Dear FDA: drop the hysterics and sit down at the table

2

June 24, 2015 by awunderground

Note: I’ve written about BRT and I plan to write a positive article in the near future. This piece is solely aimed at addressing the Fan District Association’s recent letter in opposition of GRTC Pulse. GRTC CEO David Green did an effective job responding to their complaints about lack of transparency (Pulse has been transparent) and a lack of involving the FDA (GRTC has had multiple open meetings). Green, however, did not respond to their bulleted complaints and he had to hold back punches. I don’t have to hold back punches, so here we go.

Impact of Construction – There has been no communication regarding how businesses along Broad Street will be able to financially survive during the construction process. With overall construction lasting over a year, individual boarding station construction periods of 4-5 months, and no communication on block-by-block construction timelines, there is zero assurance or anticipation that service businesses will be able to sustain themselves during this time. Traffic and pedestrian diversion will cause patrons to avoid Broad Street businesses. When The Pulse finally begins service, we anticipate a large number of businesses will have shut down and closed their doors.

When starting with the infallible premise that construction will destroy all businesses, then opposition is a no brainer. But the degree and the probability of the impact are a source of great debate. No one is saying the construction will be 100% inconvenience free, but this complaint establishes a ridiculous and impossible standard. Does the FDA oppose repaving Broad Street when the time comes? Did they fight VCU when the Siegel Center was built? Where is their opinion on the current dorms and ICA being built on Broad Street?

GRTC Pulse is still short of the 30% design phase. Expecting a construction schedule is unrealistic, especially when changes are being made to accommodate parking demands made mostly by members of the FDA. GRTC Pulse will have 14 stations over a > 7 mile stretch that are relatively small and the curbs on Broad won’t be expanded – it’s tough to imagine how this construction is going to force businesses under.

This concern has a smidgen of traction, but it’s applied so unrealistically that it’s functionally a red herring. The burden of construction is likely overblown, the effect on businesses probably overstated, and the standard of no-burden in the name of progress is unrealistic and on a non-stop course to future hypocrisy.

Impact of Operations – No longer will events be able to be held on Broad Street. The Richmond Christmas Parade, Broad Appetit, and VCU Broad Street Mile are just some of the events that will no longer be able to continue to be held on Broad Street because of the new service and stations.

Adding a bus to Broad Street that may or may not impact cars is bad because then we can’t entirely shut down Broad Street for events? Contradictions aside, there is no shortage of oversized streets in Richmond to hold events. This just boils down to Richmond’s ultimate foible: aversion to change. Move those events to the side of the street or Monument Avenue and suddenly BRT becomes an asset for avoiding parking during big events instead of a hindrance. Furthermore, buses currently shut down or use alternate routes for events, so it’s tough parsing out the source of this concern.

Neighborhood Access – The elimination of left hand turns for westward vehicular traffic on Broad Street will limit access to our neighborhood and put increased traffic pressure on the few streets where left turns will be allowed. At a minimum, left hand turns should be available at Belvidere, Harrison, Lombardy, Meadow, and Robinson. Allen is not an appropriate intersection for a left hand turn if there is not also a turn at Lombardy, as once past Lee Circle, Allen Avenue narrows considerably.

Neighborhood Traffic Impact – Regardless of where left hand turns are placed, any reduction in the availability of left hand turns off Broad Street will result in increased local traffic flow on our neighborhood streets, specifically West Grace Street. With the reduction of a third of the vehicle travel lanes on Broad Street, it is likely that Monument Avenue will see increased thru traffic as drivers seek to avoid Broad Street congestion.

Mode shift – in this case drivers who switch from cars to buses – should ease some of this burden. Increased frequency and lowered travel time are the strongest drivers of ridership and this is particularly true amongst choice riders.

Some will never abandon the automobile. What I don’t understand is how those people aren’t pro everything that will get others out of the automobile. We don’t know how many will switch. People will elevate ignorance to arrogance and proclaim too few. But we haven’t given alternatives a legitimate shot in Richmond in over a century and there truly are a ton of unknowns.

We owe it to ourselves to give this a real show instead of watering it down to the point of ineffectiveness. It’s the old partisan trick. Undermine your opponent’s plan just so you can say it doesn’t work.

