Richmond Region Transportation

[eandslee]

I can’t believe you didn’t know this either!  Parking…I remember that was one reason that there were not dedicated lanes on portions of the BRT route.  When the Pulse goes through Shockoe Bottom and out toward Rockett’s Landing, there are NO dedicated lanes (no room?)!  I’d venture to say that most of the Pulse route is not dedicated lanes…unfortunately. I guess people were just happy to get something because no one could agree on how to do it “properly.”  What we got was a result of much compromise. 

[I miss RVA]

33 minutes ago, eandslee said:

I can’t believe you didn’t know this either!  Parking…I remember that was one reason that there were not dedicated lanes on portions of the BRT route.  When the Pulse goes through Shockoe Bottom and out toward Rockett’s Landing, there are NO dedicated lanes (no room?)!  I’d venture to say that most of the Pulse route is not dedicated lanes…unfortunately. I guess people were just happy to get something because no one could agree on how to do it “properly.”  What we got was a result of much compromise. 

Jesus... I'm absolutely gobsmacked. I can understand (to a point anyway) why there are no dedicated lanes through Shockoe Bottom and into Rockett's. The streets aren't wide enough. I get it. But BROAD STREET???  That's just complete insanity.

Forgive me for banging THIS old drum again - but what we got, you describe, is as a result of "compromise". I say it's as a result of SETTLING. 

Parking? WHERE? Were folks going to park in the middle of Broad Street? I'm sorry but if there's going to be a BRT line running down Broad, then the street-side parking's gonna have to go hasta la bye-bye to make room for travel lanes AND dedicated BRT lanes. So because the car-centric population can't unhook itself from the auto-dependency morphine drip (at least as far as parking ON Broad Street is concerned) we're now stuck with a BRT line that's really only PARTIALLY a BRT line. It is INEXCUSABLE that the center-median configuration didn't AT LEAST go all the way out to Willow Lawn. And, to be frank, it's beyond ridiculous that it stops at the Arts District. It's that damn "decorative" median, isn't it? 

Lord... we have a "beltway" that's not a TRUE beltway...  (it's a big, not fully-connected number "9") ... and we have a BRT that's not a true BRT for its entire length.     I swear to God, y'all are gonna FORCE me to move back home at this rate. At least I could attend public hearings and YELL at folks rather than watching my BP shoot 50 points north of where it's safe for it to be even with me now on TWO medications for it. 

I reached out privately to City Nerd (not on the public forums) and asked him why he didn't say more about the PULSE line or give it an honorable mention grade. He replied with the following... "let's just say... it needs some work."  And he didn't say anything more about it. Because he didn't elaborate, I didn't understand what he meant.

I get it now. OMG... 

Edited May 2, 2023 by I miss RVA

[Flood Zone]

Thanks, all, for chiming in. This is why I called the Pulse a half-measure.

[I miss RVA]

43 minutes ago, Flood Zone said:

Thanks, all, for chiming in. This is why I called the Pulse a half-measure.

Wowzers - yeah, I can totally see why now.

Honest to God - I didn't realize it was like this. I'm utterly gobsmacked, and I'm definitely not happy about it. 

Edited May 2, 2023 by I miss RVA

[BigBobbyG]

Not to downplay the negatives of The Pulse as it moves past the arts district but I do take the pulse all the time from willow lawn to 2nd street and it’s great. Relatively on time and quite fast. It does need significant overhaul past that though as everyone has stated here. 
 

For this North South line y’all can make damn sure that I’m going to be in those meetings arguing for no half measures though. I now live off of Chamberlayne (well a few streets over) and want them to go all the way this time. Fully dedicated bus lanes, street parking be damned. There’s enough side streets for people to park on as it is. 

[Icetera]

11 hours ago, BigBobbyG said:

Not to downplay the negatives of The Pulse as it moves past the arts district but I do take the pulse all the time from willow lawn to 2nd street and it’s great. Relatively on time and quite fast. It does need significant overhaul past that though as everyone has stated here. 
 

For this North South line y’all can make damn sure that I’m going to be in those meetings arguing for no half measures though. I now live off of Chamberlayne (well a few streets over) and want them to go all the way this time. Fully dedicated bus lanes, street parking be damned. There’s enough side streets for people to park on as it is. 

While the drop in frequency has discouraged me some, I do appreciate it and enjoy that my cars move perhaps once per week now (granted I walk most everywhere).  Its inception has certainly increased my business along the Broad Street corridor as I cut back on places out of reach, such as Carytown.  I look forward  to the North-South line opening up new areas, assuming the transfer point and timing are reasonable. 

