Richmond Region Transportation

[wrldcoupe4]

Obviously they are never closing Mayo Bridge to vehicular traffic. I just don't think it would be so disastrous if they did. If we are building a new bridge, I'd rather see the money spent on creating a new crossing connecting southside and east end a little downriver since Shockoe Bottom is already a total jam-up. Also, will never happen.  Sadly, I fear we'll have to have a few pedestrians killed along that stretch of Hull before better traffic calming is in place. Hopefully they can secure funding before that happens.

[CitiWalker]

23 minutes ago, wrldcoupe4 said:

Obviously they are never closing Mayo Bridge to vehicular traffic. I just don't think it would be so disastrous if they did. If we are building a new bridge, I'd rather see the money spent on creating a new crossing connecting southside and east end a little downriver since Shockoe Bottom is already a total jam-up. Also, will never happen.  Sadly, I fear we'll have to have a few pedestrians killed along that stretch of Hull before better traffic calming is in place. Hopefully they can secure funding before that happens.

I agree that a new bridge would help further down river to the east. I live on the east end of the city.  A bridge that would connect the north side of the city to the south further down would definitely help and would make a lot of sense. Hopefully no one gets killed on Hull St. Manchester is getting more and more dense. Thats what most of us wanted to happen. Part of being in a densely populated area is congestion. Hopefully for those who wish to bike they can take advantage and park their cars and commute by bike on nice days. It's an option. Also, people can choose to utilize GRTC also a viable option.  It is important to make the Mayo bridge as efficient and function as possible. If all of the projects come to pass (especially The Southern States Silos via Hourigan) it will be a lot more crowded in that area,

[I miss RVA]

1 hour ago, wrldcoupe4 said:

If we are building a new bridge, I'd rather see the money spent on creating a new crossing connecting southside and east end a little downriver since Shockoe Bottom is already a total jam-up. Also, will never happen.

It's called for in the Richmond 300 Plan - with a crossing envisioned starting in the Bellemeade area. Now - since the plan is ALSO calling for a new I-95 interchange - which would involve federal funding - and I'd imagine a new bridge would also require state funding - whether any of us will live to see it in our lifetimes is questionable. Plus WHERE it would end up in the East End - particularly if given that it would end up in Henrico County) and funding squabbles between the two jurisdictions also call into question our ever seeing this happen.

Either way... it's in the plan.

 

 

[I miss RVA]

4 hours ago, wrldcoupe4 said:

Sadly, I fear we'll have to have a few pedestrians killed along that stretch of Hull before better traffic calming is in place. Hopefully they can secure funding before that happens.

Unfortunately, methinks you're right about the potential for pedestrian fatalities along Hull. My question to the city is this; if they're serious about this "Vision Zero" initiative to attempt to get as close to eliminating pedestrian accidents/deaths as possible, wouldn't it make sense to come up with funding for a couple of additional traffic signals along the Hull Street corridor? The hole in the donut is 4th and or 5th street(s). Traffic lights at 2nd, 4th, 5th, 7th and Commerce would go a long way to kiboshing the drag-race-level speeding, no? How much would it cost the city to install and integrate traffic control signals at 4th/Hull and 5th/Hull?

[Brent114]

I drive and walk Hull Street  every day.  I’m always looking for an intersection that makes sense for a light (because I have run across Hull to get to the other side when out walking).  There isn’t one that makes sense.  The  cross  streets are one way and narrow and none of them connect across Hull (they empty into parking lots but don’t really align with streets, except for 4th.  But that street west of Hull is only a block long.  The streets don’t really go anywhere east of Hull either. 
 

I noticed today that the speed limit on the Mayo Bridge is 35MPH. That’s unacceptable.  It’s 25MPH on either side so why encourage people to speed up for this 1/4 mile? 
 

Something needs to happen to make both sides of Hull  feel connected though.  I’m all for speed bumps (in the from of raised  crosswalks at every intersection) or bump outs at the corners to slow traffic.  

