<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>757 Hampton Roads: A Greater Region. A Greater Life. &#187; Light Rail</title>
	<atom:link href="http://757hamptonroads.com/tag/light-rail/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://757hamptonroads.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Jan 2012 11:00:10 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>The Tide</title>
		<link>http://757hamptonroads.com/2011/03/23/the-tide/</link>
		<comments>http://757hamptonroads.com/2011/03/23/the-tide/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Mar 2011 13:42:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>757HR</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Development]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Light Rail Transportation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[HRT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Light Rail]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tide]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://757hamptonroads.com/2011/03/23/the-tide/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[HRT is testing the light rail this week. I got this picture at Harbor Park station.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p id="top" /><a alt="image" href="http://757hamptonroads.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/wpid-2011-03-23_09-39-14_6481.jpg"><img style="display:block;margin-right:auto;margin-left:auto;" alt="image" src="http://757hamptonroads.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/wpid-2011-03-23_09-39-14_648.jpg" /></a></p>
<p>HRT is testing the light rail this week. I got this picture at Harbor Park station.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://757hamptonroads.com/2011/03/23/the-tide/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Building To Be Demo&#8217;d for LRT</title>
		<link>http://757hamptonroads.com/2010/11/11/building-to-be-demod-for-lrt/</link>
		<comments>http://757hamptonroads.com/2010/11/11/building-to-be-demod-for-lrt/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Nov 2010 15:41:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>757HR</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Light Rail Transportation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Local Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transportation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Andy Protogyrou]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hampton Roads Transit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[HRT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Light Rail]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[LRT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Norfolk]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Tide]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://757hamptonroads.com/?p=978</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[So the city of Norfolk is purchasing 749 York St. because of apparent concerns for pedestrian safety. This sets a dangerous precedent. If they start spending money on pedestrian safety, they might have to start maintaining crosswalks and crossing signals at major intersections. They might have to build sidewalks along major roadways. This care might [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p id="top" /><a href="http://hamptonroads.com/2010/11/lightrail-tweak-razing-norfolk-building-cost-over-1m" target="_blank">So the city of Norfolk is purchasing 749 York St. because of apparent concerns for pedestrian safety.</a> This sets a dangerous precedent. If they start spending money on pedestrian safety, they might have to start maintaining crosswalks and crossing signals at major intersections. They might have to build sidewalks along major roadways. This care might even spread to bicyclists.</p>
<p>Norfolk City Council: Stop Pretending. The safety issue could have been fixed with a couple of flashing lights and a sign for under $1,000.</p>
<p><a href="http://757hamptonroads.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/BlindCornerWFT.gif"><img class="aligncenter size-full  wp-image-979" title="BlindCornerWFT" src="http://757hamptonroads.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/BlindCornerWFT.gif" alt="" width="184" height="234" /></a></p>
<p>The city is buying this property to satisfy the claim of the owner that he lost value. Although, I am not sure that he has a claim. If he does, would that mean I could sue a neighbor for monetary damages because their house looks trashy? Regardless, if you want to buy it to satisfy his claim, then fine. Tell the truth though. If the city had said they wanted to buy it for a park, that would be fine. Don&#8217;t justify it because you think it would be safer.</p>
<p>Finally, our new councilman Mr. Protogyrou needs a lesson in regional administration. The Pilot stated:</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;Let HRT pay for this,&#8221; Councilman Andy Protogyrou said. &#8220;This is their  fault. It&#8217;s their mistake. I don&#8217;t see why Norfolk taxpayers have to pay  for this.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>While I disagree that this is anybody&#8217;s fault and think that the city just wanted to pay back a property owner, I have to explain why it doesn&#8217;t matter who&#8217;s pocket this comes from. Since we have no tax stream dedicated to transit, HRT must get its money from four main sources: 1)Farebox revenue, 2)City Government, 3)State Government, and 4)Federal Government. Additionally, the current light rail project is structured to lay all extra costs on the city, so that Virginia Beach, Chesapeake, etc. are not paying money toward our project. That means, Mr. Protogyrou, that if the city made HRT pay for this, they would add their markup for management and then bill the city.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://757hamptonroads.com/2010/11/11/building-to-be-demod-for-lrt/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Economist Says LRT Cost Not Justifiable?</title>