I would hope with the Short Pump extension and new Malvern station, that they would look into realigning to median running (only Staples Mill needs redone as Willow Lawn may need entirely new stations regardless) or at least more dedicated lanes (perhaps out to WL until ridership and frequency increases farther out).  Unfortunately I am not optimistic on this.

[I miss RVA]

11 hours ago, BigBobbyG said:

For this North South line y’all can make damn sure that I’m going to be in those meetings arguing for no half measures though. I now live off of Chamberlayne (well a few streets over) and want them to go all the way this time. Fully dedicated bus lanes, street parking be damned. There’s enough side streets for people to park on as it is. 

THANK YOU!!!! This is EXACTLY the message that NEEDS to be hammered home. If GRTC/CVTA/RVA Rapid Transit - WHOEVER - is going to build out this second line, then IT MUST BE DONE CORRECTLY THIS TIME! Like you said - NO BLOODY HALF MEASURES!! 

Fully-dedicated center-aligned BRTG lanes, START-TO-FINISH with NO exceptions unless it's just physically impossible due to some logistical impediment (and a damn decorative tree-planter median is NOT a legitimate impediment - I'm sorry!!)

SO glad you're going to attend and speak up. I'm going to do what I can online by writing out these points and submitting them. We may all want to revisit that survey and put our points in there as well.

[Flood Zone]

6 hours ago, Icetera said:

Unfortunately I am not optimistic on this.

Let's face it - at least a dozen pedestrians per year would get crushed on their way to the median-rooted station.

[I miss RVA]

20 minutes ago, Flood Zone said:

Let's face it - at least a dozen pedestrians per year would get crushed on their way to the median-rooted station.

On the one hand - probably so - HOWEVER aren't the median/anchored stations placed at the "end" of a block so that pedestrians can cross the street with a crosswalk and traffic light? Tbh, pedestrians can (and do) get run over just from jaywalking. And how many stations are we talking about west of I-195, even including the new infill station at Malvern? The greater hazard - I think - would be out in the county on the way to Short Pump, even though the extension realistically would have an EXTREMELY limited number of stations at least to begin with - as in two - or at the VERY most - three - and two of them (Short Pump itself and Innsbrook) make sense. Not sure where a third station might go.

I just cannot for the life of me understand how & why the powers that be who designed this system gave deference to that damn decorative "planter" median downtown. Talk about function taking a back seat to form. Good God - there are enough trees -- large ones at that -- already along Broad Street downtown that we could survive losing that freakin' planter median for however many blocks so that the BRT functions properly. It is bloody inexcusable that the BRT line get thrown out of dedicated lanes and into mixed traffic lanes (or even having only to "share" lanes with local buses etc.) -- for the sake of a decorative planter median. I absolutely cannot wrap my head around that. AT ALL. Call me nuts - but to me it's a no-brainer. That median can go - you run the DEDICATED BRT lanes down the middle of Broad Street where that planter/median was and move on with things.

 

[RiverYuppy]

I think this is part of why with a North / South line it would be important to preference quality over quantity. You can have sprawl with 4 story buildings too. Heck you can have it with 10 story buildings, just look at NoVA.

A North / South line that is efficient, convenient, and not too long will encourage density. A long sprawling line will encourage sprawling development and no part of the line will become sufficiently dense anytime soon. 

I'd like to see a line that just goes from Azalea to Wamsley. 

[BigBobbyG]

In terms of lessening car dependence a north south line like you described will be a major boon for people in my situation. I live in North Side near Brookland Park Boulevard. 
 

Assuming there is a good transfer station between the N-S and E-W lines I no longer will need to use my car for day to day activities.

For work I can take the pulse south and then east to get into the downtown core and for groceries/chores I can take it west. Add in some more connected (and ideally protected) bike lanes and I could seriously see my car going unused for weeks at a time. 
 

I’m hoping they get this project moving ASAP and more importantly I hope they do it right as everyone has described here. 

[Flood Zone]

15 hours ago, I miss RVA said:

The greater hazard - I think - would be out in the county on the way to Short Pump, even though the extension realistically would have an EXTREMELY limited number of stations at least to begin with - as in two - or at the VERY most - three - and two of them (Short Pump itself and Innsbrook) make sense. Not sure where a third station might go.