[Icetera]

2 hours ago, Brent114 said:

I noticed today that the speed limit on the Mayo Bridge is 35MPH. That’s unacceptable.  It’s 25MPH on either side so why encourage people to speed up for this 1/4 mile? 
 

Something needs to happen to make both sides of Hull  feel connected though.  I’m all for speed bumps (in the from of raised  crosswalks at every intersection) or bump outs at the corners to slow traffic.  

Raised crosswalks would be great.  I would love to see bump-outs as well but I see that as a potential barrier to what will likely be a future Pulse corridor.  Since the peak hour lanes are usually blocked by the few stretches where parking is available, perhaps installing temporary bump-outs could work for now.

I believe the speed limit on the Mayo Bridge makes sense as it is a long stretch with nearly no intersections.  Artificially lowering the official speed limit would do nothing to slow traffic as drivers will naturally drive what feels safe.

[Brent114]

IMO the Pulse should never go down Hull.  That would defeat the whole “rapid” part.  There’s not enough room for dedicated lanes and there’s no reason to run a second bus through Shockoe Slip. 
The Manchester Bridge is big enough now to accommodate dedicated bus lanes and that route would run a bus through the business center, which already has more housing and is about to get even more housing (riders) than 14th has or will ever have. It is also a direct rout to the new bus transfer station (which while temporary will be in use for 20-30 years if not longer.). 
 

As for the Mayo bridge, 35 is obnoxious (and drivers are typically going 40-4mph through there).  The South end has a significant curve and Mayo island has busy parking lots on either side (so cars are stopping and turning).  Perhaps when this becomes park land those lots will see even more traffic which will naturally slow travel speeds..  The new bridge will make speed moot of course   Currently it isn’t safe to have cars going that fast alongside pedestrians who have  no where to go if things go wrong (do I die when I hit the river or get crushed by a car?).  The sidewalks are too narrow and cars are going too fast, around the curve in particular.  With safer sidewalks, I won’t care about speed.  Right now Shockoe feels inaccessible to Manchester pedestrians because crossing the bridge on foot is so unsavory (dangerous). 
 

 

[I miss RVA]

59 minutes ago, Brent114 said:

IMO the Pulse should never go down Hull.  That would defeat the whole “rapid” part.  There’s not enough room for dedicated lanes and there’s no reason to run a second bus through Shockoe Slip. 
The Manchester Bridge is big enough now to accommodate dedicated bus lanes and that route would run a bus through the business center, which already has more housing and is about to get even more housing (riders) than 14th has or will ever have. It is also a direct rout to the new bus transfer station (which while temporary will be in use for 20-30 years if not longer.). 
 

As for the Mayo bridge, 35 is obnoxious (and drivers are typically going 40-4mph through there).  The South end has a significant curve and Mayo island has busy parking lots on either side (so cars are stopping and turning).  Perhaps when this becomes park land those lots will see even more traffic which will naturally slow travel speeds..  The new bridge will make speed moot of course   Currently it isn’t safe to have cars going that fast alongside pedestrians who have  no where to go if things go wrong (do I die when I hit the river or get crushed by a car?).  The sidewalks are too narrow and cars are going too fast, around the curve in particular.  With safer sidewalks, I won’t care about speed.  Right now Shockoe feels inaccessible to Manchester pedestrians because crossing the bridge on foot is so unsavory (dangerous). 
 

 

Re: PULSE and Manchester: I do believe there actually is a split in viewpoint amongst the powers that be as to how/where route a PULSE line through Manchester. The City Center SAP (so, we're talking professional city planners) takes the PULSE line across the James via the Manchester Bridge. OTOH, I think it's the CVTA or someone else who is a big PULSE/BRT advocate who is pushing for the 14th Street Bridge/Hull Street connection. These same advocates also are pushing for separate north-south lines - one that goes through Manchester and originates at the transfer plaza - and the other that bypasses/skirts both downtown & Manchester but includes the VCU corridor along Belvidere - connecting Chamberlayne Ave/Brook Road with the Lee Bridge, Cowardin Ave and then the Pike.

