Jump to content

Light Rail in NWA


zman9810

Recommended Posts

I picked up a copy of the book. From what I can tell it looks like pretty much the same info that's in the pdf file that's in the link I posted earlier. But still nice to have it 'in hand'. I guess this is how I'm taking in all this info. No light rail transit won't be built anytime soon. Although it's tough to predict the future and what type of growth there will be. I still don't think it's a bad thing to start looking into buying right of way. Of course you don't want to take away from other current public transportation needs. But I don't see the harm in starting the process of buying right of way now. If at some point in the future it doesn't look like it's going to ever pan out I don't see why NWA cities couldn't either use that land for other uses or even just sell the land. Besides improving bus service around NWA the other major need I could see addressing is widening I-540. But if we're going to continue to see people pushing for a western bypass then people like me will continue to push the idea of light rail as an alternative. Light rail may not solve a lot of problems, some people just won't get out of the vehicles no matter what, but at least it won't help increase sprawl like a western beltway will. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

The supposed reason for the western beltway would be to divert traffic from Missouri to the south of Fayetteville away from I540, thus easing congestion on I540. In reality the reason would be to siphon development (sprawl in this case) away from the I540 corridor and provide an economic boost for western Benton and Washington counties. It would enrich those owning land in it's path and especially those who have bought land on speculation around XNA and haven't seen development occur as fast as they had hoped. Even if it never gets built just having it proposed will help land values in those areas. Imagine if you own commercial land around Highfill and could tell a prospective buyer that a freeway will be built nearby someday- it would be a big help in selling your property.

The supporters of light rail would have more success if they voted in local governments that would change development regulations first. Light rail will not pull people in from the suburbs but zoning changes and incentives for infill and redevelopment could push them to accept the increased density that is needed for light rail to work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The supposed reason for the western beltway would be to divert traffic from Missouri to the south of Fayetteville away from I540, thus easing congestion on I540. In reality the reason would be to siphon development (sprawl in this case) away from the I540 corridor and provide an economic boost for western Benton and Washington counties. It would enrich those owning land in it's path and especially those who have bought land on speculation around XNA and haven't seen development occur as fast as they had hoped. Even if it never gets built just having it proposed will help land values in those areas. Imagine if you own commercial land around Highfill and could tell a prospective buyer that a freeway will be built nearby someday- it would be a big help in selling your property.

The supporters of light rail would have more success if they voted in local governments that would change development regulations first. Light rail will not pull people in from the suburbs but zoning changes and incentives for infill and redevelopment could push them to accept the increased density that is needed for light rail to work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But couldn't you then say proposing a light rail path could also property prices in a more important area, inside the NWA cities rather than boosting rural areas outside all the NWA cities? I do agree with you that there need to be incentives set up to help encourage infill and redevelopment. But I think there would be plenty of time to do that while in the meanwhile purchasing right of way. The longer we wait to purchase 'prime' real estate inside the NWA cities for light rail the more expensive it will end up in the long run. If you wait till you actually have need of the light rail then you run the rick of it being to prohibitively expensive at that point. I guess I just don't see the harm in getting started now with some initial work. If it never pans out then use the land for other purposes. Develop it for other purposes, sell it, use it for greenspace. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, proposing light rail would increase the value of land in it's path although not to the degree the western beltway proposal would increase the value of the undeveloped land in it's path. In either case transit projects shouldn't be looked at in terms of increasing land values or spuring economic development- they should be for solving transportation problems. Whe I say that the western beltway would increase land values I don't mean that that is a good reason to build it - it is the wrong reason to build it.

That is a good point that buying right of way for light rail would be less expensive if bought now. The downside of that is that it would still be very expensive and without a definite plan to build wouldn't be feasible, IMO. At this point buying land and holding it for X amount of years woudn't be a good use of tax dollars when the need for money to improve other transportation options is so great. It goes back to the idea of what do we do with our very limited funds? how do we get the most bang for the buck?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fascinating discussion. I've been mulling the same issue for Little Rock. However, I was thinking more of a "right of way" tram might be the best idea (road converted to tram/pedestrian only).

Hugely skeptical about light rail in Ark, but no harm in dreaming big.

I see my school (Wash U) partnered with UA on this! Now I definitely have to read this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fascinating discussion. I've been mulling the same issue for Little Rock. However, I was thinking more of a "right of way" tram might be the best idea (road converted to tram/pedestrian only).