That's what I'm referring to, yes. Crossing over to the existing median stations isn't terrible under current conditions.

As for the far West End, however, I'm skeptical that having an extremely limited number of stations, spaced so far apart, would serve at least what I perceive is one of the reasons for extending Pulse that far out in the first place -- i.e., an efficient and equitable way for workers to access service-oriented jobs along the Broad St. corridor.

[I miss RVA]

1 hour ago, Flood Zone said:

That's what I'm referring to, yes. Crossing over to the existing median stations isn't terrible under current conditions.

As for the far West End, however, I'm skeptical that having an extremely limited number of stations, spaced so far apart, would serve at least what I perceive is one of the reasons for extending Pulse that far out in the first place -- i.e., an efficient and equitable way for workers to access service-oriented jobs along the Broad St. corridor.

1.) Median -- city vs county: makes sense. In the city - even beyond I-195, Broad Street is still an urban street. Out in the county, from beyond Willow Lawn to Short Pump - Broad becomes one of those horrific suburban "stroads" that are as pedestrian unfriendly as it gets. There honestly could be real danger for any pedestrians attempting to cross Broad to get to the BRT station, regardless of where it's positioned (center/median or curbside).

2.) Suburban stations: that's a very fair and valid point. Aside from the obvious locations of Short Pump proper and Innsbrook - where could other stations be located that would provide utility for folks who could use the line as an easy way to get to jobs along the Broad Street corridor? We know that particularly among county residents, the NIMBY pushback, unfortunately, will likely be robust. Even of many who push back don't say the quiet part out loud (and these are the folks who don't want ANY bus service from the city coming into the county - period) - the trope they'll yell about is the cost. More stations increases the cost of the extension, and it's a legitimate issue for GRTC/CVTA to consider from a logistical & funding standpoint - how to balance the cost of building the line out to Short Pump with the need for "x" numbers of stations along the route to make the line a legitimate service that will benefit the most people.

Very interested to know your thoughts, @Flood Zone, because you raise a very valid point that will have to be addressed by the powers that be.

Edited May 4, 2023 by I miss RVA

[Icetera]

4 hours ago, I miss RVA said:

1.) Median -- city vs county: makes sense. In the city - even beyond I-195, Broad Street is still an urban street. Out in the county, from beyond Willow Lawn to Short Pump - Broad becomes one of those horrific suburban "stroads" that are as pedestrian unfriendly as it gets. There honestly could be real danger for any pedestrians attempting to cross Broad to get to the BRT station, regardless of where it's positioned (center/median or curbside).

2.) Suburban stations: that's a very fair and valid point. Aside from the obvious locations of Short Pump proper and Innsbrook - where could other stations be located that would provide utility for folks who could use the line as an easy way to get to jobs along the Broad Street corridor? We know that particularly among county residents, the NIMBY pushback, unfortunately, will likely be robust. Even of many who push back don't say the quiet part out loud (and these are the folks who don't want ANY bus service from the city coming into the county - period) - the trope they'll yell about is the cost. More stations increases the cost of the extension, and it's a legitimate issue for GRTC/CVTA to consider from a logistical & funding standpoint - how to balance the cost of building the line out to Short Pump with the need for "x" numbers of stations along the route to make the line a legitimate service that will benefit the most people.

Very interested to know your thoughts, @Flood Zone, because you raise a very valid point that will have to be addressed by the powers that be.

For those arguing Median would be dangerous due to riders crossing Broad: that happens either way.  The difference is between crossing 50% of Broad 100% of the time versus crossing 100% of Broad 50% of the time.  I would argue it is safer to cross half of Broad compared to trying to make it the full width within crosswalk timing.

Station ideas (with priority ranking and mileage from last station traveling West):
Dickens Rd [B] (1.4mi) - Large concentration of Office, Retail, and Lodging.  Connects a significant Asian community and the node has potential for higher density residential (some proposed).
Bethlehem Rd [A] (1.0mi) - Large concentration of Lodging and Retail.  Significant medium-density residential under development.
Westland Shopping Center [B] (1.1mi) - Decent concentration of popular Retail, Restaurants, and apartments.  Connectivity opportunity to Henrico Doctors Hospital and Henrico Government Center (courts).
Tuckernuck Rd [C] (1.2mi) - Decent concentration of Retail, Entertainment, and apartments.
Cox Rd [A] (2.1mi) - Large concentration of Office, Retail, and Lodging with significant higher-density residential under development.
West Broad Village [B] (1.0mi) - Large concentration of Retail, Entertainment, and apartments.
Short Pump Town Center [A] (1.1mi) - Duh.