You make a good point - Hull Street likely IS too narrow - and routing the line via Hull likely WILL eliminate the "rapid" component from the line - which goes against the whole purpose of having a BRT line. Conversely, bringing the PULSE line across the Manchester Bridge - along Commerce Road and then Hull Street completely bypasses lower Manchester - and I could see only one PULSE station being built (Hull & Commerce) to serve the entirety of lower Manchester. A second station at Hull and Cowardin would serve upper Manchester. Maybe that's all that would be needed - particularly if there was another - "purely" north-south line that crossed the river via the Lee Bridge and connected Belvidere Street with Cowardin Avenue - in which case a third Manchester station at Cowardin and Semmes Avenues (serving the "purely" north-south line) might make sense.

Perhaps local bus service would be sufficient for lower Manchester - though I'll say that if I wanted to take the PULSE into downtown & lived close to the riverfront, I'd hate to have to schlep all the way to the Commerce & Hull station as opposed to, say, grabbing the BRT at something like 4th or 5th & Hull.

Dunno - I do agree, tho, that Hull Street probably IS too narrow to properly accommodate a PULSE line. 

As for slowing traffic on Hull - agreed, the configuration of the side streets is really wonky. I'm guessing that if there was anywhere to install a traffic control signal, it would be 4th and Hull, particularly as more of the larger apartment buildings/complexes start being built in the western half of lower Manchester.

Re: the temporary transfer lot still being used 20-30 years from now - GOD FORBID!! (Sadly, you're probably right as rain on that, though!)

Re: speed on the 14th Street Bridge: once the wider (by roughly 30 feet) bridge deck is in place and there are four travel lanes, I wonder if the speed limit might actually be increased?

Edited April 26, 2023 by I miss RVA

[Icetera]

19 hours ago, Brent114 said:

IMO the Pulse should never go down Hull.  That would defeat the whole “rapid” part.  There’s not enough room for dedicated lanes and there’s no reason to run a second bus through Shockoe Slip. 
The Manchester Bridge is big enough now to accommodate dedicated bus lanes and that route would run a bus through the business center, which already has more housing and is about to get even more housing (riders) than 14th has or will ever have. It is also a direct rout to the new bus transfer station (which while temporary will be in use for 20-30 years if not longer.). 
 

As for the Mayo bridge, 35 is obnoxious (and drivers are typically going 40-4mph through there).  The South end has a significant curve and Mayo island has busy parking lots on either side (so cars are stopping and turning).  Perhaps when this becomes park land those lots will see even more traffic which will naturally slow travel speeds..  The new bridge will make speed moot of course   Currently it isn’t safe to have cars going that fast alongside pedestrians who have  no where to go if things go wrong (do I die when I hit the river or get crushed by a car?).  The sidewalks are too narrow and cars are going too fast, around the curve in particular.  With safer sidewalks, I won’t care about speed.  Right now Shockoe feels inaccessible to Manchester pedestrians because crossing the bridge on foot is so unsavory (dangerous). 

The highest volume section of the Pulse is from MSS (especially MCV/Government) to VCU so an overlapping route will be needed.  This means the Mayo Bridge.  Hull Street is comparable to Main Street through Shockoe Bottom and the Pulse runs fine enough through there so it can be done.  A route running up 8th/9th will be great one day, but currently it is a deadzone outside of a few hours during the week so not much of a of a priority when everything is only a few blocks from the current line.

I walk the Mayo Bridge fairly regularly, and while it is the least favorite part of my walk due to the long empty stretch and unmaintained narrow pedestrian infrastructure, I do not find it especially terrifying (though I have had your same thought about jumping in the river trying to get around the fisherman).  On bicycle, that is a different story and I will often bike further down to the T. Potterfield Bridge instead.

