RVA’s bus rapid transit updated

GRTC releases some more details of the future BRT system.

Update #1 — January 27, 2015; 9:06 AM

The first of two meetings to show off and discuss the rapid transit plan occurred last night. As expected there were some changes to the original plan and quite a few details were released.

  • On-street parking between Interstate 195 and 14th Street will be removed for a bus lane (according to Style Weekly the lane is 9 feet wide and the buses are 10.5 feet wide, so that’s an issue to resolved)
  • Station locations have been shuffled, with a downtown stop heading to the location of Stone Brewing and another moved closer to Scott’s addition
  • Station designs revealed (seen above) and will allow passengers to walk directly onto the buses without dealing with steps
  • Stations will allow passengers to buy tickets, including daily, weekend, and weekly passes
  • Buses would operate every 10 minutes during peak hours and 15 during off peak and cost $1.50

More information at Style Weekly and RTD.

— ∮∮∮ —

Original — September 15, 2014

Sen. Mark Warner announced last week that GRTC received a $24.9 million grant from the US Department of Transportation to help fund a bus rapid transit system along Broad Street stretching from Rocketts Landing to Willow Lawn.

Funding roughly half of the project, the grant brings beaucoup bucks to the project that GRTC and others have studied for five years.

The grant comes just weeks before the man behind the standard for bus rapid transit system in the US, Joe Calabrese, travels from Cleveland, OH to speak about that city’s award-winning HealthLine bus transit system.

Richmond has never been closer to its own system than it is now. But just how close is it, and why are people so pedal-to-the-metal about it?

“Something we care about”

Bringing Calabrese to Richmond is RVA Rapid Transit, an advocacy group founded in March 2013.

“What RVA Rapid Transit is doing as a group of citizens is promoting a full-scale regional vision for rapid transit,” said Andrew Terry, coordinator for the group, by phone last week.

With the help of VCU Brandcenter alumnus Charles Merritt, RVA Rapid Transit has spent hours giving a 15-minute presentation to groups across the region underscoring bus rapid transit benefits: faster service than traditional bus routes, less expensive to operate than rail services, affordability for nearly every Richmond resident, etc.

“We’ve done it hundreds of times now,” Terry said about the presentation. “In a church basement to the Chesterfield Chamber of Commerce, the Capital Region Collaborative process, rotary clubs, real estate associations…the reaction to the presentation has been overwhelmingly positive.”

Some have lobbied for bus rapid transit for years, but have yet to see progress. Terry believes he knows why, and believes bus rapid transit supporters can expect a different outcome this time around.

“Usually it’s a bunch of planners, government officials sitting together, and maybe some business leaders who have an interest. Essentially, it’s planners trying to convince civic leaders of the necessity of regional transit progress,” Terry said. But public urging for bus rapid transit in recent years has changed things. “What’s different in this equation is the fact that citizens from four jurisdictions…[Hanover, Henrico, Chesterfield, and the City]…are getting together and entering into the conversation and saying this is actually something we care about.”

Proof is in the numbers. “Being able to turn out a couple hundred people at a [GRTC] public meeting [about bus rapid transit] is very different when rapid transit was talked about three or four years ago,” he said.

In 2009, the The Broad Street Rapid Transit Study (PDF) identified a key corridor on Broad Street running about seven miles, stretching from Rocketts Landing to Willow Lawn.

Recommended bus rapid transit map from the The Broad Street Rapid Transit Study (2009)

Recommended map for bus rapid transit from the Broad Street Rapid Transit Study (2009) (click to enlarge)

Members of the local study noticed that the local corridor resembled the Euclid Corridor project in Cleveland, what would become the HealthLine. “So they used Cleveland as a proxy for their proposal,” Terry said.

The phrase “bus rapid transit” may not titillate the imaginations of all business leaders, but “$5.8 billion in economic development” sure does, which is the amount the HealthLine has raked in since launching in 2008.

Last year, the Institute for Transportation & Development Policy awarded Cleveland’s transit route a silver designation, the only such designation in the US. “The gold ratings are only in South America and Asia,” Terry said about Cleveland’s HealthLine. “So it’s widely recognized as a model [for other US cities].”