		<link>http://757hamptonroads.com/2010/10/07/economist-says-lrt-cost-not-justifiable/</link>
		<comments>http://757hamptonroads.com/2010/10/07/economist-says-lrt-cost-not-justifiable/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Oct 2010 16:14:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>757HR</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Development]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Light Rail Transportation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regionalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Need for Regionalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transportation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hampton Roads Transit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[HRT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[James Koch]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Light Rail]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[LRT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Norfolk]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ODU]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State of the Region]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Tide]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[VDOT]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://757hamptonroads.com/?p=939</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As part of the State of the Region report released by ODU yesterday, Economist James Koch made the statement that the cost of Norfolk&#8217;s Light rail is not &#8220;justifiable.&#8221; He claimed that the continual costs would have to be subsidized at a rate so high that it wold not be worth it. Of course, I [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p id="top" />As <a href="http://bpa.odu.edu/forecasting/sor/sor2010.shtml" target="_blank">part of the State of the Region report released by ODU</a> yesterday, <a href="http://hamptonroads.com/2010/10/odu-economist-says-norfolk-light-rail-too-costly" target="_blank">Economist James Koch made the statement</a> that the cost of Norfolk&#8217;s Light rail is not &#8220;justifiable.&#8221; He claimed that the continual costs would have to be subsidized at a rate so high that it wold not be worth it. Of course, I want to believe that this economist, Mr. Koch is a smart man. I am very likely to believe that this article was the Pilot&#8217;s attempt at once again making somebody&#8217;s comment appear to support the misguided notion that LRT somehow is going to be way more costly that our current highways. LRT will cost less than half per mile than building a new highway. It will also last longer. Most people don&#8217;t realize that when the interstate system was built, it was paved with concrete in such a way as to give it a lifespan approaching 50 years. First, that lifespan is coming to an end. Second, current more &#8216;cost-effective&#8217; road construction paves highways with asphalt, which last only 10 years if built and maintained properly. When was the last time VDOT maintained a highway properly. So what we have is a network of highways that will have to be reconstructed every 8-10 years. Current estimates to fix I-264 <em>just inside Norfolk&#8217;s borders</em> is <strong>$16 million</strong>. That is on top of the $33 million spent in Hampton Roads for repaving the rest of the highways this year. This number will only get higher as the years progress. Traffic will only get worse, meaning more wear and tear and more frequent repaving projects. If you think because drivers pay a gas tax then they pay their own way, you are dead wrong. Virginia collected around $920 million in 2008. That sounds like a lot of money. Let&#8217;s break it down though.</p>
<ul>
<li> $257,700,000 &#8211; Debt Service</li>
<li>+$405,100,000 &#8211; Support to other agencies and administration</li>
<li>+$306,700,000 &#8211; &#8216;Special financing&#8217; and earmarks</li>
<li>=$969,500,000 - <em><strong>Does NOT include Road Construction OR Maintenance. </strong></em></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li> $656,800,000 &#8211; Construction</li>
<li>+$1,698,000,000 &#8211; Maintenance</li>
<li>=$2,354,800,000 - <strong>Maintenance and Construction</strong></li>
</ul>
<p>So your $900 million in gas tax pays for administrative costs. That means that VDOT needs a 70% subsidy over what gas tax covers. Sure that <strong>sounds</strong> a little bit better than the 80% subsidy that HRT pulls in, but think about this: HRT&#8217;s 80% subsidy equals roughly $60 million while VDOT&#8217;s 70% subsidy equals <strong>$3.3 <em>billion</em></strong>. Also, VDOT is not the only maintainer of roadways. Each city in Hampton Roads pays for some of their roads and the feds kick in the rest. I would venture to guess that the subsidies&#8217; true cost are nearly equal. Let&#8217;s move on.  Once you get past the negative aspects of the Pilot&#8217;s article, you get to this:</p>
<blockquote><p>Two scenarios could change the cost/benefit ratio: if gas prices rise enough to move commuters from their cars to light rail; and if the rail is expanded to reach more people.</p></blockquote>