While I am looking forward to the improved bridge, especially for biking, the closure for construction is going to greatly cut my trips to Manchester as I much prefer walking and not worrying about bike storage.  If I have to drive, then I am most likely going to hop onto the Expressway to Carytown rather than reroute over the Manchester Bridge.  I imagine that is going to be worse for Manchester residents seeking groceries.

[Flood Zone]

2 hours ago, Icetera said:

A route running up 8th/9th will be great one day, but currently it is a deadzone outside of a few hours during the week so not much of a of a priority when everything is only a few blocks from the current line.

You're not wrong, but those "few hours during the week" really do suck, especially when the GA is in session. Nevertheless, I don't think the Pulse going down 8/9 would help that.

[Brent114]

I don’t think 8th and 9th is a dead zone compared to 14th. 

 From spring through autumn  the 8th Street area is probably the most active in all of downtown.  Friday Cheers, River Rock, Folk Festival, Pride, every  fund raiser run/walk event, Browns Island visits just because, Friday Sunsets (is that what it’s called? Generally R&B shows at Kanawha Plaza), Kabana rooftop events, the downtown holiday illumination…there are also  4 hotels within 2 blocks in both directions…and of course a thousand or so apartments about to hit the market.  Shockoe Slip is closer to 8th Street than the Pulse stop at Main Street station  too (so two more hotels to boot). 

[Icetera]

14 minutes ago, Brent114 said:

I don’t think 8th and 9th is a dead zone compared to 14th. 

 From spring through autumn  the 8th Street area is probably the most active in all of downtown.  Friday Cheers, River Rock, Folk Festival, Pride, every  fund raiser run/walk event, Browns Island visits just because, Friday Sunsets (is that what it’s called? Generally R&B shows at Kanawha Plaza), Kabana rooftop events, the downtown holiday illumination…there are also  4 hotels within 2 blocks in both directions…and of course a thousand or so apartments about to hit the market.  Shockoe Slip is closer to 8th Street than the Pulse stop at Main Street station  too (so two more hotels to boot). 

Certainly valid points.  Running 14th St would need a stop placed near Main to connect MSS, so that would cover the Slip.  The current Pulse fills up at MCV/Government Center so either it needs overlap coverage or we end up adding more stock that goes under-utilized on the rest of the route.  I  think there is little doubt that a line will run over the Lee Bridge, connecting Belle/Brown Isle and the new amphitheater.  Original plans also included a future East-West run via Carytown, though I would rather see that directed North up AA Blvd. to the Diamond District and Lakeside rather than continue through to Thompson St.

[eandslee]

BRT North-South Study is ongoing and they are seeking your feedback on the preferred routes:

http://ridegrtc.com/media/main/GRTC-Pulse-factsheet-041223-EN.pdf

[I miss RVA]

1 hour ago, eandslee said:

BRT North-South Study is ongoing and they are seeking your feedback on the preferred routes:

http://ridegrtc.com/media/main/GRTC-Pulse-factsheet-041223-EN.pdf

Going one step further - here's the interactive survey.

https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/ecde3c58fd1e438ba40e5dd11005521a

Interesting - if the renderings are correct, is it possible that GRTC may be looking at extending the Chamberlayne/north portion out all the way into HANOVER county? I have to admit I'd love to see the PULSE's northern-most terminus in Ashland.

Looks like on the two southwestern corridors (Midlo & Hull Street) the lines would go all the way to the 288 beltway - meaning, it would go BEYOND Midlothian on the U.S. 60 line.

The due-south line would to to Walthall, well past 288.

I realize from a practicality standpoint (particularly financing) they can only go with one overall route - but in truth, they need all three (Midlo, Hull, U.S. 1) And GRTC is considering three river crossings - Lee, Manchester and 14th Street bridges.

Something that's at least encouraging - IF and we all all know that "if" is probably the BIGGEST word in the entirety of the English language - but IF GRTC sticks to their timetable - final recommendations would be made by the end of this year. Hoping and praying this doesn't get schlepped out into 2024.