RVA Rapid Transit invited the general manager of Cleveland transportation, Joe Calabrese, to speak at a now sold-out event on September 17th to “provide a forum for citizens, business and civic leaders, and for transportation economic development planners to hear about Cleveland’s successes,” Terry said.

“The Future” On Wheels

“Bus rapid transit…is really taking everything we’ve learned over the last 200 years and integrating it into a new mode of transit, really taking the best of all modes,” said Joe Calabrese, general manager of the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (GCRTA), by phone from Cleveland last week.

Cars replaced horses and carriages on streets nearly 100 years ago,1 he says. Buses arrived in many cities in the 1950s. Heavy and light rail followed after that.

Calabrese said that traditional bus systems have two main pros: its relative low operation costs and flexibility, meaning routes can adapt to usage. It’s cons: it’s relatively slow and has low capacity, is “viewed by many people as a second-class mode of transportation”, and rarely spurs economic development.

Rail’s pros and cons are inverse: rail has high capacity, is fast, respected, and often spurs economic development. But its operation costs are big, its routes inflexible.

“Bus rapid transit takes those two popular modes, rail and bus, and combines them into a new mode with the benefits of both,” Calabrese said. “The higher speed, the higher image of rail, that sense of permanence of rail, but yet with the flexibility of a bus system and a cost structure that is typically one-third the cost to build and one-third the cost to operate.”

RVA Rapid Transit rendering of what a bus rapid transit system might look like on Broad and 7th streets.

RVA Rapid Transit rendering of what a bus rapid transit system might look like on Broad and 7th streets.

Cleveland installed the nation’s first comprehensive bus rapid transit system in 2008. Part of HealthLine’s success came from its branding. “It’s not viewed as a fast bus. We don’t use the word ‘bus’ in the description of what we do,” Calabrese said. “In the way we designed this, the way we marketed this, the way we branded this was just as one would a rail system.”

In addition to stocking its fleet of vehicles and installing waiting stations, the GCRTA planted 1,500 trees, replaced traffic and signal lights along the 7-mile route, created safer crosswalks, rebuilt roads, sidewalks, and curbs. Employees even change out flowers at stations based on the season.

The HealthLine has changed how Americans should look at bus rapid transit, and transportation in general. Calabrese still believes in the marketing mantra GCRTA coined for its rapid bus transit system: It’s not a bus. It’s not a train. It’s the future.

A future Richmond wants to be a part of.

Quality of Life

During a phone interview last Tuesday at 10:00 AM, Stephen McNally, project administrator at GRTC, got a call on his cell phone. He declined the call, apologizing for the interruption.

He’d later learn the call was from Sen. Mark Warner’s office telling him that GRTC had won a $24.9 million grant from the federal government to help fund the city’s bus rapid transit project.

When speaking later that morning after learning the news, McNally let out a WAAHOO heard as far as Petersburg.

“Everybody up here is off the wall,” he said about the federal grant that halfway funds the $49.8 million bus rapid transit project he and GRTC are prepping for.

“We are now just considering the results of a request for proposal for architectural and engineering firms, and we’ll shortly be awarding that contract…for that first phase.”

McNally said the “common and accepted process” for projects involving federal money revolves around three-phases measured by the percentage of a project’s completion:

  • Phase One • 0 – 30%
  • Phase Two • 30 – 60%
  • Phase Three • 60 – 100%

GRTC now approaches Phase One.

“What gets accomplished in that first phase is a tremendous amount of activity and due diligence on the project as far as identifying and setting the base course for going forward with the rest of the design,” McNally said. “It really shifts, in that first phase, from a transit study to an implementation project.”

Part of the implementation is making sure you can fund the project. With the $24.9 million coming from the federal government, the remaining funds to cover the $49.8 million total will, according to McNally, roughly shake out thus:

  • Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation • $16.9 million
  • City of Richmond • $7.6 million
  • Henrico County • $700,0002

Aside from funding, figuring out the nuts and bolts of the project include: collecting and examining information like traffic modeling, surveying, and mapping which will include “an analysis of loss of on-street parking,” McNally said, adding it’s “critical” for rapid transit buses to have “dedicated lanes.”

