Glassoul

Quebec banned smoking in bars, nightclubs, and restaurants in 2006. It didn't seem to affect the restaurants too badly, but a lot of bars and some nightclubs went out of business as a direct result of the change.

I thought it meant, "to spoil waterfront views with hideous POS".

your best yet Tel

Cause when have I ever been wrong about the bad stuff on this forum? Oh, and mass transit systems NEVER come in on budget and on time. They've admitted that they under priced the work for downtown and all the bids have come in significantly over what they expected. Now you have the city's lack of foresight in securing property for a park-and-ride at the 4th busiest stop? Rhetorical question. Ask yourself if you really believe that the downtown section will come in on budget and/or on time. Have you ever heard the city council or the mayor or HRT talk about how much it's going to cost to run this thing over the long-term (you DO realize that this is as much per year as financing the capital costs)? Ever heard them talk about what happens if they don't make their numbers? I'm fine with mass transit. I probably have more experience with it than all the usual Norfolk Urbanplanet posters combined. I think my previous posts on the topic cover why I think this is a bad idea. You can look them up if you're inclined. However, I honestly hope I'm wrong here and that it turns out on budget and surpasses ridership expectations.

Phew, I'm glad we can rely on the fact that a construction company would never underbid a contract in order to win it, just like Skanska did with their contract. Oh wait, you say they went $15 million over budget on a $42 million dollar contract? Well, I'm sure that's just an isolated incident. Oh, the bids for the downtown work are coming in wayyy over budget as well? Well, I'm sure those contracts have a very low risk of going over budget and behind schedule, you know with construction being done in downtown and all. Oh, they've already had major construction delays for the most isolated part of the project and most of the work for the LR remains? Well I'm sure HR residents won't mind waiting an additional year, and if it goes $55 million over budget, I'm sure they won't mind that either. At least once it is built there won't be any more need to provide public funding to keep it running cause I'm pretty sure the people selling the system didn't make any mention of that, I guess The Tide will be unique in that regard. Anyway, even if there are operating costs, I'm sure The Tide have more than enough passengers to cover it and that Norfolk taxpayers won't be left holding the bill. Don't say I didn't warn you guys...

Bennigans has always been a bit of a joke hasn't it? Like 1 step down from an Applebee's, or at least that was the impression I always had.

I lol'ed.

I'd agree that Colley makes more sense for ODU-EVMS, and I'm fairly certain the businesses there wouldn't mind, but some of the residents might object. The only way that the base stations will succeed is if the LR has its own RoW for most of the journey from VA-BCH and can shave off a a significant amount of time. I think WiFi service would be beneficial in getting riders as well, could likely do it for free.

That's a joke, right? --------- SCM, I'm a big fan of H/S rail too, but Amtrak is so poorly run and their only H/S line can't get the $650m from the feds they say they need to upgrade the tracks between Washington and Philly in order to shave an additional 15m on the current NY-D.C transit time. The best HR could hope for, I think, is a 100mph line between Norfolk and Richmond, where Richmond would eventually have H/S access.

So when it's a big evil corporation that owns the land it's cool for the government to use Eminent domain, but when it's a private individual citizen, not so much...

Precisely! Dulles and TC developed in spite of NOT having mass transit. Now mass transit is being brought to them, somewhat relucantly in the case of TC as I understand it. My point is that companis typically regard transit for their employees as only a minor to moderate consideration, but not a top 5 factor in deciding where to build. Companies may indeed build near a metro station, but in most of those cases, the company would have built in the city regardless. In other words, how often do you hear about a company relocating or passing over a city because it didn't have available land near a metro/train station to build? An advocate of public transit can (and does) argue with these flimsy economic numbers that the development occured because of the mass transit, when in reality it would have occured regardless. Now most of the commercial development you see to the immediate area of a transit station is service based, and services are a very hard thing to measure properly, since maybe you eat breakfast each morning at the convience store next to the station now as opposed to the Mcdonald's at the intersection to your neighborhood. Maybe the dry-cleaners near the transit station now gets your business instead of the small store in the local strip mall. Has the transit station, in these cases, created new economic development? In the strictest sense of the word, yes new buildings had to be built, but does it add economic value for the city? Dubious. And again, the ratios put up by advocates only considers the construction costs, not the (much higher $$$) long-term operation costs, or the fact that the citzens of the entire city end up subsidising those few who live around the station and use it on a daily basis. Don't get me wrong. I'm not against mass-transit in general. I just happen to think this PARTICULAR solution to this PARTICULAR region is not going to come up all roses as the advocates of the system have led many people to believe. And because of the way it is being sold, it could end up dooming any future mass-transit oriented projects.