[Flood Zone]

2 hours ago, Icetera said:

For those arguing Median would be dangerous due to riders crossing Broad: that happens either way.  The difference is between crossing 50% of Broad 100% of the time versus crossing 100% of Broad 50% of the time.  I would argue it is safer to cross half of Broad compared to trying to make it the full width within crosswalk timing.

I'm not arguing so much as posing the question. And I agree with your axiom above. That said, there may be a substantive difference (at least in, say, Henrico's eyes) between pedestrians having the bare ability to cross and the locality funding something that encourages them to cross, even if just halfway.  Anything on Broad west of I-64 absolutely zooms, lots of light-running, etc. (Until, that is, you get to Short Pump.)

[I miss RVA]

2 hours ago, Icetera said:

For those arguing Median would be dangerous due to riders crossing Broad: that happens either way.  The difference is between crossing 50% of Broad 100% of the time versus crossing 100% of Broad 50% of the time.  I would argue it is safer to cross half of Broad compared to trying to make it the full width within crosswalk timing.

Station ideas (with priority ranking and mileage from last station traveling West):
Dickens Rd [B] (1.4mi) - Large concentration of Office, Retail, and Lodging.  Connects a significant Asian community and the node has potential for higher density residential (some proposed).
Bethlehem Rd [A] (1.0mi) - Large concentration of Lodging and Retail.  Significant medium-density residential under development.
Westland Shopping Center [B] (1.1mi) - Decent concentration of popular Retail, Restaurants, and apartments.  Connectivity opportunity to Henrico Doctors Hospital and Henrico Government Center (courts).
Tuckernuck Rd [C] (1.2mi) - Decent concentration of Retail, Entertainment, and apartments.
Cox Rd [A] (2.1mi) - Large concentration of Office, Retail, and Lodging with significant higher-density residential under development.
West Broad Village [B] (1.0mi) - Large concentration of Retail, Entertainment, and apartments.
Short Pump Town Center [A] (1.1mi) - Duh.

1.) Crossing half of Broad vs crossing all of Broad -  concur and fully agree with you, Ice. FAR better to cross only halfway in either direction than to force passengers who would need to catch the PULSE on the other side of the street from where they are to have to try to Frogger their way across the entirety of this incredibly dangerous (and classic) stroad.

2.) Station list:  REALLY good list - and good backing information. I can absolutely go with all of it  .  Good call!

[I miss RVA]

Mind you - adding seven stations to W. Broad between Willow Lawn and Short Pump - does make me wonder how intense the pushback would be.

Edited May 4, 2023 by I miss RVA

[I miss RVA]

1 hour ago, Flood Zone said:

I'm not arguing so much as posing the question. And I agree with your axiom above. That said, there may be a substantive difference (at least in, say, Henrico's eyes) between pedestrians having the bare ability to cross and the locality funding something that encourages them to cross, even if just halfway.  Anything on Broad west of I-64 absolutely zooms, lots of light-running, etc. (Until, that is, you get to Short Pump.)

Unfortunately, much of the routing of the proposed PULSE lines involve stroads. Midlothian Turnpike is another very dangerous and totally "classic" stroad for its entire length, starting just after you reach the western slope of the overpass over Westover Hills/Belt Boulevard continuing as far west as you can go pass Midlothian, past the 288 beltway and into Powhatan.

Hull Street Road becomes a stroad west of Southside Plaza (I can't recall how far west - I think it may be a little farther out than from where Midlo starts to stroad) - and this continues as far west as you can go past the 288 beltway and into Powhatan.

The Pike (U.S. 1 south of Hull Street) is actually less stroady than either Midlo or Hull Street Road are within in the city limits (particularly farther north, the closer you get toward the Hull Street/Cowardin Avenue intersection) - but it does stroad out once you get south of Bells Road heading toward Chippenham. Anything south of there - forget it. Classic stroad.

On the far North Side and into the suburbs - Brook Road north of the city line/Azalea Avenue and on out to and beyond Virginia Center Commons is pretty stroady as well.

It's sad just how much of both 60 & 360 are stroads while still within the city proper - but that's how they developed prior to annexation in 1970.

