Good Morning, RVA: 6.5 thoughts on BRT
Today’s weather is boringly similar to yesterday’s, thoughts on BRT, and a couple of things to get your morning moving.
Photo by: Joey Wharton
Good morning, RVA! It’s 75 °F, and whaddya know? Today’s looking hot, cloudy, and sprinkled with a chance of thunderstorms this afternoon. Expect hotter hots, sunnier skies, and fewer thunderstorms, but still pretty similar to the last couple of days.
Water cooler
I went to last night’s public meeting where folks from the GRTC and the city were on hand to discuss BRT. Here are some of my takeaways:
- The BRT will happen–sorry opponents, that bus has sailed. However, there’s definitely still an opportunity for feedback (or for folks to water down the plan until it’s no longer an effective system), but something will be built.
- The impending companion study (how BRT interacts with the existing GRTC system) is going to be super important.
- I was impressed by new city CAO Selena Cuffee-Glenn and her straightforward answers–especially her willingness to say “we don’t know the answer yet.”
- There are some very privileged people who don’t understand that many people do not and cannot own a car.
- GRTC’s Carrie Rose Pace is great at her job. She’s exactly the right person GRTC needs at this exact moment in Richmond’s transportation history.
- Willow Lawn will be our children’s mall–it’s the Circle of Life for that place! I can already see the packs of surly teens happy to escape the tyranny of their parents’ cars.
- Folks could stand to be a bit more polite when interacting with our public servants (or with other humans in general).
Remember when the city told Hardywood that they didn’t need to collect meals tax and then told them “JK you need to pay us $50k in back taxes”? Well, the city’s new finance team has figured out that whole situation and Katy Burnell Evans and Graham Moomaw have the details.
I enjoyed this piece by Sam Davies about what it’s like when your kid leaves for sleep-away camp. There is less celebrating and WOOOOOOO!ing than I anticipated.
What can you possibly ask William Shatner in five minutes and still make it interesting? Style Weekly’s Brent Baldwin does a pretty good job at the task.
Stephanie Breijo at Richmond Magazine gives away all of ZZQ’s amazing brisket secrets! Quick! Put this article in your Evernote for safe keeping!
Sports!
- Squirels lost their fourth game in a row, getting shutout by Altoona. That series finishes up at 12:00 PM today, and the Squirrels return home tomorrow.
- Nats fell to the Marlins, 1-4. That’s four losses over the last five games for Washington. They’ll try again tonight at 7:10 PM.
This morning’s longread
How Hot Chicken Really Happened
I loves stories about a place told through the lens of food.
Sure enough, as I started investigating, I discovered Denise was right. For almost 70 years, hot chicken was made and sold primarily in Nashville’s black neighborhoods. I started to suspect the story of hot chicken could tell me something powerful about race relations in Nashville, especially as the city tries to figure out what it will be in the future.
This morning’s Instagram
— ∮∮∮ —
Want to automagically get Good Morning, RVA in your inbox every morning? Sign up below!
-
Recommend this
on Facebook -
Report an error
-
Subscribe to our
Weekly Digest
Ross Catrow
Founder and publisher of RVANews.
Notice: Comments that are not conducive to an interesting and thoughtful conversation may be removed at the editor’s discretion.
RVANews.com editorials continue to follow the Ukrops debating strategy- paint public discussion with a giant brush, making ANY criticism seem unreasonable, then declare any discussion/debate over, then try to make pretty pictures, then ask for politeness. It’s classic Ukrops- saw this with Center Stage debate.
The fact is that there are many reasonable people who are not against BRT, want better mass transit, but have large unaddressed concerns about the current proposal. For example, how will the BRT be financially supported in the future? Will VCU, other universities, counties chip in or is this going to be all on the backs of Richmond taxpayers?
I believe the idea is that it will be financially supported by the fee it costs to ride it. Ideally it will be self supported, and if it takes a little while to get there I for one don’t mind a few of my tax dollars going to it.
Also I like #4.
This came up at last night’s meeting. The five partners are: The Feds, Virginia, Richmond, Henrico, and GRTC. CAO Selena Cuffee-Glenn, who fielded questions at last night’s meeting, said the contracts for ongoing costs are still in flux. We’ll know a lot more after those documents are finalized.