It doesn't create much new net development money, it mostly just shifts it around. Rather than develop property 'a' in the suburbs, you just develop property 'b' near the train station intead. Rather than put the Starbucks near some strip mall, you place next to the train station. How do you account for something like if the land would have been re/developed anyway? Let's say someone decides to build a 40 storey building on the snyder lot in 3 years time. Do you attribute that development to the new civic rail station across the street? Of course not, but that's not how it gets counted. Something less drastic perhaps. Let's assume someone buys a few of the older homes near one of the non-DT stations and builds new townhouses in their place. You can interview the developer. 'Would you have redeveloped the property anyway had it not been for the new rail station here?' (If he answers 'yes'), you can still ask whether it affected his decision to build. If he answers 'yes' how much of the redevelopment money of the redevelopment do you attribute to the rail line? (Answer: All of it. I have friends who are consultants for companies that do this type of work). You can argue for the resulting denser development patterns on environmental grounds, but it doesn't stand up to economic ones, unless you happen to be the original landowner near the station (a point I agree with you on the strange NSU objections, maybe they can't develop or lease the land out?). And from my view from one of the most mass-transit oriented cities in North America (and as someone who almost exclusively relies on mass transit), you only see the type of commerical development that you are all dreaming of in the most affluent sub/train stations, those that would have seen that type of development happen anyway. The station only served to concentrate that development. It is typically only AFTER a company moves to a location or establishes a large operation that you BRING mass transit TO THEM. The other problem for those in favor of a mass transport system is that once the real costs of this starter line are realized by the general populace, there could very well be such a backlash that the starter line stays just that... The inflated ridership numbers, ignoring the operating costs, etc. can all do irreperable harm to the future of developing the system.

I don't think any major regional mass transport company is self sustaining. And that's part of the problem. Locals have been sold on this $250M number. As you point out, none of these initial construction costs ever comes close to its proposed budget (see Charlotte) and Norfolk will be the one left to pick up the tab. HRT (and longtime supporters like The Pilot) have never been truthful about the true costs. The long-term operational costs (electricity, payroll, maintenance, etc.) will probably double or triple the total costs over 30 years. As for the ridership numbers they're proposing? Pie in the sky. They say at a minimum 6k riders a day, I bet its 2/3 of that MINIMUM number. Sure it'll be a novelty at first for some people, but that will quickly wear-off. You will not get people standing in 85-100 degree heat and humidity for 10-15 mins on a daily basis 6 months out of the year to ride something that covers such a limited area; and having to pay something approaching $3 a round trip to boot. Your statement doesn't contradict my point, the size of the pie doesn't change, they're simply redistributing the pieces.

That economic number is like the economic development numbers that professional sports teams use when they try to get public money for new stadiums...

The big challenge will be sustaining all the enthusiam after the team goes 1-10 in its first season.

The next NHL team to move is going to be the Nashville Predators. They couldn't even sellout for the playoffs games and have averaged around 10-11k for the regular season. However, there is a lot of work being done to move them to Hamilton, Ontario. Anyway, I've made my beliefs known about local governments giving subsidies to professional sports teams.