Edited April 28, 2023 by I miss RVA

[123fakestreet]

13 hours ago, I miss RVA said:

Interesting - if the renderings are correct, is it possible that GRTC may be looking at extending the Chamberlayne/north portion out all the way into HANOVER county? I have to admit I'd love to see the PULSE's northern-most terminus in Ashland.

Looks like on the two southwestern corridors (Midlo & Hull Street) the lines would go all the way to the 288 beltway - meaning, it would go BEYOND Midlothian on the U.S. 60 line.

The due-south line would to to Walthall, well past 288.

 

There's no way.  Even if funding wasn't an issue, the ridership just isn't there for a BRT route.  I do think each end of the BRT should have a "BRT Extension Shuttle" - Rockett's to the airport, Willow Lawn to Short Pump, Northside to Ashland.  Not formally part of the BRT, doesn't run as regularly, etc. But full service BRT all the way while cool if it happened would really be kind of ridiculous for what BRT is supposed to be.

Edited April 28, 2023 by 123fakestreet

[I miss RVA]

59 minutes ago, 123fakestreet said:

There's no way.  Even if funding wasn't an issue, the ridership just isn't there for a BRT route.  I do think each end of the BRT should have a "BRT Extension Shuttle" - Rockett's to the airport, Willow Lawn to Short Pump, Northside to Ashland.  Not formally part of the BRT, doesn't run as regularly, etc. But full service BRT all the way while cool if it happened would really be kind of ridiculous for what BRT is supposed to be.

I have to play devil's advocate and push back in again pointing out that urbanologists have long demonstrated -- using proof of transit systems vis a vis growth -- that waiting for ridership to "be there" to "justify" a rapid/mass transit route is completely backwards and the incorrect way to go, particularly if we're advocating breaking RVA out of the encumbrance of car-centric development and auto-dependency. True, waiting is a "conventional wisdom" that plays well politically - but it's a proven recipe for failure in practice. All over the world (and Richmond's own history bears this out) it is PROVEN that transit lines create their own demand - not the other way around. Go back to the days of the streetcars in Richmond. The city developed, evolved and grew IN THE WAKE of extension of the streetcar lines. Ginter Park... Lakeside (never part of the city only because it was never annexed), Forest Hill, Westhampton, are among the sections of town that developed robustly after transit came to those areas. The streetcar lines came BEFORE the development - and those areas developed AS A RESULT of extension of those transit lines.

Cities such as Minneapolis, Detroit, Toronto and many others also have proven track records of development FOLLOWING the extension of transit lines. Today, urbanologists point to cities all over the world that have grown and developed as a result of transit line extensions.

Conventional wisdom that plays well politically as "financial responsibility" says wait until there is ridership. I'm sorry, but from an urban planning perspective, it flat doesn't work. If we wait and wait and wait, areas that are under consideration for BRT lines will STILL be waiting 50 years from now. IT IS PROVEN that transit FUELS development, not the other way around. It is NOT conjecture - this concept has an unassailable track record of cities across the country and around the world, stretching back well more than 100 years. Again, Richmond is among the plethora of cities that have seen this borne out.

Even today - look at how development along the Broad Street BRT corridor FOLLOWED the build-out of the PULSE line. Would we have the Summitt, the Icon, the Soda Flats (on Broad) or the Nest (on Marshall) without the development of the PULSE line? Maybe - but, again, the timing has been proven out - the PULSE line was developed first. The development followed. It's not coincidental.

"Build it and they will come" is a truism that absolutely applies to mass transit - which has a proven track record in city after city over the past century-plus of creating its own demand. Waiting is a fool's errand. Taking the shackles off and going full speed ahead is the key that will unlock success of not just the BRT line - but also of the areas that would be served by a PULSE line.

Indeed - build it... and they WILL come!

Edited April 28, 2023 by I miss RVA

[Icetera]

1 hour ago, 123fakestreet said:

There's no way.  Even if funding wasn't an issue, the ridership just isn't there for a BRT route.  I do think each end of the BRT should have a "BRT Extension Shuttle" - Rockett's to the airport, Willow Lawn to Short Pump, Northside to Ashland.  Not formally part of the BRT, doesn't run as regularly, etc. But full service BRT all the way while cool if it happened would really be kind of ridiculous for what BRT is supposed to be.

