Light Rail in NWA

[Mith242]

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.

[slyder1]

I don't think light rail would ever make it up to Bella Vista. Talk about sprawl. Bella Vista consists of 73 sg. mi. (the same as Springfield) and only has a population of 20,000 people, plus the topography cannot lend itself to light rail. Aren't most of the residents of Bella Vista retiree's anyways?

[Mith242]

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 and mixed use 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.

[Mith242]

Good points. It's bad news for gaining any sort of traction if the signal city, Fayetteville, wants to retain its "small town" culture and restrict height.

Any of you Fayetteville City planners reading? Stop it.

[Mith242]

Actually the the Fayetteville city staff it self gets put into difficult situations often. They will back projects only to have those projects tore apart when they get to the planning commission and city council. It is when the neighbors of projects show up at meetngs and complain that the opposition takes it's toll on good projects.

[Mith242]

One point I think I forgot to mention earlier, is that two-thirds of the population of NWA still lives within a mile of the A&M railroad tracks. There was mention by someone in the audience about the article written in 2003 about light rail ridership declining. But I'd also like to point out what was gas prices like in 2003 compared to now or especially last year. Last year saw huge gains for ridership on all types of public transportation. I haven't seen numbers for this year, and I wouldn't be too surprised if they've gone down somewhat as gas prices as dropped. But I think once some people got out and experienced public transportation and realized it wasn't as bad as they thought some have stuck with it. While it's a shame that there seems to be this perception but I just think some people who would avoid riding on a bus would find riding a streetcar/trolley or light rail more appealing. I think at the very least we should follow this up with a feasibility study. It would give us a lot more information and I think the light rail idea needs to be looked at more thoroughly. The study could even show us that light rail really isn't a feasible idea for NWA for decades to come. While NWA has experienced great growth in recent years it remains to be seen what will happen in the future, especially after the economy gets back on track. We could continue to grow but at a slower rate. But it's hard to say, nobody expected the large amount of growth we had in the past decade or two. But I do think the possibility of light rail is strong enough at some point in the future for NWA that it needs to be looked at a bit longer. If that possibility is there we don't have to drop everything to get it going. But it would be great if we planned ahead and developed all of this in the best possible way if it ever does come about.

[johnnydr87]

If that possibility is there we don't have to drop everything to get it going. But it would be great if we planned ahead and developed all of this in the best possible way if it ever does come about.

[zman9810]

I've done some more reading on the idea of using the existing rail rightofway for light rail. The definition of light rail is that it uses overhead electrical power lines and doesn't use the same tracks as a freight line. The overhead electrical power is the only practical way to power it as using locomotive power has such a slow acceleration and deceleration and other methods to power it are too expensive. The need for electrified lines overhead and the equipment to power those lines makes using the same tracks unworkable.

It still would be possible to use the existing rail rightofway. The DART sytem is constructing an extension called the Green Line that has sections using existing rightofway by elevating the light rail tracks. The downside of that is that is very expensive- the Green Line is scheduled to be 28 miles at a cost of $1.8 billion.

There are other options that could be looked at. Commuter rail using the same tracks and same type of power as a regular train could be considered. Its drawback is the slow acceleration and deceleration that's makes frequent stops unworkable. It would be good for easing congestion during rush hour though. Although it would have fewer stops it could be a option for someone working at one of the big employers and living in another city. It would still require a spur built over to Bentonville but that one section of rail would be much cheaper than an entire new light rail line.

Another option is Diesel Multiple Unit. This is a railroad passenger vehicle that is powered by a built-in diesel engine and from what I've read could use the same tracks. This is especially suited for lines that have relatively light traffic and would be a good starter option for NWA to see if people would use rail for commuting.

An aspect of this discussion that I heard at the meeting and seen mentioned on here needs to be looked at. There is an idea that this is somehow an older versus younger generation and nothing could be further from the truth. Many of those who spoke in support of light rail at the meeting were older people. The most strident opponent of light rail at the meeting was a man who looked to be in his twenties. Age has nothing to do with it. As far as attitudes concerning growth patterns the same holds true. Many of those opposing urbanism features are people who have relocated here from larger metros to get away from the downsides of big city life. These are both young and old and often if they have children they are raising are younger. It's true that there are people native to NWA that resent the changes that have happened and want to prevent more change but there are also those old and young who appreciate the increased ammenties that the growth has brought to the area and welcome more growth and a more urban environment.