No, the field size doesn't change, just seating. Baseball outfields stop "growing" at about the high school level. However, baseball outfields do not all have the same strict dimensions, unlike football fields. The infield (where the pitcher and bases are) dimensions and the foul ball lines are set by the rules, but the outfield design (including the length, shape, and elevation of the outfield, and the height of the wall) is largely up to the owners of the team within certain parameters. Some outfields are bigger than others and a variety of factors are considered when they are designed. Harbor Park is actually considered a bit of a "pitchers' park". The the dimensions of the field when combined with the prevailing winds and the humidity of the region render a lot of long fly balls easily catchable by outfielders, balls that would otherwise be easy home runs in many other parks. As a MLB example, the classic pitchers' park is McAfee Coliseum in Oakland (Athletics home) due to the orientation of the stadium where the strong bay winds predominately blow towards the infield. The classic hitters' park is Coors Field in Denver. Ironically, Coors Field has the LARGEST outfield in the big leagues, but gives up tons of home runs because of the altitude and lack of humidity (they recently started placing the balls in cigar humidors prior the game to help alleviate this). Minute Maid park in Houston probably has the most unusual outfield design in Major League Baseball thanks to its hill and flagpole in center field, and unusual overall shape.

Considering that the garage provides parking for Dominion and the Sheraton alone, I doubt it... Where are you going to put all the cars from the new office tower? 15 story parking garage?

I have have doubts that the entire line will end up being nothing more than a huge money hole for the region, but that doesn't stop me from speculating. Hampton has a median and/or dedicated turn lanes once you get past the railroad underpass at various points (which is where I said they should pick it up from 21st). But if I were to extend the line that way, it wouldn't just be marketed as a time saver, but rather that it frees you from the hassles and frustrations of dealing with traffic yourself, you save on gas (which you end up spending on the ticket price), and wear and tear on your car. My personal preference would be to have wifi on the trains and stations, you could get a lot of university students and office workers to use the service with that, and they could get advertisements to pick up most of the cost of installation. Actually, the most logical first extension would be to Town Center and then to the oceanfront, since that would be the least costly and would service the most people. The problem with a westbound extension is that it requires a second mid-town tunnel, and is therefore extremely expensive and takes years to construct.

That was a proposed 35 story apartment building that seems to be either on hold or canceled. Nothing has been updated about it quite a long time. The line seems to have its terminus after Colley Ave., which seems silly to me. If you were going to extend it in the future, you should have it travel up Colley until 21st Street. That way it goes through the heart of the Ghent business district and the higher density parts of the neighborhood. It also means if they are going to extend it in the future, they're intending to take it up Hampton Blvd straight away, adding to the traffic coming from the tunnel.

I'm confused. This looks like soviet apartment building and your lamenting the fact that it got smaller. We should be celebrating! Hopefully, it continues to shrink until nothing is left.

Most of the LRT fare collections are based on the honor system, supported by random inspections. Here in Montreal, for example, they will occasionally have security officers at certain stations and as people disembark the train they'll ask to see their ticket. Once in a blue moon they'll walk through a random car and ask to see everyone's tickets. No ticket = $100 one way trip. My experience was that you get asked only 1 out of 20 round trips, but it was always amusing to see the one person get busted... I'm sure the LRT system in HR will be, for the foreseeable future, a single fare system only.

That article has the best comment I've read on any of the Pilot comments section. I lol'ed. "You morons need to ride the Tide right out of office!!!"

Forgot to add that the new Charlotte Light Rail, LYNX, which is similar in length to the proposed Norfolk LRT was also orginally forecast to cost $225M, but ended up costing $460M... Any guesses on how much the initial line costs Norfolk? I'll wager $306M, mostly due to what will be termed, "rising construction costs". I also predict that Telmnstr will be particularly enraged at this excuse of hackjob accounting (by my reasoning, basically a lie propogated by proponents of LRT in order to get the thing built, and just good ol'fashion skimming by the HR old money by Telmnstr's, but same end result). He knows that during the planned construction period most, if not all, US contractors and construction workers will be unemployed from the housing crash, with raw materials having also experienced a similar downard spiral and therefore construction costs should be decreasing. The Virginian Pilot's comment boxes will never have seen such wrath from one person!

I'm sure they'll have advertising on the sides, much like the buses do (and probably presented in the same format as well). Likewise, I would expect at the very least a scrolling LED sign inside the trains for passengers which would include adverts inbetween news headlines and weather updates. An enterprsing individual might look into that, or researching what other areas are doing... Of course a really cool idea would be to offer wifi inside the trains and at the stations. I bet that would attract some daily commuters, but probably wouldn't be feasible until they could expand the line from the naval base to the oceanfront.