Multi-Modal Transportation Center Full Build Out Concept and Development Sites along Connecting Routes

Norfolk is moving forward with planning and financing a new multi-modal transportation center Downtown. Excellent idea. The plan is to have it ready to open once Amtrak rolls in in three years. It is very exciting. Combining the news of Virginia Beach’s move toward urbanism and I get the idea that our area is actually maturing as a metropolitan area. The one thing that scared me for a minute, though, was where it said,

“In addition, a new bus transfer facility would be developed, moving about two-thirds of buses from the current location at Cedar Grove north of downtown on Monticello Avenue.”

I was worried that might mean that Norfolk was going to keep 1/3 of the buses at Cedar Grove. Fear not. According to the full report by the City,

At present, 17 routes on the HRT network serve the Cedar Grove site, and be-tween 6,000 – 7,000 passengers board or alight daily at the facility. The general conditions of the Cedar Grove site combined with its lack of amenities, poor pedestrian link-ages and connections, and also its remoteness from downtown activity centers combine to make the restructuring of the primary bus transfer operation in Norfolk a high priority. Its lack of a direct connection to the light rail corridor is also another detriment of the current site. … It is planned that the new bus transfer operation at the Multi-Modal Transportation Center will serve 9 current HRT bus routes operating to the Downtown Norfolk area generally from areas to the south and east. Concurrent to this restructuring of the transit network, 6 other bus routes to the downtown area from the west and north would also be realigned to serve other light rail stations which will help to further deemphasize and limit congestion at the Cedar Grove site and thereby improving passenger service and convenience across the entire bus transit network.

That mean 15 out of 17 buses will no longer serve Cedar Grove. I hope the other two will only serve it by driving by. Thinking about it, this actually shows some intelligence on the part of Norfolk city officials. They publicly recognize that Cedar Grove  is a terrible place for a bus transfer point. Ignoring the fact that the city is solely responsible for Cedar Grove, I have to give someone credit on this one. One problem. In the build-out image above, the nice, new bus transfer location has been built over with a parking garage. Check it out yourself:

Where did our bus transfer point go?

Image Property of http://www.ourfuturevb.com/

Check out OurFutureVB.com and will will find a very useful website that VB has developed for its residents to educate themselves. I have to say, compared to Norfolk’s effort, this is spectacular. Norfolk’s last Comprehensive Plan was created in 1992. Norfolk apparently is working on a new one, however, the last new info posted on the website was at the end of 2008. Considering that the public review period is supposed to have been completed in June, I’m going out on a limb and saying that they might not be close to finishing. I have sent an email to the planning department to get more info.

G. A summons for a violation of this section may be executed pursuant to § 19.2-76.2. Notwithstanding the provisions of § 19.2-76, a summons for a violation of this section may be executed by mailing by first class mail a copy thereof to the owner, lessee, or renter of the vehicle. In the case of a vehicle owner, the copy shall be mailed to the address contained in the records of the Department of Motor Vehicles; in the case of a vehicle lessee or renter, the copy shall be mailed to the address contained in the records of the lessor or renter. Every such mailing shall include, in addition to the summons, a notice of (i) the summoned person’s ability to rebut the presumption that he was the operator of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation through the filing of an affidavit as provided in subsection D and (ii) instructions for filing such affidavit, including the address to which the affidavit is to be sent. If the summoned person fails to appear on the date of return set out in the summons mailed pursuant to this section, the summons shall be executed in the manner set out in § 19.2-76.3. No proceedings for contempt or arrest of a person summoned by mailing shall be instituted for failure to appear on the return date of the summons. Any summons executed for a violation of this section shall provide to the person summoned at least 30 business days from the mailing of the summons to inspect information collected by a traffic light signal violation monitoring system in connection with the violation.

In other words, the city can send you a violation notice if you run a red light. It will be address to the registered owner. You can use the information contained on the violation to file an affidavit affirming that you were not the driver at the time of the violation. If you fail to pay or appear in court, the city must them serve a second summons. The next law tell the city how that summons must be served. § 19.2-76.3 says,

A. If any person fails to appear on the date of the return contained in the summons issued in accordance with § 19.2-76.2, then a summons shall be delivered to the sheriff of the county, city or town for service on that person as set out in § 8.01-296.
B. If such person then fails to appear on the date of return as contained in the summons so issued, a summons shall be executed in the manner set out in § 19.2-76. C. No proceedings for contempt or arrest of any person summoned under the provisions of this section shall be instituted unless such person has been personally served with a summons and has failed to appear on the return date contained therein.