Phase Two includes getting construction firms and architectural firms together to hash out feasibility and logistics. Giving construction firms input into the project is vital because “they have to deliver a certain project in a certain timeframe for ‘x’ amount of dollars,” McNally said.

Phase Three comprises construction, which could begin as early as 2016. But that inaugural ride on Richmond’s bus rapid transit won’t happen for awhile. “Our end date on that right now is August 2018 as far as opening for service,” McNally said.

GRTC’s project administrator is most excited for how the city’s foray into bus rapid transit system will improve the “quality of life” for citizens.

“I think overall it’s going to make transit safer, it’s going to make it more reliable, definitely faster, and desirable in Richmond, and really reduce the household transportation costs,” McNally said.

He reported census statistics indicating that roughly 10 percent of households along the proposed transit corridor don’t have a car. “There is a considerably higher percentage of zero car households [across the city], and with [bus rapid transit] running down that central artery in Richmond, it really provides that transportation choice for access to jobs, education, retail, healthcare centers, [etc].” McNally said. “That’s what we’re excited about.”

With luck, Richmond’s first bus rapid transit corridor won’t be its last. McNally said there additional corridors — ones extending out to Short Pump or Richmond International Airport, and new ones on Hull Street and Midlothian — are feasible and would further invigorate the region.

“But you’ve got to start somewhere,” he said.

Photo of Cleveland’s HealthLine by John Greenfield

  1. Although Richmond beat other cities by having the world’s first electric trolley system in 1888. 
  2. Henrico’s contribution is less than the others because only a relatively small portion of the rapid bus transit corridor reaches into the county. 
  • error

    Report an error

Nathan Cushing

Nathan Cushing is a writer, journalist, and RVANews Editor.

Notice: Comments that are not conducive to an interesting and thoughtful conversation may be removed at the editor’s discretion.

  1. Scott Burger on said:

    I am for BRT (and I am even more for an inner city circulator and just about anything else that improves GRTC’s service). BRT proponents need to be careful though, they seem to be trying to push this as an anti-poverty measure at the same time we need to rid GRTC of the stigma as being seen as a social program for poor people when it needs to be seen as a transportation option for everyone.

    GRTC has a well-documented history as being very adroit when it comes to budgeting (it has to be, as it has no real dedicated source and must be ready to make cuts at any time). So here is the question for BRT proponents: Will the counties and universities truly partner with GRTC to make sure the funding is there for better service?

  2. Juliellen Sarver on said:

    It would serve more people if it was extended to White Oak on the east end and if bike racks were added to the busses. I live a mile from Rocketts Landing and would not walk that far to catch the bus. I would, however, ride my bike to catch the bus–but only if I could put my bike on the bus. Adding bus-bike racks would essentially extend the service and address the last-mile issue. None of the photos or renderings show bike racks on the busses (or whatever they will be called)

  3. Fan Guy on said:

    Who cares? I work at Innsbrook and there is no bus service at all. I’d be happy if GRTC offered ox cart sevice out there. Never mind the wifi, bike racks, and high speed. This thing will just move people faster from nowhere to nowhere.

  4. Scudder Wagg on said:

    @Juliellen: standard bike racks on the front of the bus delay the boarding and alighting process. That’s why other BRTs (like Cleveland: http://www.riderta.com/racknroll) let you bring your bike on the BRT buses. Since fares are collected off-board, passengers with bikes can get on and off much more easily.

  5. Juliellen Sarver on said:

    @Scudder Wagg, that’s good news that bikes will be allowed on board in Cleveland. Will they be allowed on the GRTC BRT?