Hugely skeptical about light rail in Ark, but no harm in dreaming big.

I see my school (Wash U) partnered with UA on this! Now I definitely have to read this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The document made some pretty interesting points about the opportune shape of the metro (linear). Also, it pointed out the simple fact that society is trending towards environmental sustainability, and the question is: How will NWA deal with it?

It's obviously a very far-fetched idea in place with the density of NWA--it'll take someone like Alice Walton to construct it, not the government.

That said, like the authors state, it should be obvious to anyone that the way we interact with the environment/design buildings/design communities is so fundamentally changing, that studies like these are pretty important in creating better visions of living... And light rail in smaller metros than usually considered should not be as anomalous as it was....

It would take a LOT of foresight to construct something like this, and I'm not sure it's something NWA, or most cities in general, have (but especially NWA, which other than Fayetteville, is pretty conservative).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After reading more about this, it really seems like they are trying to stop sprawl in NWA so I've come to the obvious conclusion that it's good they are talking about this. I will say that NWA has some great positives when considering light rail. The geography of the largest cities in NWA couldn't be in better alignment for light rail, however, the topography is the problem. If light rail does come the NWA it will most likely have to stick to rail tracks already in place unless they can buy up land fast enough before it gets developed, or it will most likely be too hard to align with property already owned by the cities. The major problem with light rail in NWA would the fact that there isn't any urban clusters. But again, they are only trying to promote this with light rail, although doing so is a mixed bag of outcomes in and of itself. I have no doubt that one day NWA will get light rail, and probably sooner than some think, but it will take some serious planning for it to be a success.

Here is a really cool video of what KC might look like in 2020 with light rail in place:

http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/transit-...03#entry1064903

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The document made some pretty interesting points about the opportune shape of the metro (linear). Also, it pointed out the simple fact that society is trending towards environmental sustainability, and the question is: How will NWA deal with it?

It's obviously a very far-fetched idea in place with the density of NWA--it'll take someone like Alice Walton to construct it, not the government.

That said, like the authors state, it should be obvious to anyone that the way we interact with the environment/design buildings/design communities is so fundamentally changing, that studies like these are pretty important in creating better visions of living... And light rail in smaller metros than usually considered should not be as anomalous as it was....

It would take a LOT of foresight to construct something like this, and I'm not sure it's something NWA, or most cities in general, have (but especially NWA, which other than Fayetteville, is pretty conservative).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After reading more about this, it really seems like they are trying to stop sprawl in NWA so I've come to the obvious conclusion that it's good they are talking about this. I will say that NWA has some great positives when considering light rail. The geography of the largest cities in NWA couldn't be in better alignment for light rail, however, the topography is the problem. If light rail does come the NWA it will most likely have to stick to rail tracks already in place unless they can buy up land fast enough before it gets developed, or it will most likely be too hard to align with property already owned by the cities. The major problem with light rail in NWA would the fact that there isn't any urban clusters. But again, they are only trying to promote this with light rail, although doing so is a mixed bag of outcomes in and of itself. I have no doubt that one day NWA will get light rail, and probably sooner than some think, but it will take some serious planning for it to be a success.

Here is a really cool video of what KC might look like in 2020 with light rail in place: http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/transit-...03#entry1064903

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I went. Sorry didn't have time to post anything last night. There was a good turnout. There were a few open seats here and there in the conference room but there ended up being quite a few people standing at the back of the room. I wish I had taken pend and paper to take notes. I thought there was some interesting points made that I don't recall seeing in the book. There also ended up being some pretty lively debate afterward between people attending the meeting. While a majority of the people there were pro light rail, there was some pretty vocal anti rail people there as well. I felt a bit sorry for the speaker at times. One thing that should be pointed out is that all of this is just a preliminary study. The speaker mentioned this study was pretty limited and just to help get people looking into the issue, both for and against.