We could run a hybrid of that having BRT still run to the end points but have higher frequency uses running the core route and turning short while lower frequency continues on.  End-point users would simply transfer at the cutoff points if their current bus does not continue on.  This would allow easy updating of frequency as demand increases.

[123fakestreet]

2 hours ago, Icetera said:

We could run a hybrid of that having BRT still run to the end points but have higher frequency uses running the core route and turning short while lower frequency continues on.  End-point users would simply transfer at the cutoff points if their current bus does not continue on.  This would allow easy updating of frequency as demand increases.

This is kind of what I'm saying with the shuttles. And once the main line is built it's not hard to extend it as demand requires.

BRT is supposed to help drive development and density, but there has to be something there to serve, some existing development base there that you encourage to get larger and denser.  Running a line out into the middle of the woods isn't going to work.

[I miss RVA]

1 hour ago, 123fakestreet said:

BRT is supposed to help drive development and density, but there has to be something there to serve, some existing development base there that you encourage to get larger and denser. 

Running a line out into the middle of the woods isn't going to work.

1.) Having something there to serve HELPS but is not 100% necessary. And metro RVA DOES have what to serve, based on currently proposed route corridors. In none of the cases would any of the proposed BRT lines be routed simply to nowhere.

2.) Respectfully, I have to push back. It DOES work and, as I stated above, there is a proven track record of success in city after city after city after city, in the U.S./North America and worldwide. Richmond herself extended the streetcar lines out to places were there was little to no development whatsoever at the time the lines were built out. A small amusement park setup was then developed at Forest Hill Park around the time the streetcar line was extended, giving riders from the city somewhere to go and something to do. But it didn't exist prior to the extension of the line. There was virtually no housing to speak of in Lakeside or Ginter Park when the street cars were extended out. It was the extension of those lines themselves that spurred development - and part of WHY those lines were extended out was specifically for the purpose of developing those neighborhoods.

Look at turn of the 19th-to-20th-century pictures of New York City - particularly the Bronx in the area around Yankee Stadium. The elevated train lines had been extended from Manhattan to/through the Bronx - and at the time Yankee Stadium was constructed in in the early 1920s, most of the land immediately around the ballpark area was still undeveloped with only a smattering of streets cut into the open, almost farmland. However, in less than a decade, the area exploded with development along the rail line (Yankee Stadium itself was built adjacent to the rail line).

Again - urbanologists around the world have been preaching this sermon for decades. Mass transit lines historically have created their own demand. Development has ALWAYS followed the transit line extensions. The entire west side of Detroit was built as a result of transit line extensions. The city made a commitment to extending transit out to areas it wanted to develop and grow - and like clockwork, high-density residential neighborhoods sprung up all along and around the transit corridors.

From the standpoint of methodology, it's more efficient to build out the transit line to the farthest end point that covers the entirety of where growth is desired or anticipated. There doesn't need to be a dozen stations from the end of the "more ridership" portion to the farthest end point. In some cases, just the end point station - and perhaps one or two in locations where growth is anticipated - is more than sufficient. Infill stations - like what GRTC/CVTA is working on implementing at Malvern & Broad - can be added along the route as the area blossoms, grows and demand increases. But the functional line may only require one or two stations at most connecting the farthest point to the point at which CURRENT ridership decreases. At THAT point - waiting for demand - demand that will come with the development spurred by the very existence of the transit line itself - and waiting to build intermediate infill stations - makes sense. It's cheaper and more efficient to have the full length of the line in place  with one far-point station and a second station where ridership drops off - and then add infill stations over time as needed - than it is to only build the line part of the way out - and then later have to fully extend the construction of the line AND additional stations to where the farthest point is going to be anyway.