  6. Disappointed on said:

    This proposed system is really watered down and weak. More than half of the system will operate in mixed traffic? What is “rapid” about that? BRT is implicitly a compromise from higher quality passenger rail. Anyone would opt for a modern tram over a bus, there is just no comparison in ride quality. They beg poverty and say expensive bus is cheaper than light rail, but Cleveland’s gold-plated BRT system cost $200mil. Portland Streetcar’s first 5-mile loop was only $57mil, tell me which is cheaper. So to take a compromised system and then further compromise it by putting it in mixed traffic is just sad. It’s also sad the unquestioning cheerleaders at “RVA Rapid Transit” don’t ask for anything better. Why don’t they demand an exclusive bus guideway for the entire system instead of less than half? I don’t see the point of that group; they had no input on the design, they don’t lobby for a better design, they don’t promote transit other than these gadgety expensive buses, and they were not instrumental in winning the TIGER grant.

  7. Reply to @Disappointed on said:

    @Disappointed: The areas that are in mixed traffic are generally lower traffic, lower-stoplight, multiple-lane areas where it is easier to get around in general traffic. (The dedicated area is 2 lanes throughout, while most of the mixed area is 3 lanes, at least on the west end). Dedicated lanes throughout most of the VCU and downtown area would allow the buses to bypass the more congested areas and perhaps time routes with the greater volume of stoplights.

  8. Scudder Wagg on said:

    @Disappointed: I get it. We all want better transit and this is one small step. I’d really like to see it go to Short Pump tomorrow but it’s not happening immediately without regional support, which is exactly what RVA Rapid Transit is working on. As to cost, you should revisit those cost figures. Yes, Cleveland was expensive, but over $30 million of their costs were for general streetscape improvements, things that are not integral to BRT itself. Second, your costs for Portland are off. They spent $57 million to build a one-way loop of 4.8 miles, which would equate to 2.4 miles of two-way service. That’s a per-mile cost of $23.8 million. Broad Street BRT will cost about $6.8 million per mile. Also, the planning documentation on Broad Street BRT makes clear that the areas where it will run in mixed traffic are, on average, much less congested than the central parts of the corridor and therefore the cost of dedicated lanes would not add much value in those areas. You ask what is “rapid” about BRT? If you read the planning documentation you’ll see that trip times from downtown to Willow Lawn would be reduced by 14 minutes (40%). That’s rapid. Average bus speeds for BRT would be 65% faster than the local buses. That’s rapid. Riders who switched to the BRT would save 36 hours a year in travel time. That’s rapid. Is it perfect, no. Is it better than what we have now? Much.

  9. Scudder Wagg on said:

    @Juliellen: Will you be able to bring bikes onto Broad Street BRT buses? I don’t know for sure. That’s a decision GRTC will have to make in the next year as they complete preliminary engineering and decide on the kind of buses to buy to serve the project. You’re best bet is to email GRTC and ask them to allow it and point to Cleveland.

  10. Does this mean we get more trash strewn bus stops like the one at Willow Lawn??

  11. Why are there 5 stops between 12th and Adams?

  12. Scott Burger on said:

    For the BRT stops-

    solar? wifi internet? recycling? maps? signs? restrooms?

  13. I like this, but I don’t like the fact that the entirety of VCU and much of the eastern Museum District only has one stop. Eliminate the stop at Shafer St and replace it with stops at Ryland St and/or Laurel St. There should also be a stop along 14th St, and the 24th St stop needs to be at 25th St. Eliminate the 6th St stop and move the stops by it to 4th St and 8th St to make service more efficient.

    I guess I really need to attend one of these public comment meetings…

  14. jillmomwhatever on said:

    A bus route with limited bus stops will not be an attractive option for people with disabilities and old people. Has anyone considered this?

  15. Chris on said:

    The old map showed half mile circles around each stop, indicating the range people would likely walk. I’m not sure why that has disappeared on the new map. I think it would better highlight the over and under served areas. In conjunction, I would like to see an overlay of population density within walking distance, including students, to see how well the stops match up with potential users. For everyone else not lucky enough to live within walking distance, I would expect to see an overlay of additional bus routes that feed the brt. I should hope we won’t be keeping so many parallel routes. These spoke routes will help alleviate concerns about not having stops in lower population areas. Preliminary Route Timetables can be developed that show how long a trip in the system will take with the addition of brt. I’m sure they have all this, and perhaps they make it available at the meetings, but I don’t understand why it isn’t published online.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with an asterisk (*).

Or report an error instead