<p>So here is this economist, the same one who just said that the cost was not justifiable, saying that if the system were expanded or if more people used it, the cost would be easier to swallow.  OK. As an economist, I am sure that he would agree that the first part should include all commuter costs, not just fuel cost. Right? If the total cost of operating a motor vehicle increases, then people will start to move from cars to transit. As <a href="http://hamptonroads.com/2010/10/odu-economist-predicts-dour-decade-hampton-roads" target="_blank">part of the State of the Region article, the Pilot wrote</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>Long standing transportation problems also make the region less attractive to businesses and the military, Koch said. [...] Road improvements, he said, will demand higher gas tax and steep tolls.</p></blockquote>
<p>As part of his predictions of the future, he acknowledges that the cost of commuting will be higher in the future if we want to fix our transportations shortcomings. Since our transportation problems are a direct result of our region&#8217;s lack of planning and cooperation, I would also assume that he would agree that we need to start today if we want to have any chance of improving our outlook. That would be where light rail comes in. We have to built a regional mass transit system because, in the long run, it will be more effective than building roads. If you had asked me 20 years ago (or asked someone else, since I was 3 year old twenty years ago) I would have agreed that roadways were more effective. Gas was cheap. Road construction was (relatively) cheap. Now, however, we can see that there is an end to that. There will be no more cheap gas. It is on an uphill trend.  The second game-changing scenario was that the cost would be more acceptable if it were expanded to reach more people. Is that not in the works? We could never afford to build a multi-billion-dollar system all at once. It has to be built in stages.  In the end, despite the Pilot&#8217;s attempt at more anti-light rail news, I think that, when read into, it is actually quite positive. The Pilot itself wrote that this economist said that if there were more people and higher commuter costs, than light rail would be more cost efficient. Since we should all be able to agree that those two scenarios are approaching, then we should also agree that, while expensive at first, light rial will be more cost-effective than roads as we enter the future.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://757hamptonroads.com/2010/10/07/economist-says-lrt-cost-not-justifiable/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>VA Requiring Light Rail for VB?</title>
		<link>http://757hamptonroads.com/2010/09/03/va-requiring-light-rail-for-vb/</link>
		<comments>http://757hamptonroads.com/2010/09/03/va-requiring-light-rail-for-vb/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Sep 2010 17:53:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>757HR</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Light Rail Transportation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Light Rail]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[VDOT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Beach]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://757hamptonroads.com/?p=857</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[According to a VP article today, the Virginia Department of Transportation may require Virginia Beach to use the Norfolk Southern corridor for light rail in exchange for the $20 million dollar contribution for its purchase. This should not be new. That was the stated purpose when the state approved the grant to assist in the [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p id="top" />According to a <a href="http://hamptonroads.com/2010/09/40m-deal-buy-old-rail-line-may-come-lightrail-strings" target="_blank">VP article today</a>, the Virginia Department of Transportation may require Virginia Beach to use the Norfolk Southern corridor for light rail in exchange for the $20 million dollar contribution for its purchase. This should not be new. That was the stated purpose when the state approved the grant to assist in the extension of the Norfolk light rail line. Its also a great way for our State officials, who apparently <em>can</em> be leaders, to do what is necessary for the progress of the City of Virginia Beach and for Virginia. They have done what Virginia Beach&#8217;s leaders have been unable to do. Besides, why are VB residents surprised that state money comes with strings? Nearly all the money that we as cities receive from state and federal sources have strings attached. I can only hope, though, that the state sticks to its requirement and doesn&#8217;t back off.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://757hamptonroads.com/2010/09/03/va-requiring-light-rail-for-vb/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Downtown&#8217;s Multi-Modal Transportation Center</title>
		<link>http://757hamptonroads.com/2010/08/30/downtowns-multi-modal-transportation-center/</link>
		<comments>http://757hamptonroads.com/2010/08/30/downtowns-multi-modal-transportation-center/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Aug 2010 11:00:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>757HR</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bus Transportation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Development]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Light Rail Transportation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mass Trasportation (Other)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Norfolk Development]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rail Transportation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transportation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Urban Development]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Harbor Park]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[High Speed Rail]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Light Rail]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Multi-Modal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://757hamptonroads.com/?p=847</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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&#8217;s move toward urbanism and I get the idea that our area is actually [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p id="top" /><div id="attachment_848" class="wp-caption aligncenter" style="width: 637px"><a href="http://757hamptonroads.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/MMTCBuildOut.jpg"><img class="size-full wp-image-848" title="MMTCBuildOut" src="http://757hamptonroads.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/MMTCBuildOut.jpg" alt="" width="627" height="419" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Multi-Modal Transportation Center Full Build Out Concept and Development Sites along Connecting Routes</p></div></p>