Now let's see what points I can try to remember. It's mentioned in the book and the pdf file, but worth re-emphasizing. Our metro layout does make sense for rail transportation. But it's not set up well for bus or auto transportation. He said there's only three north-south corridors for the entire metro. I know two offhand but not positive on the third. But anyway, he also emphasized that bus public transportation and rail public transportation are two different things. So that a strong public bus service isn't necessary before having a public rail service. He said rail concentrates people, buses and cars distribute people. He also said our current transportation system is good for mobility but not accessibility. As much as we've had a population boom in recent decades our land use has increased six times that of the actual population growth. People asked for time frames on all of this. He said some cities were very organized and had a lot of political support and happened in 5 years. Although I think we all know this isn't going to happen for NWA, even assuming we eventually built something. He also mentioned it took Austin about 40 years. I'm hoping if we do get this going it won't be quite that long. The book at first shows the possibility of a route not ties to the railroad but later in the book shows it from the railroad tracks perspective. Nothing is set yet. A new path could have it's benefits but it's also going to make it harder and much more expensive. In a lot of light rail systems the biggest costs was acquiring right of way. He mentioned that the A&M railroad actually has expressed interest in working with this, which he seemed to imply wasn't something you tend to see. But as long as it doesn't hurt the railroad freight business the railroad would probably work with the light rail proposal. Then the only cost to acquiring right of way would happen on extending the end of the rail in Bentonville and extending it to XNA. But he also said the next study done, if it's done, would focus more on where the layout should be and such. I suppose there's also the possibility of branching it off at certain areas to reach other active spots in some cities. Although that would increase costs. Apparently Fayetteville has asked the NWARTA to look into funding another study. He also mentioned that the layout shown in the book is the minimum layout needed to make it successful. Apparently some people weren't happy Bella Vista was left out and others asked about extending out to other NWA communities. That can be done but the main initial focus should be on the current layout.

Anyway I'm sure I'm leaving out a few things but I really need to head off to work now. I'll try to remember if there's anything else later or answer any questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those corridors are 71, 540, and 112. Sounds like it was a good meeting. Based on your report, maybe my harsh cirticism weren't quite comepletely warranted. I just don't see Bella Vista working well into a scenario for light rail, maybe I'm wrong. Seems like the options would be along the proposed bypass or up 71. The topography in proximity to the proposed bypass wouldn't appear to support the sort of development you'd need to support rail transit. Up 71 would probably require development on current golf courses, but I suspect those areas are probably in the floodplain. I just don't see how that area could support the needed density. Aren't most of the homes up there on septic tanks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I made it to the meeting, also. It was divided into a brief review of the materials online and in the book followed by a question and answer session. There weren't any major surprises in the review section although the speaker emphasized that a metro wide bus system was not seen as a substitue for light rail- that a bus sytem was more of the same as what we have now. A bus system would be needed in addition to light rail as would more of the individual vehicle mode that we have now.

The review section of the presentation went well but the question and answer section not so much. The first question went off on an anti-tax diatribe about the high school millage election coming up- which was not what the presentation was about at all. Being an open forum anything could be asked, I guess, but it was obvious the speaker was looking for thoughtful questions about aspects of light rail and what it could do for the community. There were some anti-growth comments and more taxation questions but the majority of attendees did, not surprisingly, seem in support of light rail. The speaker had trouble answering some of the questions clearly but made the point that some of the questons asked were up to governing bodies and the presentation was only an attempt to get dialog started.

A couple of other points were that light rail could use the existing ARK-MO rightofway although when pressed the speaker gave a confusing answer. It is established that light rail uses overhead lines for power and not the same tracks that a freight line would use. The speaker said that light rail could use the tracks during the day and they could be used for freight at night. If it used the same tracks it would not be light rail and I think it would be logistically impossible to have a viable passenger service and freight service of the types and frequency needed on that one rail line.

Another point he made was that the light rail would only be used for peak traffic- it would not be used for "supper time" travel. I can't imagine pouring a possible billion dollars into a transit system that is used only for rush hour periods and sits unused for other times. It would not be an efficent use of what little money is going to be available for transportation improvements.