That means that they have to physically serve you with a summons before you can be  fined for running the red light or for failing to appear. So what should you do if you disagree with the use of traffic cameras and you happen to run that red light? Forget about the violation. Chances are they wont serve you with anything. That costs a lot of money and cuts into the potential profits. If they do, its no big deal, just go pay the ticket.

Note: Running red lights is dangerous and you should never run a red light just in spite of it. Please, for the sake of everyone else, this is only for those times that you, say, don’t want to be rear-ended by the moron tailgating you three inches from your back bumper. Also, I have presented the text of the law for you to interpret and use as you see fit. While I have pointed out that the law requires the hand-serving of a second summons, my opinion does not constitute legal advice. If you want that, talk to a lawyer. Or, just don’t run red lights. If you do, it is your responsibility to know the law and to make appropriate decisions.

The consultant will consider a range of adjustments, including increasing bus frequencies on popular routes to encourage more ridership and reducing frequencies on less popular routes to save money.

HRT doesn’t need a consultant for this. Any frequent rider would tell you that if you increased frequency, ridership would increase. Lengthening the operating hours would do that as well. Regarding saving money by cutting low-performing routes, HRT cannot enact these changes. Each city would have to cut its own service. Route 18 in Norfolk has terrible ridership. HRT is aware. The City is aware. Unfortunately, the City of Norfolk will not kill the route for fear that the few riders that do utilize it will revolt.

Attention HRT: I will give you advice for free. Increase frequency at peak hours of high-ridership routes such as the #2, #3, #20, etc. On low performing routes such as the #18, modify the route to go places that people actually would want to go. For example, the #18 could continue down Cromwell, make a right on Tidewater, a right on Norview, and continue to the Airport. The southern end of the route would loop  and end in Grandy Village and Chesterfield Heights. This way the route would work as a feeder to light rail and serve Norfolk International Airport, with appears to be the only major airport without transit service. Ridership would also increase due to service to a number of apartment/condo communities and to multiple shopping centers. Routes like the new #14 could increase ridership by lengthening the route to accommodate development that has occurred since the route was originally developed. In order to fund expanded service, however, HRT will need more money. That money will probably not come from the cities, the state, or the federal government. They don’t have any extra money. That leaves a fare increase.

According to the VP, only 20% of HRT’s budget is covered by the current fare as opposed to the 40% covered at comparable transit agencies. That means HRT needs to raise over $14 million in fares to reach 40%.  HRT is diverting federal maintenance money toward operations. If this is continued, HRT’s infrastructure (buildings, buses, etc.) will deteriorate. There is no way a consultant will find $14 million in savings. I am not saying that a fare increase would solve all of HRT’s problems, but it would be a start. Unfortunately, a fare increase takes time to get approval. I am afraid that by the time this consultant is finished, the time will have passed where a 50 cent increase will no longer cover an expansion in services.

I think HRT should move forward with the fare increase immediately. I think that the HRT staff really do know what they are doing. If each member city would actually consider some of HRT’s suggestions, HRT could make positive changes without paying a consultant to suggest old ideas.

I will start at the end and work back. While the soccer stadium and the TPC course might not have brought their positive effects to fruition for Virginia Beach, Norfolk’s Nauticus and Waterside have, overall, been successful. Over the past two years, for example, did you know that according to the city, Nauticus has operated at a slight profit. Its certainly not a windfall but black ink is black ink. The more important effects of Nauticus include the 300,000+ visitors it receives annually. Those people do not fall out of the sky, visit Nauticus, and the get sucked back to some heavenly origins. They spend time Downtown. They pay for parking. They purchase meals at Downtown eateries. The patronize MacArthur Center. Even if  they only spend one day Downtown, they certainly spend more than the $12 admission fee. Now for Waterside. It is true that Waterside is currently a drain on the city. It is true that the city is spending a fortune to keep it operational right now. It is also true, however, that the construction of Waterside was a monumental achievement for the City of Norfolk and it can successfully be argued that without Waterside, Downtown would not be what it is today. I will agree that it needs major renovations for a turn-around. It was not, however, a failure in any sense of the word.