No one is saying left turns won’t be more difficult under the new pattern. Sensible people are just saying it’s worth it. How much money is having a left turn at every intersection worth? Is it worth turning down almost $25 million in federal funds? Is it worth a handful of drivers in the Fan looking into the eyes of everyone who would benefit from BRT and saying, “too bad”? Is it worth saying no to the overwhelming benefits of a greener, healthier, more financially sound mode of transportation and all of the benefits that come with it?

If the standard of complaint is being able to name an inconvenience then the FDA wins. If the standard of decision is a cost-benefit analysis, then the benefits of GRTC Pulse greatly outweigh the minor inconveniences that may or may not be felt by drivers. And those drivers are the source of many inconveniences: ~30,000 people die in car accidents in the U.S. each year, Richmond has one of the highest incidences of asthma in the country, our foreign policy is driven by oil stability (which goes beyond cars), and the list could go on.

Pedestrian and Bike Friendliness – The current plans are very “bus dominant” as Broad Street will begin to feel like a wall of buses with BRT buses in the median and local GRTC buses on the curb lanes. The ability of pedestrians to feel safe in crossing the street and bicyclists to feel safe while en route are two further issues that have not been fully addressed.

This reminds me of how Geert Wilders and the Party for Freedom use the Netherlands’ tolerance of homosexuals as justification for racism and xenophobia towards African and Middle Eastern Immigrants. Broad Street isn’t pedestrian/bike friendly as is but that’s ok – as long as we make progress elsewhere.

Firstly, we’re nowhere near a wall of buses. More importantly, where’s this fear of walls on Broad street when it comes to 18-wheelers barreling down VA-250? Why don’t we care about the wall of cars? Protecting walkers and bikers from buses while promoting cars is the same as Wilders protecting tolerance with intolerance. It’s cognitive dissonance.

This cuts to the biggest point. Many residents view buses as something cities need to check off the list so poor people can get to work – how long it takes or how many transfers are necessary is irrelevant as long as the minimum wage earners can get from their out-of-sight homes to the businesses where they serve those residents.

This quote sums it up: “This BRT serves the exact same populations as existing local routes.” Why is faster and more frequent service immediately dismissed? Why are Richmond’s bus riders not worthy of an enhanced transportation option?

Furthermore, greater geographic coverage and BRT are not mutually exclusive – that’s a false dichotomy. They are complements. It just happens that it’s easier to win federal grants with BRT than “we’re going to add more buses.” Let’s make both happen!

Parking Elimination – Our community already faces challenges regarding the ability of our residents and visitors to find parking within reasonable proximity to their places of residence and to local businesses. You will find our association and others advocating for even minimal changes that would positively impact parking. Current plans for The Pulse would eliminate hundreds of spaces on Broad Street. With such a large scale elimination of a portion of our community’s parking inventory, there will be a domino effect through our neighborhood, further exacerbating parking challenges. People do not want to live in or visit places where they think they cannot find a place to park, causing a decrease in property values and patronage of local businesses.

I could write 10,000 words on parking alone. We will never fix “parking problems” with more “free” parking. It won’t happen. Alternatives to cars and effective pricing mechanisms are more effective. If there is adequate mode shift (people switching from cars to buses), then Pulse could actually help the parking problem! There are more effective ways to improve Richmond than spending so much time, space, and money making it accessible to cars that it ends up being a place not worth accessing.

FDA’s antiquated hunches about parking aside, think about what this boils down to: how dare GRTC potentially mildly inconvenience car drivers while dramatically improving the lives of bus riders, walkers, and just about everyone who doesn’t want to be dependent upon a machine that sends 85% of its money outside of the community while subjecting bystanders to huge negative externalities. To be fair, many are asking drivers to potentially sacrifice for riders, but society has so overwhelmingly favored the automobile for so long that it’s time to rebalance.

~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~

I implore the author of the article and the FDA to drop the hysterics of using words like “destroy” and “erase” and to start engaging in a way that is worthy of this project and the citizens of this great city. Acknowledge that there are positives, unknowns, and negatives. Actually address the idea of some type of cost-benefit analysis. Most importantly, sit down at the table, participate, and reserve your ultimatum until the plans have been finalized.

When going beyond NIMBYism, then it’s tough for me to see how BRT is not unambiguously positive for Richmond and its residents. If they stop posturing and start communicating, I’m confident the FDA will see the merits and how BRT is key to the future of RVA.