[Mith242]

I've done some more reading on the idea of using the existing rail rightofway for light rail. The definition of light rail is that it uses overhead electrical power lines and doesn't use the same tracks as a freight line. The overhead electrical power is the only practical way to power it as using locomotive power has such a slow acceleration and deceleration and other methods to power it are too expensive. The need for electrified lines overhead and the equipment to power those lines makes using the same tracks unworkable.

It still would be possible to use the existing rail rightofway. The DART sytem is constructing an extension called the Green Line that has sections using existing rightofway by elevating the light rail tracks. The downside of that is that is very expensive- the Green Line is scheduled to be 28 miles at a cost of $1.8 billion.

There are other options that could be looked at. Commuter rail using the same tracks and same type of power as a regular train could be considered. Its drawback is the slow acceleration and deceleration that's makes frequent stops unworkable. It would be good for easing congestion during rush hour though. Although it would have fewer stops it could be a option for someone working at one of the big employers and living in another city. It would still require a spur built over to Bentonville but that one section of rail would be much cheaper than an entire new light rail line.

Another option is Diesel Multiple Unit. This is a railroad passenger vehicle that is powered by a built-in diesel engine and from what I've read could use the same tracks. This is especially suited for lines that have relatively light traffic and would be a good starter option for NWA to see if people would use rail for commuting.

An aspect of this discussion that I heard at the meeting and seen mentioned on here needs to be looked at. There is an idea that this is somehow an older versus younger generation and nothing could be further from the truth. Many of those who spoke in support of light rail at the meeting were older people. The most strident opponent of light rail at the meeting was a man who looked to be in his twenties. Age has nothing to do with it. As far as attitudes concerning growth patterns the same holds true. Many of those opposing urbanism features are people who have relocated here from larger metros to get away from the downsides of big city life. These are both young and old and often if they have children they are raising are younger. It's true that there are people native to NWA that resent the changes that have happened and want to prevent more change but there are also those old and young who appreciate the increased amenities that the growth has brought to the area and welcome more growth.

[zman9810]

I do think you'd have to go the overheard powerlines route. I have heard of some systems using an electrified third rail, but I don't think that would be a very good alternative. But if you're right and they can't use the same track as the railroad, then I do see that as a problem. Like you said building elevated tracks would make it very expensive. Almost to the point of having to settle for a separate route. I kept wondering about the light rail term when all of this came about a couple of years ago. Because I also thought that light rail couldn't use the same track as the railroad. But I just don't see how using the same right of way and having to have it elevated works very well either. Not unless you can find a way to get the federal government to pay for most of it. I guess I'm still thinking there must be some sort of way to overlay track or something or else they wouldn't keep bringing up the idea of the railroad's right of way. Maybe I need to try to do some more research into that subject as well.

I did get on a tangent on the generational issue. I meant it more to general development and growth rather that specifically to the light rail itself.

[Mith242]

Okay here's some things I've come across while looking up info on light rail. It does seem to be a bit complicated because light rail can be used and set up differently in different circumstances. Some cities have their light rail partially use the streets like the way a streetcar/trolley would. I suppose if it was totally on the street the entire route then it pretty much would be a streetcar/trolley. Overall the method used mostly is having the light rail have it's own right of way. While light rail used to use a different gauge of tracks than railroads newer light rail systems seem to be using the same gauge with then allows them to use the same tracks as railroads. The newer light rails cars also seem to be lower to the ground compared to other systems like streetcars and other rail transit systems. Being lower to the ground allows better access by disabled people and also lets you not have to rely on expensive raising platforms so that disabled people can have access to the system. Looks like many light rail systems use an overheard power line. Some use an electrified third rail. Although there are some newer systems that have come out with a specialized electrified third rail that only comes on when the train is above it. Sounds like it's mainly being used in Europe but some of the newer light rail systems in the US have this as well. There's also the diesel powered light rail systems. Once again usually found in Europe but some of the newer systems in the US run on this as well.