Next, lets look at the subsidies. Yes, public transit in the United States, in general, depends on public subsidies to operate. But wait. Does the entire highway system not depend on the same heavy subsidies? Yes, you pay a gas tax. But does anyone really believe that this tax single-handedly pays for our roads? Of course not. Millions more are tagged for road-related projects from city, state, and federal budgets. Currently, the Tide will cost $45.7 million per mile. Some notable highway projects: Southeastern Parkway – $100 – 121 million/mile, 3rd Crossing – $131 million/mile. Our fuel tax in Virginia is $0.175/gallon. Even if you only got 10 MGP, you would only pay $0.35 for each trip on a road such as the Southeastern Parkway. Each transit trip in Hampton Roads costs $1.50 per passenger. Seems to me that the transit riders pay more out of pocket than the car drivers.

Finally, the part about replacing cars. Light rail (or any new transit system, for that matter), is not created to take current cars off the road. They are built to take future cars off the road. Nobody in Hampton Roads would argue that are population is never going to increase from what it is now. The goal of having a usable mass transit system such as light rail is to guide the construction of high-density, urban centers. The residents of these centers would be the most likely riders of fixed-guideway transit like light rail. 10,000 Downtown employees could move to Town Center. Without light rail, they would all take I-264. 10,000 more cars. With light rail, however, they would not increase traffic for those who live to far away to use light rail. The second letter to the editor (“Rail Stop,” by Dick Jones) fits this place as well .

In this age of huge deficits and debt, the government (both state and federal) cannot afford to continue pouring money into a wasteful roadway system. A road is not free once it is built. It takes continuous maintenance. A road without maintenance will turn into a gravel road. I am sure that you have heard the argument for using transit money to buy the people that use transit their very own cars. This would be great if we had a place to put them. HRT averaged 50,857 passengers per weekday in May 2010. Can you imagine if Hampton Roads suddenly had 50,000 more cars on our roads. The increased load would also wear our roads out faster. If this method were followed nationwide, the hundred of millions of additional cars would choke highways and increase demand for fuel (even hybrids use fuel), leading to higher prices. More cars also means more accidents which means higher insurance for everyone.

What I want everyone to get out of this is that  the visible day-to-day cost may look higher for transit, but that is only because you can actually quantify the cost. The cost to support individual car commutes is much higher. Even if you do not ride or plan to ride transit, don’t complain about or try to destroy those that do. As time progresses, fuel will only get more expensive. Land will get more expensive. Public transportation, like it or not, is the future.

This is not the only option. As I said in my last post about this court projects, they have an option to build a tower in the middle of the current building, saving space and money compared to using the Granby Tower site. Please read Just Say NO to Federal Courthouse Plan.

Despite the negative comments on PilotOnline, light rail will be a benefit to Virginia Beach. However, it will not reduce the number of cars currently on the road. That is not the point of the light rail. The congestion reduction aspect comes into play when Virginia Beach’s “Strategic Growth Areas” begin to expand. Six of VB’s eight SGAs center around the proposed light rail stops. The most important one so far is the Pembroke SGA, which includes Town Center. The residents of Town Center did not move there because they wanted to continue a highway-oriented, suburbanite lifestyle. They moved there for the urban feel. With light rail, that urban feel will grow around each station. Urban residents don’t mind public transit. That is why they are urban residents. Even reformed suburbanites re-evaluate their position on public transit once it becomes convenient for them. People, regardless of where they live, chose what their mode of transportation based on what is cheapest and most convenient. In a mostly suburban area like HR, cars fit this description. While public transportation is definitely cheaper than car use, the convenience of the car far out weighs the cost-effectiveness of the transit. As transit in HR gets more reliable, efficient, and convenient, ridership will increase.

Council’s typical reaction to opposition to an agenda item is to either listen and then vote for it anyway or defer it to a later date in hopes that the opposition can not make that meeting. If opposition continues, it seems to be getting more and more frequent that they have to take out petitions and costly lawsuits to have their voices heard. The City of Norfolk should not be spending money to defend itself against its residents. We need to create comprehensive plans with input from the residents of the city. Then the city needs to actually stick to the plans. These past failings can be attributed to our city leadership. We need new leaders. The current leadership has served its time. If they want to run again after a term of someone else, more power to them. All organizations need a change after awhile.