So with the PULSE - get the full line built out. Put one station at the farthest point. Put another station at the location where the ridership decreases. Don't worry about infill stations until they are needed. And watch what happens. It's like clockwork. It works EVERY time -and the historical record bears this out.

I realize it sounds counterintuitive and it flies in the face of "conventional wisdom". But sometimes conventional wisdom is simply ignorant of the realities and actualities of certain specific undertakings. When it comes to mass transit and growth - from an urban planning/urbanology perspective, it's quite simple. If you don't want to an area to grow, don't extend the transit lines. However, if you DO want the area to grow -and potentially grow VERY quickly and quite densely, extend the transit lines to the farthest point you want to see the growth. You don't wait to build the full line. You CAN and DO wait to build the infill stations until they are needed. But the line itself - with a far-point terminus - must come first.

Edited April 28, 2023 by I miss RVA

[I miss RVA]

TV8 News has some fresh reporting on this. Echoes everything else we're seeing - but it's good that it's getting media lift.

https://www.wric.com/news/local-news/grtc-asking-for-input-on-potential-new-bus-route-connecting-to-downtown-richmond/

[I miss RVA]

With GRTC/CVTA's public-facing move toward getting us closer to development of the north-south PULSE BRT line making recent headlines, Axios Richmond today has an interesting story about ongoing hiccups with the current Broad Street BRT line that need addressing, particularly as we DO begin moving forward toward the eventual build-out of a north-south line. Good reporting and a really cool graphic.

From today's Axios Richmond:

https://www.axios.com/local/richmond/2023/05/01/grtc-pulse-speeds-ridership-richmond

Edited May 1, 2023 by I miss RVA

[Flood Zone]

4 hours ago, I miss RVA said:

With GRTC/CVTA's public-facing move toward getting us closer to development of the north-south PULSE BRT line making recent headlines, Axios Richmond today has an interesting story about ongoing hiccups with the current Broad Street BRT line that need addressing, particularly as we DO begin moving forward toward the eventual build-out of a north-south line.

Although I certainly understand the difficulty of getting enough drivers, I'm not sure how well the signal-priority complaint holds up. In my experience, that has improved greatly since 2018.

To be frank, the problem is the Pulse is a half-measure. It's great that we have it, and I want to see it grow and succeed. But unless you've got dedicated BRT lanes, it's just another bus except with a more difficult glide path for the driver.

[I miss RVA]

1 hour ago, Flood Zone said:

Although I certainly understand the difficulty of getting enough drivers, I'm not sure how well the signal-priority complaint holds up. In my experience, that has improved greatly since 2018.

To be frank, the problem is the Pulse is a half-measure. It's great that we have it, and I want to see it grow and succeed. But unless you've got dedicated BRT lanes, it's just another bus except with a more difficult glide path for the driver.

You raise a very interesting point. Vis a vis what's in place right now, how would you envision strengthening the dedicated BRT lanes? Where are the design flaws in what PULSE is currently using and how could at least the north-south alignment -- which has not been built yet -- be designed with better, more properly functional dedicated lanes? I'm asking earnestly and not asking to challenge you - because this point seems quite reasonable. Is this something GRTC could better implement when designing and building out the north-south route - and is it something that could be (relatively) inexpensively "corrected" in the east-west route?

Edited May 1, 2023 by I miss RVA

[Icetera]

23 hours ago, I miss RVA said:

You raise a very interesting point. Vis a vis what's in place right now, how would you envision strengthening the dedicated BRT lanes? Where are the design flaws in what PULSE is currently using and how could at least the north-south alignment -- which has not been built yet -- be designed with better, more properly functional dedicated lanes? I'm asking earnestly and not asking to challenge you - because this point seems quite reasonable. Is this something GRTC could better implement when designing and building out the north-south route - and is it something that could be (relatively) inexpensively "corrected" in the east-west route?

