, that I'm arguing a "if-you-build-it" strategy is absolutely not true. That was the main point of that big long thing I wrote, that there needed to be a serious increase in the traffic and density of the Main St corridor before the trolley could be built and work well, that we can't build a trolley expecting it to stimulate growth in the area and eventually become a viable form of transit. That kind of thinking is--I agree thoroughly--logically backward. I thought that was clear. Perhaps, rather, you thought I was proposing building the trolley with the expectation "he-will-come" and ride the trolley after it is built, you're absolutely right. 'He' can't ride the trolley before it's built!

Next, in your assertion that "even cities like WDC have trouble supporting it," I am hard-pressed to find the antecedent of 'it,' except from the "if-you-build-it" phrase you use. I'm going to take the liberty of assuming that by it you mean a public transit system??, because DC has no trolley, rather an extensive, well-used heavy-rail system which is a far cry from the light rail/ trolley that we've been discussing. If this is the case, I disagree with you, based on personal experience on riding full Metro trains through the city, and by noting that there are many expansion projects planned both for the Metro rail and bus system, according to Wikipedia. In my experience, public transit doesn't get expanded in America until it's getting well-used in the first place.

Perhaps more of the argument you were trying to make is that LR can't support a fully-integrated heavy rail system, or even an extensive light rail system. If that's the case, I agree. That's simply not possible right now, and will take quite some time to come to fruition, if it ever will. Never in proposing a single, 15-block line was I asserting that there should be trolley lines all over LR. That's just plain dumb. I was supporting a single line that could display to Arkansans the utility of mass transit.

When you assert that people's mindset would have to change to have them wrap their minds around living in tighter spaces, I assume you are pointing out the difference between suburban developments and high-density city living. Although I agree that density is necessary to support mass transit (I stated that originally), I believe many Arkansans would have no problem moving to denser areas. There are already plenty of people who live in apartments throughout the city, many of them fancy, who would--IMO--be excited to replace to an apartment in the middle of a bustling urban environment. I agree that a huge asset of LR and Arkansas is its naturalness, but I don't think that people forfeit this asset by moving downtown. First, I don't see what is natural about many of these suburban subdivisions in the first place; a forest was torn down, hills leveled, and little to no attention payed to the natural landscape of these areas on development of these areas, anyway. Equally, people downtown will have quick access to the Riverfront Park, Clinton Park, and the biking trail that takes them out to the wooded and truly majestic bluffs on the NLR side and the ridge on the LR side. I have no idea how old you are, but the trend among my generation (the Millennials) is toward playing as well as living in compact, high-excitement urban areas. In Chicago over the last decade, there has been a huge wave of gentrification as upper-class (mostly white) yuppies, people my age but mostly a little older, moved into the city to seek an exciting lifestyle. The change in Chicago is huge, and similar trends are manifest in LR in the form of the River Market and renewed public interest in downtown. I understand if you are from a different generation (esp the Baby Boomers) that the trend has always been getting out, getting away, and getting there by car, but my generation doesn't think that way, and if pushed in the right direction would be extremely pleased to build a vibrant urban environment in LR. So, to address your point that the residential development downtown has been minimal, even if there aren't that many people living downtown, the trend is the opposite of what it was even a decade ago, and people will continue to flow into the River Market and eventually the Main St area.

So although I can see you've already decided where you stand on this issue, I hope you can see that many of your views are based in public realities that are correct but don't have to stay correct and are even now dramatically changing. I'm not saying you personally need to move downtown, or you personally need to ride the trolley, I just want you to see that this is really an economically feasible and viable dream, and something which would be a huge asset to our town.

THX

Where do I start....

Yes, the public realities ARE true/correct and they DO have to stay that way until a majority of the people think differently. And thinking differently must start WELL before you start spending millions of $ willing/hoping it to be true. You say that feelings are changing...well I wonder exactly how considering that MORE people are moving out into the "burbs" not IN.

For reference, I'm the ONLY person I know who rides the trolley, and I do it for fun and the occasional purpose use such as going to the arena and now to D/S Field. But the trolley, as nice as it is, is simply not being used by anyone and even with the growth projected over the next decade, will still see minimal growth. Now, understand this, I'm not against the existing trolley...it's here and I enjoy it, but it isn't on the verge of changing anything in the downtown area. Even if all the yuppies you refer to flock to inner LR.