Edited May 4, 2023 by I miss RVA

[Rooster]

great ideas for stops along West Broad! Hope to see it happen one day - maybe it would encourage more street-friendly developments rather than the suburban strip mall sprawl. The downtown stretch (195- through the arts district) is pretty good in my opinion. Starting around the convention center it does spilt from the middle to the edges (with stations on both sides) - Im not sure why they didnt paint those red as well, it really seems to help lessen confusion.  They are dedicated lanes but they double as turn lanes for most since they're not well marked....

Im one of those who loves the idea of mass transit but cant ever get myself to actually use it - Im around town all the time, but where would I put my stuff?

 

[I miss RVA]

22 minutes ago, Rooster said:

great ideas for stops along West Broad! Hope to see it happen one day - maybe it would encourage more street-friendly developments rather than the suburban strip mall sprawl. The downtown stretch (195- through the arts district) is pretty good in my opinion. Starting around the convention center it does spilt from the middle to the edges (with stations on both sides) - Im not sure why they didnt paint those red as well, it really seems to help lessen confusion.  They are dedicated lanes but they double as turn lanes for most since they're not well marked....

Im one of those who loves the idea of mass transit but cant ever get myself to actually use it - Im around town all the time, but where would I put my stuff?

 

That decorative tree-planter median - which fully takes up two-plus travel lanes (I remember when it was built - and I hated it then!) is the problem. That should have been jettisoned in favor of keeping the BRT lanes centrally located at the median and fully dedicated ONLY to the PULSE line. Putting the PULSE curbside downtown forces it to mix with traffic and share supposedly "dedicated" bus lanes with local buses (and other transit vehicles, like VCU buses, etc.) -- which completely defeats the purpose of having a BRT line. This was NOT thought through AT ALL.

The reason those curbside lanes are not painted is because they are NOT dedicated BRT lanes. This honestly should be fixed. I cannot believe they kept the planter-box median -- which completely wastes two full travel lanes -- and in the process sacrificed FUNCTIONAL BRT lanes for that stretch of Broad Street downtown. Talk about having priorities completely out of order. My God!

Edited May 5, 2023 by I miss RVA

[Rooster]

The crepe myrtle block or two looks nice IMO (the blocks with the planters dont seem to be adding any value), but I agree two central BRT lanes (with central stations) would be a higher purpose. But there ARE lanes on each side running through there marked for the bus (in addition to two travel lanes each way and the median) - As a practical matter Im suggesting at this point they should just paint them red (thus making them "dedicated" I guess) and use whatever else money they may have for BRT to expand west/north/south...

[I miss RVA]

1 hour ago, Rooster said:

The crepe myrtle block or two looks nice IMO (the blocks with the planters dont seem to be adding any value), but I agree two central BRT lanes (with central stations) would be a higher purpose. But there ARE lanes on each side running through there marked for the bus (in addition to two travel lanes each way and the median) - As a practical matter Im suggesting at this point they should just paint them red (thus making them "dedicated" I guess) and use whatever else money they may have for BRT to expand west/north/south...

Agreed - they look nice (I love crepe myrtle - grew up enjoying several of them in our back yard - they were among my mom's favorite trees) - but, as you said, the dedicated BRT lanes centrally positioned on the median with centrally located stations are a significantly higher -- and I would argue far more important -- use. 

As for painting the lanes - they may be marked as "bus" lanes but dedicated BRT lanes are to be used by ONLY the BRT bus - not other buses (meaning, not local GRTC routes, not VCU, not tour buses, etc.) If the PULSE line is sharing the curbside bus lanes with other buses, then those lanes cannot be painted because they are not dedicated BRT lanes. There's a difference.

Edited May 5, 2023 by I miss RVA

[eandslee]

This article talks about the possible changes that are coming to the Pulse BRT system:

https://www.vpm.org/news/2023-05-04/richmond-grtc-pulse-bus-expansion-north-south-side-willow-lawn

[I miss RVA]

Good article!

Interesting point in the story about possible improvement - bigger/longer buses.

Now, GRTC is in the process of a few new studies with the goal of further improving its Pulse system. According to Torres, three studies are looking at possibilities for Pulse’s expansion. One is to accommodate their increase in ridership by beginning to run six 60-foot buses. This was proposed as a solution to Pulse buses having to leave some riders behind due to the buses reaching capacity.

Now would this mean introducing "articulated" buses? ("double" buses with the flexible "accordion" center?)

[eandslee]

15 minutes ago, I miss RVA said:

Now would this mean introducing "articulated" buses? ("double" buses with the flexible "accordion" center?)

That's what I would assume.  I've heard that this has been in the planning phase for quite a while.