<p><a href="http://pilotonline.com/2010/08/norfolk-envisions-one-hub-link-seven-modes-transport" target="_blank">Norfolk is moving forward</a> 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&#8217;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,</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;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.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>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,</p>
<blockquote><p>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. &#8230; 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.</p></blockquote>
<p>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:</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">
<div id="attachment_849" class="wp-caption aligncenter" style="width: 658px"><a href="http://757hamptonroads.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/MMTCNoBus.png"><img class="size-full wp-image-849  " title="MMTCNoBus" src="http://757hamptonroads.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/MMTCNoBus.png" alt="" width="648" height="226" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Where did our bus transfer point go?</p></div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://757hamptonroads.com/2010/08/30/downtowns-multi-modal-transportation-center/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Light Rail vs. Cars &#8230; Again</title>
		<link>http://757hamptonroads.com/2010/07/25/light-rail-vs-cars-again/</link>
		<comments>http://757hamptonroads.com/2010/07/25/light-rail-vs-cars-again/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Jul 2010 03:31:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>757HR</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Light Rail Transportation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mass Trasportation (Other)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regionalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Need for Regionalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transportation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Light Rail]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mass Transit]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://757hamptonroads.com/?p=823</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Sunday&#8217;s Virginian Pilot had 2 definitively anti-light rail letters to the editor. The first, entitled &#8220;Hard Questions on Light Rail,&#8221; assumes that light rail is meant to replace the vehicles currently used by commuters actually commuting. The author, Arthur S. Poole, then goes on to suggest that the tax-subsidized nature of light rail means that, [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p id="top" />Sunday&#8217;s <a href="http://www.pilotonline.com" target="_blank">Virginian Pilot</a> had 2 definitively anti-light rail letters to the editor. The first, entitled &#8220;Hard Questions on Light Rail,&#8221; assumes that light rail is meant to replace the vehicles currently used by commuters actually commuting. The author, Arthur S. Poole, then goes on to suggest that the tax-subsidized nature of light rail means that, even with a complete system, the transit mode is not worth the time, money, or effort. He claims that the outcome of the light rail expansion study is &#8216;preordained,&#8217; meaning that no matter what, the study will claim positive net effects. Mr. Poole claims that this is similar to the studies that came before projects such as &#8221; Nauticus, the soccer stadium, the TPC golf course, and Waterside,&#8221; insinuating that the positive effects never came to fruition. While I have nothing against Mr. Poole personally, I would like to point out a few flaws in his argument.</p>
<p>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&#8217;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.</p>
<p>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 &#8211; $100 &#8211; 121 million/mile, 3rd Crossing &#8211; $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.</p>
<p>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 <em>future</em> 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 (&#8220;Rail Stop,&#8221; by Dick Jones) fits this place as well .</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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&#8217;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.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://757hamptonroads.com/2010/07/25/light-rail-vs-cars-again/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Light Rail Referendum&#8230; so far</title>
		<link>http://757hamptonroads.com/2010/07/03/no-light-rail-referendum-so-far/</link>