I would guess that since none of the universities are partners they will not be chipping in to cover costs. But maybe they’ll feel generous at some point down the road? Or maybe they’ll start subsidizing bus passes for all students?
Let me guess, Tim. You are a Redskins training camp fan as well as a Center Stage symphony goer. Show me the money.
I grew up in a third world country, my family never owned a car and my parents rented homes based on where the buses ran. I am therefore a big believer in good public transit systems. The BRT is not one, though. Mr. Catrow’s comment #4 is the typical knee-jerk reaction that if you are opposed to the BRT, you are a selfish elitist. I am a hard working middle class minority who is fortunate enough to make ends meet month to month- most of the time. But I know plenty of Richmonders who would benefit tremendously from real city-wide transit solutions. The GRTC and the City have explained in previous meetings that there is no money and there are no dates for future phases that would extend the BRT service into transportation deserts. After all, they are after “choice” riders with cars. That is socially unfair and irresponsible.
Last night at the meeting, Ms. Cuffee-Glenn stated that she- as the Chief Administrator of the City- cannot answer how cost overruns would be paid. Unlike Mr. Catrow, I am not impressed by her inability (or unwillingness?) to answer that question. She should know the answer to this very valid question, especially since at a previous meeting she explained with clarity and force that the money was not going to be increased. Now she claims it could be. This sort of inaccuracy is troubling and not in the least praiseworthy.
Most people who have complained about the BRT at these meetings are small business owners who are desperate to keep their businesses alive. In some cases they stand to lose everything if construction and inaccessibility to their businesses discourages patronage. Business failures were rampant during the Cleveland Healthline build. It is understandable if these people are angry and emotional when they lose all their customer parking and their livelihoods are threatened. I think they deserve some empathy and respect as opposed to shrugging them off as rude privileged people.
3500 people paying $1.50 is not going to subsidize a system that costs $4 million dollars per year to maintain. Finally, a “companion study” to explore how the BRT could benefit the City is something that should have been done prior to deciding on a BRT and it shows that there has not been a lot of forethought or planning done here. The fact that this a “park and ride” system with no parking lots at either end is fairly damning. Come on, Richmond, look at the numbers and the details. This is another Sixth Street Marketplace folly!
Richmond for Better Transit,
1) GRTC Pulse and a better city-wide transit solution are not mutually exclusive, they are complements. BRT will speed up the core and be a crucial piece in improvements across the city over the next 5, 10, and 20 years. This complaint a false dichotomy – I’d be willing to add a city-wide 1% gas tax or to shift funding away from automobiles in order to make both transit goals reality.
2) Of course GRTC said there is no money or dates for future expansions. Is this a surprise? a) few if any of the people working on GRTC Pulse will be in positions of power when the next BRT route comes to Richmond b) this is par for the course in government and even the private sector.
3) That’s now how I interpreted Ms. Cuffee-Glenn’s response. The breakdown of responsibility for cost overruns, which is still being negotiated, will depend upon the potential causes of the overruns. If Richmond adds $5 million in changes because of citizen demands, of course Richmond is going to be responsible for cost overruns. More importantly, the negotiations aren’t complete. Opponents seem hell-bent on complaining about the plan not being finished AND not being part of the process. This is literally an impossible demand.
4) I think the complaints by business owner’s are overblown and the rudeness by some owners has made their message unpalatable. I am empathetic, but the cost-benefit heavily favors BRT on almost any metric. And it’s a ridiculous standard. Should Richmond deny permits to Whole Foods because it will inconvenience the Savory Grain? Should Richmond never repave Broad Street because it will inconvenience the Savory Grain? Will business owners ever not feel entitled to taxpayer funded on-street parking? Furthermore, this project has the potential to significantly benefit businesses!
5) Financial self-sustainability is not, and should not be a goal of GRTC Pulse or public transit. After all, more than 50% of public automobile infrastructure funding comes from general funds and not the gas tax. Most of the rest is paid for in rents and pass-through to retail customers (as a non-car owner, your welcome for the subsidy). And all of this ignores externalities like our oil-driven foreign policy which costs tax payers billions of dollars and scores of lives every year.