You continue to note exciting changes in Chicago as if LR has the same mindset. Surely 10s of dozens DO, but the majority simply does not. And frankly, they don't have to...it's a different state and a different lifestyle and neither is better except to the person living in that community. People in LR, in vast majority, prefer wide open spaces as witnessed by their residence choices. COULD this change...well sure, but WILL it change. Not likely, and honestly, why should they? Living in crowded spaces isn't necessarily better, as anyone with children can attest.

If your generation "doesn't think that way" in terms of the car, then why the heck are you always asking to borrow my keys??? You don't think that way because you are living in a city that was built before the car was viable for "everyman", but there's not a child around me that doesn't want a car. Los Angeles was also essentially built after the car was viable, hence their dependency on the car. And even though they have HUGE congestion issues, people still, in majority, turn to their cars. This is a mentality issue. And if you want to overcome that issue, be my guest, but spending millions on a transit alternative isn't going to cause the change. Your right that you'll be better off using the global warming issue as a reason to change, but judging from Al Gore's use of energy efficient technology (or obvious lack thereof), I think you'll find the response lukewarm at best.

As for the WDC comment, I'm merely comparing mass transit rail opportunities, and if you know the rail system in DC, then you know it's quite nice and unfortunately doesn't come close to paying for itself. Now, I'm not saying they should do away with it, but if it's not even close to breaking even...then let's not put the cart before the horse here in LR.

You and I can agree to disagree. That's fine, just as long as we don't add yet another tax to pay for something that will not be a net benefit for the city of LR.

[abdintp]

Where do I start....

Yes, the public realities ARE true/correct and they DO have to stay that way until a majority of the people think differently. And thinking differently must start WELL before you start spending millions of $ willing/hoping it to be true. You say that feelings are changing...well I wonder exactly how considering that MORE people are moving out into the "burbs" not IN.

For reference, I'm the ONLY person I know who rides the trolley, and I do it for fun and the occasional purpose use such as going to the arena and now to D/S Field. But the trolley, as nice as it is, is simply not being used by anyone and even with the growth projected over the next decade, will still see minimal growth. Now, understand this, I'm not against the existing trolley...it's here and I enjoy it, but it isn't on the verge of changing anything in the downtown area. Even if all the yuppies you refer to flock to inner LR.

You continue to note exciting changes in Chicago as if LR has the same mindset. Surely 10s of dozens DO, but the majority simply does not. And frankly, they don't have to...it's a different state and a different lifestyle and neither is better except to the person living in that community. People in LR, in vast majority, prefer wide open spaces as witnessed by their residence choices. COULD this change...well sure, but WILL it change. Not likely, and honestly, why should they? Living in crowded spaces isn't necessarily better, as anyone with children can attest.

If your generation "doesn't think that way" in terms of the car, then why the heck are you always asking to borrow my keys??? You don't think that way because you are living in a city that was built before the car was viable for "everyman", but there's not a child around me that doesn't want a car. Los Angeles was also essentially built after the car was viable, hence their dependency on the car. And even though they have HUGE congestion issues, people still, in majority, turn to their cars. This is a mentality issue. And if you want to overcome that issue, be my guest, but spending millions on a transit alternative isn't going to cause the change. Your right that you'll be better off using the global warming issue as a reason to change, but judging from Al Gore's use of energy efficient technology (or obvious lack thereof), I think you'll find the response lukewarm at best.

As for the WDC comment, I'm merely comparing mass transit rail opportunities, and if you know the rail system in DC, then you know it's quite nice and unfortunately doesn't come close to paying for itself. Now, I'm not saying they should do away with it, but if it's not even close to breaking even...then let's not put the cart before the horse here in LR.

You and I can agree to disagree. That's fine, just as long as we don't add yet another tax to pay for something that will not be a net benefit for the city of LR.

I wrote a big long response, but my computer ate it, so I'm going to take that as a sign. Let's just--as you say--agree to disagree, but with one caveat on my part.

Everything you describe as examples of how my theory that things are changing and can change are the supposed lack of interest in the community. People choose open spaces, so they don't want to live in the city. What other options do people have than open developments? Historically (over the last 4 decades), the suburbs have been the only option of new housing stock. Now there's the stuff going up downtown, other options, and those options are getting gobbled up. Same with the mentality of today's youth: without any other options than driving, all they're going to do is drive. I'm not stating by any means that if an extensive system of public transport was available, kids these days would use that all the time. Rather, they'd be much more willing to accept these options alongside cars as a means of getting around. Anyway, let's move on. We've driven this one into the ground, but thanks for your feedback.