		<comments>http://757hamptonroads.com/2010/07/03/no-light-rail-referendum-so-far/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 Jul 2010 04:29:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>757HR</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bus Transportation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Light Rail Transportation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Norfolk Development]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regional Cooperation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regionalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Smart Development]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transportation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Urban Development]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Beach Development]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Light Rail]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Norfolk]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[referendum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ridership]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Tide]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Beach]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginian-Pilot]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wally Erb]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://757hamptonroads.com/?p=818</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Virginian-Pilot reported the other day that Wally Erb, the man behind the the most recent drive for a light rail referendum, was able to gather only 1,083 signatures. Unfortunately for Mr. Erb, he needed 25,000 signatures.  25,000 signatures represent less than six percent of Virginia Beach&#8217;s population. 1,083 signatures represent less than .25% of [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p id="top" />The<a href="http://hamptonroads.com/2010/07/va-beach-resident-fails-get-lightrail-referendum" target="_blank"> Virginian-Pilot reported the other day</a> that Wally Erb, the man behind the the most recent drive for a light rail referendum, was able to gather only 1,083 signatures. Unfortunately for Mr. Erb, he needed 25,000 signatures.  25,000 signatures represent less than six percent of Virginia Beach&#8217;s population. 1,083 signatures represent less than .25% of the city&#8217;s total population. Sound like a mandate to me. If the city polled residents on any other project and only got support from a quarter of a percent of the population, there would be an outcry if they went through with the project. As I have said in the past, Virginia Beach does not need a referendum. A city elects leaders to lead. If they do not lead or lead in the wrong direction, they get voted out. In the last election, the voters elected light rail supporters. It should not be a surprise that they now want to support light rail.</p>
<p>Despite the negative comments on <a href="http://www.pilotonline.com" target="_blank">PilotOnline</a>, light rail will be a benefit to Virginia Beach. However, it <strong>will not</strong> 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&#8217;s &#8220;Strategic Growth Areas&#8221; begin to expand. Six of VB&#8217;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&#8217;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 <strong>will</strong> increase.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://757hamptonroads.com/2010/07/03/no-light-rail-referendum-so-far/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Chesapeake Light Rail Corridors</title>
		<link>http://757hamptonroads.com/2010/02/23/chesapeake-light-rail-corridors/</link>
		<comments>http://757hamptonroads.com/2010/02/23/chesapeake-light-rail-corridors/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Feb 2010 17:30:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>757HR</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Light Rail Transportation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transportation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chesapeake]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Light Rail]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Portsmouth]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://757hamptonroads.com/?p=797</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I have had more than a few conversations and questions about light rail in Chesapeake. Back in July 1999, the area undertook a study for potential corridors for both Chesapeake and Portsmouth. I have uploaded the file from the study available here. I have also converted the Chesapeake routes into a Google earth file for [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p id="top" />I have had more than a few conversations and questions about light rail in Chesapeake. Back in July 1999, the area undertook a study for potential corridors for both Chesapeake and Portsmouth. I have uploaded the file from the study available <a href="http://757hamptonroads.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Portsmouth Chesapeake Corridor Planning Study July 1999.pdf">here</a>. I have also converted the Chesapeake routes into a <a href="http://757hamptonroads.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Chesapeake Corridor Study - 1999.kmz">Google earth file</a> for you viewing pleasure. A note about these corridors: they were created in 1999. The station locations were proposed in 1999 and are approximate. A lot has changed in the past decade. Mainly, Chesapeake&#8217;s population has moved south. I think that a combination of these routes with new stations would be best. Going strictly from the 1999 study, I do not think that any of the corridors would fit the needs of Chesapeake residents. Enjoy!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://757hamptonroads.com/2010/02/23/chesapeake-light-rail-corridors/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Tide&#8217;s Final Cost = $338,284,251</title>
		<link>http://757hamptonroads.com/2010/02/19/tides-final-cost-338284251/</link>