The Pulse barely has dedicated lanes as they are only on the median-running stretch from Arts District to I-195, where they then join mixed traffic and curb-side stations.  Through downtown until 14th St, the Pulse mostly runs down a bus-only lane, but it has to constantly change lanes to get around other buses (especially VCU's).  In front to the Convention Center, for whatever reason, there is a one block loss of bus lanes where the Pulse has to mix into regular traffic to go around parked vehicles.  After/before Convention Center and I-195 bridge, the Pulse has to leap across all travel lanes to get to the opposite side.  For the stretch of 14th St. and Main St., the Pulse is completely mixed traffic sharing the 2-4 lanes (depending on hours on Main).  West of I-195 the Pulse is completely mixed traffic along 6-lanes.  It should have kept a consistent median-running dedicated lane setup along the entirety of Broad Street and 14th, then ran curbside along Main St, once again, with dedicated lanes.

[I miss RVA]

1 hour ago, Icetera said:

The Pulse barely has dedicated lanes as they are only on the median-running stretch from Arts District to I-195, where they then join mixed traffic and curb-side stations.  Through downtown until 14th St, the Pulse mostly runs down a bus-only lane, but it has to constantly change lanes to get around other buses (especially VCU's).  In front to the Convention Center, for whatever reason, there is a one block loss of bus lanes where the Pulse has to mix into regular traffic to go around parked vehicles.  After/before Convention Center and I-195 bridge, the Pulse has to leap across all travel lanes to get to the opposite side.  For the stretch of 14th St. and Main St., the Pulse is completely mixed traffic sharing the 2-4 lanes (depending on hours on Main).  West of I-195 the Pulse is completely mixed traffic along 6-lanes.  It should have kept a consistent median-running dedicated lane setup along the entirety of Broad Street and 14th, then ran curbside along Main St, once again, with dedicated lanes.

Wait... WHAT???? Hold on... you mean to tell me that the legit center/median "dedicated" BRT lanes run ONLY from the Arts District to I-195 and not the ENTIRE length of the route along Broad Street? How is this even possible? Were there no public hearings prior to the route being finalized, funded and constructed? Were qualified transit engineers not even part of this process? I've seen pictures where it goes curbside near the Government Center station - but I thought that was because the turn at 14th Street was only a few blocks away. What's the point in having a BRT line if it's not fully "dedicated" the way a rail line would be? WHY on earth do the center/median dedicated lanes end at the Arts District? Is it because of that ultra wide fancy-schmancy decorative tree-planter median the city built 20 or so years ago along that section of Broad? With apologies to the tree folks in our community, but the damn decorative median - and those trees for that matter - can go. Run the BRT lanes down the middle of Broad Street WHERE THEY BELONG!! OMG! It ceases to become a BRT when it gets dumped into mixed traffic and shares even a "buses-only" lane with other buses. 

And WHY on earth is the same thing happening west of I-195? There's not even a decorative median in the way. What the heck was stopping the development of properly center-median-aligned DEDICATED BRT lanes? Was/is it because all the happy motorists MUST have their "dedicated" sacrosanct left-turn lanes and, God-forbid, can't be inconvenienced by something like, y'know,  BRT lanes? I don't know why, but all this time I thought that center/median dedicated BRT lanes at least ran all the way OUT Broad Street to the Willow Lawn Station. 

Jesus - HOW did this end up with such an un-Godly poor (or, at least charitably, "incomplete") design? Now I understand why City Nerd - when he did a national ranking of the best BRT setups in the country - if I remember correctly didn't even give the PULSE line an "honorable mention". He simply & barely made cursory mention of it.

Was this a cost thing? I mean - if money is going to be spent on a project of this magnitude - at least build the bloody thing correctly! There's a difference between just "doing something" and "doing something the right way."  All this time I've been envisioning that along Broad Street, local buses were relegated to curbside and the BRT was running on specific center-median DEDICATED lanes. 

I can't believe I'm even reading this, particularly after all this time. Wow...

No wonder it's practically no more of a time-savings than taking a local route. It would take a major overhaul that would cost damn-near as much as building a new line to fix this.

Edited May 2, 2023 by I miss RVA