January 11, 2008
Is Light Rail in the Future for Richmond?
Sheila Hill-Christian, Richmond’s chief administrative officer, announced yesterday a plan to bring “bus rapid-transit” and eventually a light rail to Richmond from Shockoe Bottom to Willow Lawn, and eventually extend the line to Short Pump. That is the best news I’ve heard in a long time that truly indicates that Richmond is looking to its future and planning ahead. On the other hand, I think they should go straight for the light rail system, or something comperable. I’m not sure how many Richmonders will be convinced to give up their car just to ride another bus. Especially if they already own the cars. Shouldn’t we just do it right the first time?
What will make folks ride the high speed bus? More traffic, higher gas prices, and incentives from employers or the City that encourage them to.
In our family, I can see us using it, especially if the price of gas continues to go up if they are willing to pick up at major intersections, not just bus stations. But, will that defeat the whole purpose and slow the bus down? Also, where will they provide parking at Willow Lawn and Short Pump for all those cars, for the folks that drive to the bus stations? Will they include alternate energy resources in the plan? This project will require regional cooperation. Can the counties and city ever agree? Can they really work together for the sake of the greater good of the Richmond Region? So many questions to be answered!
GRTC is seeking state funding to design and engineer the service, called “bus rapid transit,” as a less-expensive alternative to building a light-rail system to serve downtown and the rest of the region.
“Long-term, the best solution is rail,” said John T. Lewis Jr., GRTC’s chief executive officer. “But let’s recognize the funding realities.”
In a statement released yesterday, Sheila Hill-Christian, Richmond’s chief administrative officer, said the city is “committed to the development of rapid bus transit as a precursor to light rail development, which is so strongly needed.”
….
The buses wouldn’t be the same as the ones that lumber through downtown now. The buses would carry up to 90 passengers — who would board at stations rather than curbside stops — and employ a technology that limits time spent waiting at stoplights.
Houston recently dropped a similar plan (bus “rapid transit” first then switching to light rail) for a five- line l.r. system from the outset, saving millions. Does anyone in Richmond have any idea about what is going on in nearby Norfolk? Or about Charlotte’s newly-opened l.r. line? Get out and smell the roses. Nationwide, these systems have all been big successes !
Although a number of ideas have been put forth to relieve Richmond’s growing congestion we need to look seriously at building transit capacity on an incremental basis. While both heavy and light rail systems make the most sense for major trunk routes the emphasis should be placed on developing secondary lines so that once patronage level are sufficient they too can be converted more easily into these modes. Unfortunately, the ubiquitous diesel bus operated by the GRTC fails to deliver the route building capacity needed to facilitate this process. Taken as a whole these vehicles continue to suffer from a combination of poor public perception, questionable environmental impact coupled with growing concerns about their reliability. Therefore, the question becomes what vehicle can help build patronage while being environmentally friendly at the same time.
Enter the Electric Trolley Bus!
The electric trolley bus (sometimes called the trolley coach or trackless trolley) combines the advantages of traditional streetcar technology with the flexibility of a motor coach. Operated from an overhead power source these buses share application of 600-750 volts direct current (dc) found in both office and industrial complexes for use in elevators, cranes or other electrical devices. In fact, 750 volts dc is the standard for many electric transit systems, including Washington’s Metro.
While some might raise aesthetic objections to the overhead cables employed they nonetheless serve as guide to the route since potential riders can see where the vehicles operate. One of the most common complaints leveled against transit operators is the roadside “bus stop” signs give little indication where the line actually runs.
Currently, in the U.S., there are five trolley bus systems located in such diverse cities as Seattle, Boston, Philadelphia, San Francisco and Dayton. In each case their quiet performance, coupled with sufficient power for gradient operations have outweighed the use of traditional diesel technology. In fact, it was these environmentally desirable characteristics that saved Dayton’s trolley bus system from extinction over a decade ago. They have now rebuilt their fleet with 57 new trolley buses acquired from the Czech builder Skoda in 1998/99.
Any number of route combinations could be considered candidates for possible trolleybus conversion. Trolleybuses might just be the answer for the Broad/Main Street corridor and for those advocating dedicated bus ways as a cheaper alternative to heavy rail construction. In 1995 Quito Equator opened such a dedicated trolley bus system using special reserved roadways for these vehicles. For portions of the routes not initially placed under the wire a dual service vehicle could be employed. Currently, Seattle operates some 236 Breda trolleys, equipped with both Westinghouse motors and Detroit Diesel 6v-92 engines, on all portions of its system.
Of course the question of financing for such an undertaking comes up.
While such a program would most likely involve a combination of Federal, State and local dollars there are strategies that might reduce costs. One method might be the unique public/private partnership utilized nine years ago in Kenosha, Wisconsin to build its heritage streetcar line. Here, the primary contractor acted as the purchasing agent to procure equipment, track and fittings at a substantial savings to the area transit agency. Also, the North Jersey-Bergen County light rail, operated by New Jersey Transit, is the result of such partnering including that of local real estate developers.
Only through building capacity on an incremental basis can we begin to move people out of automobiles and on to transit with any degree of regularity. Thus, the trolley bus becomes a perfect vehicle to build ridership and infrastructure necessary to support larger more complex transportation operations.
Peter Eldridge is so right