		<comments>http://757hamptonroads.com/2010/02/19/tides-final-cost-338284251/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Feb 2010 11:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>757HR</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Light Rail Transportation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transportation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hampton Roads Transit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[HRT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Light Rail]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[LRT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Michael Townes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Norfolk]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philip A. Shucet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Tide]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://757hamptonroads.com/?p=790</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[HRT has released their final &#8220;cost-to-completion&#8221; for the Tide light rail system currently under construction in Norfolk. The new final cost is $338,284,251. This is, of course, much higher than the $232 million that was originally promised. Despite claims that HRT&#8217;s new President and CEO Philip Shucet is responsible for the firming up of the [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p id="top" /><div class="wp-caption aligncenter" style="width: 610px"><a href="http://www.ridethetide.com/photo_gallery/summer-2009/contract-120/120-summer-09_4.jpg"><img src="http://www.ridethetide.com/photo_gallery/summer-2009/contract-120/120-summer-09_4.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="398" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Tide LRT Vehicles Being Delivered</p></div></p>
<p><a href="http://www.ridethetide.com/about_the_tide/cost-to-complete.shtml" target="_blank">HRT has released</a> their final &#8220;cost-to-completion&#8221; for the <a href="http://www.ridethetide.com/" target="_blank">Tide light rail</a> system currently under construction in Norfolk. The new final cost is $338,284,251. This is, of course, much higher than the $232 million that was originally promised. Despite claims that HRT&#8217;s new President and CEO Philip Shucet is responsible for the firming up of the new number, the consultant was actually hired for the job by Townes, who knew about the cost overruns but failed to live up to City Council&#8217;s standards. It actually would make sense to me that the numbers Townes was feeding council were the preliminary numbers from his consultant. The difference between Townes&#8217;s and Shucet&#8217;s communication is that Townes should have done what Shucet did: tell council to hold on for a couple weeks while the consultant finishes the estimate.</p>
<p>Regardless, I hope that the project can stick to these numbers until completion. Personally, if Shucet does a good job with costs, I think we should demote him to a position to simply control LRT construction. That way we can hire a President and CEO that actually knows how to operate a transit system.</p>
<div id="_mcePaste" style="overflow: hidden; position: absolute; left: -10000px; top: 0px; width: 1px; height: 1px;">http://www.ridethetide.com/about_the_tide/cost-to-complete.shtml</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://757hamptonroads.com/2010/02/19/tides-final-cost-338284251/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>CTB To Vote On HSR Today</title>
		<link>http://757hamptonroads.com/2010/02/17/ctb-to-vote-on-hsr-today/</link>
		<comments>http://757hamptonroads.com/2010/02/17/ctb-to-vote-on-hsr-today/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2010 11:30:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>757HR</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Light Rail Transportation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mass Trasportation (Other)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rail Transportation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transportation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[High Speed Rail]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Light Rail]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mass Transit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mass Transportation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://757hamptonroads.com/?p=781</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Commonwealth Transportation Board will vote today on the proposed High Speed rail line from Richmond to Norfolk. Hopefully, we can get the funding we need from the government and our region can finally start moving forward. Well, most of our region. Norfolk will move forward with its planned expansion of light rail. The Peninsula [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p id="top" />The Commonwealth Transportation Board will vote today on the proposed High Speed rail line from Richmond to Norfolk. Hopefully, we can get the funding we need from the government and our region can finally start moving forward. Well, most of our region. Norfolk will move forward with its planned expansion of light rail. The Peninsula wants their very own light rail so that they can move forward. Portsmouth wants to move forward and join Norfolk&#8217;s light rail. I think for the most part, Chesapeake wants to move forward but at the same time, they wonder why nobody ever pays them any attention when it comes to transportation (think drawbridges). Virginia Beach does not really want to move forward. They want somebody else to move forward for them, so that they can continue to work backwards and build new highways.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://757hamptonroads.com/2010/02/17/ctb-to-vote-on-hsr-today/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