As an attempt to get people talking about light rail the presentation was a success but in making the case for it in Northwest Arkansas was not a success. It is still a too expensive, unproven and politically and socially unviable option for this area. The advocates for light rail need to look at the root causes of the sprawl that we have and work to change those before light rail is looked at. Until local governments change development patterns through zoning law changes and policies encouraging increased density light rail will not be a viable solution. For the speaker to say that density isn't required for light rail to work and then say that light rail would drive increased density seems like trying to have it both ways. Either way it doesn't change the fact that the type of development that is seen as a product of light is fought constantly in NWA as too dense and not compatible and that position is too often backed up by the local governments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an attempt to get people talking about light rail the presentation was a success but in making the case for it in Northwest Arkansas was not a success. It is still a too expensive, unproven and politically and socially unviable option for this area. The advocates for light rail need to look at the root causes of the sprawl that we have and work to change those before light rail is looked at. Until local governments change development patterns through zoning law changes and policies encouraging increased density light rail will not be a viable solution. For the speaker to say that density isn't required for light rail to work and then say that light rail would drive increased density seems like trying to have it both ways. Either way it doesn't change the fact that the type of development that is seen as a product of light is fought constantly in NWA as too dense and not compatible and that position is too often backed up by the local governments.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think I see a conflict between stating NWA doesn't need more density to build light rail, but, if built, light rail will encourage more density.

Anyways, at the end of the day, I think that's the main issue: whether NWA is dense enough to begin with, and whether it would be willing to enforce the tough regulations to encourage density a la Portland. Fayetteville might. Not sure about Benton County/Springdale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well...conflict might be too strong a word- more of a contradiction, I think. On one hand he seems to say that density is unimportant but on the other hand he says that increased density is an important reason to have light rail.

Yes, the main issue is indeed whether or not there is the density now or least an indication of a governmental move for increased density in the future. Fayetteville has the City Plan 2025 as a guideline but often doesn't seem to follow it. Ruskin Heights, Amberwood and several other multiple family residential projects that had increased density have been fought as too dense and not compatible. The building height regulations work against increased density. The Dallas Area Rapid Transit system was used an example of a successful light rail project but look at the type of development along that rail line. It is very dense with many tall buildings- exactly what is used as an example of what many in NWA say they don't want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those corridors are 71, 540, and 112. Sounds like it was a good meeting. Based on your report, maybe my harsh criticism weren't quite completely warranted. I just don't see Bella Vista working well into a scenario for light rail, maybe I'm wrong. Seems like the options would be along the proposed bypass or up 71. The topography in proximity to the proposed bypass wouldn't appear to support the sort of development you'd need to support rail transit. Up 71 would probably require development on current golf courses, but I suspect those areas are probably in the floodplain. I just don't see how that area could support the needed density. Aren't most of the homes up there on septic tanks?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I made it to the meeting, also. It was divided into a brief review of the materials online and in the book followed by a question and answer session. There weren't any major surprises in the review section although the speaker emphasized that a metro wide bus system was not seen as a substitute for light rail- that a bus system was more of the same as what we have now. A bus system would be needed in addition to light rail as would more of the individual vehicle mode that we have now.

The review section of the presentation went well but the question and answer section not so much. The first question went off on an anti-tax diatribe about the high school millage election coming up- which was not what the presentation was about at all. Being an open forum anything could be asked, I guess, but it was obvious the speaker was looking for thoughtful questions about aspects of light rail and what it could do for the community. There were some anti-growth comments and more taxation questions but the majority of attendees did, not surprisingly, seem in support of light rail. The speaker had trouble answering some of the questions clearly but made the point that some of the questions asked were up to governing bodies and the presentation was only an attempt to get dialog started.

A couple of other points were that light rail could use the existing ARK-MO rightofway although when pressed the speaker gave a confusing answer. It is established that light rail uses overhead lines for power and not the same tracks that a freight line would use. The speaker said that light rail could use the tracks during the day and they could be used for freight at night. If it used the same tracks it would not be light rail and I think it would be logistically impossible to have a viable passenger service and freight service of the types and frequency needed on that one rail line.

Another point he made was that the light rail would only be used for peak traffic- it would not be used for "supper time" travel. I can't imagine pouring a possible billion dollars into a transit system that is used only for rush hour periods and sits unused for other times. It would not be an efficient use of what little money is going to be available for transportation improvements.

As an attempt to get people talking about light rail the presentation was a success but in making the case for it in Northwest Arkansas was not a success. It is still a too expensive, unproven and politically and socially unviable option for this area. The advocates for light rail need to look at the root causes of the sprawl that we have and work to change those before light rail is looked at. Until local governments change development patterns through zoning law changes and policies encouraging increased density light rail will not be a viable solution. For the speaker to say that density isn't required for light rail to work and then say that light rail would drive increased density seems like trying to have it both ways. Either way it doesn't change the fact that the type of development that is seen as a product of light is fought constantly in NWA as too dense and not compatible and that position is too often backed up by the local governments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.