Looking at all this info it would be nice that if we ever developed a light rail system that it had it's own right of way and had the specialized third rail function. But that's also probably the most expensive set up as well. Being more practical I think the easier set up for our area would be using the exiting railroad tracks as much as possible and while probably not very aesthetic looking, I'm guessing overheard power lines might be the best power method.

[Mith242]

I hope the idea isn't to do away with rail freight service- that would be a terrible idea. There three ways to deliver freight- rail, truck and air and very little is delivered by air. That's leaves rail and truck and as the price of diesel rises it will cost more to deliver by truck. That leaves rail as the wave of the future, I would think. For NWA to not have freight rail service would put a big crimp in any future economic development plans.

[akahogfan]

One thing that I have not heard mention is the possibility of moving the A&M railroad. Not sure as to how much it would cost, but if NWA could purchase ROW to the west of all the cities and have the line go through Bentonville to make up for the extension to the walmart HQ. It seems like it would be cheaper than purchasing ROW inside the city limits for light rail. A&M gets new track, and we get the old without having to share. Since the cost is already going to be $1 Billion plus, I don't think that a few million will make a huge difference. Also, if placed correctly, it seems like the line would help to stem some sprawl.

Here are a few alternative lines that I thought of. I guess that it would also be possible to have the line even farther west, but I didn't want to put any more time into drawing right now.

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF&...1b3c3c7d8085fcb

[Mith242]

One thing that I have not heard mention is the possibility of moving the A&M railroad. Not sure as to how much it would cost, but if NWA could purchase ROW to the west of all the cities and have the line go through Bentonville to make up for the extension to the walmart HQ. It seems like it would be cheaper than purchasing ROW inside the city limits for light rail. A&M gets new track, and we get the old without having to share. Since the cost is already going to be $1 Billion plus, I don't think that a few million will make a huge difference. Also, if placed correctly, it seems like the line would help to stem some sprawl.

Here are a few alternative lines that I thought of. I guess that it would also be possible to have the line even farther west, but I didn't want to put any more time into drawing right now.

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF&...1b3c3c7d8085fcb

[akahogfan]

It's an interesting idea. I noticed you picked an eastern route. But I think a western route would be more likely. On the east side of some of the NWA cities the topography is quite a bit more hilly. While overall to the west tends to be flatter. Also Some of the bigger NWA businesses are also going to want to have their access to the rail. I think companies like JB Hunt and Tyson are more on the western sides of their respective cities and would have easier access towards that direction. I guess what I'm curious to see is if they can share the rail with A&M how much that will cut down on costs. Really all you would have to do then is extend the spur in Bentonville more to the west then extend it down to the southwest to XNA. Of course it will cost putting in overhead power lines or some sort of third rail unless they went with the diesel method. Then you'd have to build stations as well. I'm not saying NWA should try to do everything the cheapest way but I am just curious to see how far down they could cut costs if they had to. Costs could end up playing a very big factor in the end on whether light rail is accepted by enough people.

[zman9810]

One thing that I have not heard mention is the possibility of moving the A&M railroad. Not sure as to how much it would cost, but if NWA could purchase ROW to the west of all the cities and have the line go through Bentonville to make up for the extension to the walmart HQ. It seems like it would be cheaper than purchasing ROW inside the city limits for light rail. A&M gets new track, and we get the old without having to share. Since the cost is already going to be $1 Billion plus, I don't think that a few million will make a huge difference. Also, if placed correctly, it seems like the line would help to stem some sprawl.

Here are a few alternative lines that I thought of. I guess that it would also be possible to have the line even farther west, but I didn't want to put any more time into drawing right now.

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF&...1b3c3c7d8085fcb

[Mith242]

That is indeed an interesting idea although I imagine the businesses that have established facilities supplied by the train would fight it. There are several large feed mill operations including Tyson and several lumber sellers that are supplied by the railroad that it would hurt directly. The idea is an example of thinking outside the box though.