6) BRT was listed as a desire in the GRTC Transit Development Plan in 2008. Work on the TIGER grant started years ago. The assumptions in economic impact, traffic, and other studies are significant if tomorrow is studied today. Doing a study years ago for a project that will open in late 2017 would have been a waste and the conclusions would have elevated ignorance to arrogance. The international consensus is that BRT stimulates economic activity. Why should the city waste money on a study prior to applying to a grant program with a low success rate? That would have been an incredibly inefficient use of tax dollars.
7) This is not designed to be a park and ride system. “Linear corridor systems are pedestrian accelerators, not pedestrian creators. They are most successful at connecting undeveloped land just beyond walking distance to walkable cores.” ~Jeff Speck
This plan will do that incredibly well. Also, BRT will be here for decades. The small things, like lots aimed at a minority portion of the ridership could come in 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021…2050.
8) For years, Richmond tried building big projects in order attract $uburbanites. This is the first major capital investment by Richmond specifically aimed at the people already within the city limits and not at moving money across borders. It also offers a tangible public service – 6th street did not. So no, I fail to see what this has in common with Sixth Street Marketplace.
I’m also confused by the praise for the CAO admitting there is no answer to the question of funding cost overruns. That’s a really critical question that needs to be answered. The rest I get- attack the skeptics at every turn.
Please look through the GRTC document (address below) where it refers to itself multiple times as “park and ride” and where they refer to the goal of attracting “choice” riders. It is most certainly not “par for the course” not to have long term plans for the future in the corporate world and it should not be in government either. The financial $54 million commitment is not going to change and it is seriously irresponsible to launch an incredibly expensive system without sure funds to maintain it. On a final point, I do not need to thank non-car owners for their tax dollars. After all, they use the roads the same way the rest of us do, albeit it apparently not in a car. I do not complain that my tax dollars go to public schools, etc., even though I do not have children in the system. As a citizen I am responsible and proud to participate in helping maintaining the infrastructure for all of us. And for the record, I would not mind a reasonable tax increase to help support the GRTC at all. My fears is that the BRT is not well planned in far too many aspects and that there is a certain desire to put through this plan whether it is ultimately a benefit or not. I truly believe we all share a common support of transit but just don’t agree on how to fix it. Otherwise, we would not bother commenting here and clearly feeling passionate about this topic….
http://www.ridegrtc.com/media/news/Broad_Street_Rapid_Transit_Study_EA_March_2014.pdf
Disagreeing and having what I think is a great debate is different than “attacking”. Have I used any ad hominems?
The world needs skeptics and so does this project. But if I was a “skeptic”, I’d be more upset with the FDA et al for hijacking the voice of the opposition and making it a selfish screaming match of NIMBYism than people who disagree.
I wish the sensible opposition had a stronger voice.
@Richmond for Better Transit: I’ve read the EA document you cite and I helped write it. Park and ride is mentioned 18 times in 166 pages. Also, the document notes that a park-and-ride facility is only proposed at one station. Furthermore, the document only specifically references “choice riders” twice in 166 pages. Yes it does suggest that the BRT service is something that is more likely to appeal to “choice riders” and attract riders who might not normally consider GRTC service today, but I see that as a laudable goal as making transit attractive to a broad audience makes it more likely to be financially viable and more likely to get broad community and government support for expansion.
Aaron asks if he has used any ad hominems and then goes on to call people selfish, screaming NIMBYs who are not sensible. It’s just a factual statement that an important value of BRT promotion is attacking people who question it.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding this? I called the voice (narrative) of the opposition “a selfish screaming match of NIMBYism.” My issue is with the construction and communication of their argument, not their personalities. I’m not discounting their ideas because of their character. If I said, this is a terrible idea because residents of the Fan are selfish NIMBYists, I think that would be an ad hominem attack?
Either way, I should stick to my personal commitments to be more positive and to use less pointed language. I think this plan could be better. I think it could be way better. But I’m uncomfortable with an alliance between people people who fundamentally oppose effective mass transit and people who oppose this plan because it’s not mass transit-friendly enough.
I don’t want perfect to become the enemy of good. Especially when I see this as step one of many. It will be easier to improve an imperfect BRT a decade from now than to build a perfect one.