Here's an outside the box idea that is so radical that if it happened it would probably provoke an armed rebellion but would make light rail much more feasible. I propose that the Big 4 cities of Fayetteville, Springdale , Rogers and Bentonville annex all available land in Washington and Benton Counties. This would include land within the smaller communities that the smaller communities aren't able to provide with the required municipal services. This would give the Big 4 planning authority over the land. The annexed land would be zoned agricultural reserve and restricted from development except for government mandated uses and critical infrastructure needs. The Big 4 cities would create zones for development with the I540 and existing rail line corridor as the center. The zones would reach out to approximately the outer boundaries of the present cities and be squared off. Ordinances would mandate the least dense development at the outer edges of these zones and the most dense along the transportation corridor. Existing development would be treated with sensitivity but more density would be encouraged through infill and redevelopment. Building height restrictions would be done away with. A regional planning agency would take over all development planning for the Big 4 cities with the aim of having uniform regulations. When possible municipal services would be combined for efficiency. A regional government would take over issues that concern all of the Big 4 equally resulting in more cost savings.

The results of this idea would be to save enormous amounts of money and provide a metro where light rail could thrive and sprawl would be a thing of the past. The economic and political clout resulting from the unified cities would be helpful in myriad ways. The state and federal governments would look at NWA in whole new light. Businesses looking to relocate would see a more attractive than ever area to move to and startups would see fertile ground to grow.

Like I said - it's a radical idea- not likely to happen- but if it did the benefits would be huge.

[akahogfan]

That is indeed an interesting idea although I imagine the businesses that have established facilities supplied by the train would fight it. There are several large feed mill operations including Tyson and several lumber sellers that are supplied by the railroad that it would hurt directly. The idea is an example of thinking outside the box though.

Here's an outside the box idea that is so radical that if it happened it would probably provoke an armed rebellion but would make light rail much more feasible. I propose that the Big 4 cities of Fayetteville, Springdale , Rogers and Bentonville annex all available land in Washington and Benton Counties. This would include land within the smaller communities that the smaller communities aren't able to provide with the required municipal services. This would give the Big 4 planning authority over the land. The annexed land would be zoned agricultural reserve and restricted from development except for government mandated uses and critical infrastructure needs. The Big 4 cities would create zones for development with the I540 and existing rail line corridor as the center. The zones would reach out to aproximately the outer boundaries of the present cities and be squared off. Ordinances would mandate the least dense development at the outer edges of these zones and the most dense along the transportation corridor. Existing development would be treated with sensitivity but more density would be encouraged through infill and redevelopment. Building height restrictions would be done away with. A regional planning agency would take over all development planning for the Big 4 cities with the aim of having uniform regulations. When possible municipal services would be combined for efficency. A regional government would take over issues that concern all of the Big 4 equally resulting in more cost savings.

The results of this idea would be to save enormous amounts of money and provide a metro where light rail could thrive and sprawl would be a thing of the past. The economic and politcal clout resulting from the unified cities would be helpful in myriad ways. The state and federal governments would look at NWA in whole new light. Businesses looking to relocate would see a more attractive than ever area to move to and startups would see fertile ground to grow.

Like I said - it's a radical idea- not likely to happen- but if it did the benefits would be huge.

[Mith242]

I don't think that you can even see the box from there. : )

I understand the purpose behind it though. However, many of the goals could be accomplished now, there just is not enough political will to do so. The height restrictions for one. Also, if development is limited on the edges of Fayetteville, it is unlikely that businesses would locate themselves just outside the border as most of the client el would live inside the city.

On a slightly different note, I think that it is interesting that Rogers is building all of the towers these days. Sure that is where most of the business is and they need the hotels too, but I don't understand why Fayetteville is balking, especially when Fayetteville considers itself to be progressive. If Rogers and Fayetteville were to bookend the light rail project, and then the short extension to Bentonville, I really do not see how the other two could stop it. If they want a station or two in those cities they pay up. In many ways Rogers is becoming conducive to light rail. I do understand that it is not there yet, but can anyone really say that Fayetteville is. Get Rogers on board, and I think that it shortens the process time by years.Maybe even a decade.