A New Transportation Option, Part Two

Photo by M.O. Stevens : People wait for the MAX light rail in Portland, Oregon.

<< Continued from A New Transportation Option, Part One.

What does the future of transportation in Hampton Roads look like?

Hampton Roads residents who took part in the HRTPO study were unanimous in their belief that the vitality of Hampton Roads depends on our ability to create a comprehensive integrated public transportation system unlike anything we have today. They believe:

• The backbone of the region’s transportation should be a light rail system that connects the Southside with the Peninsula and all of the communities on each side.
• The light rail system needs to be supported by a comprehensive network of buses, shuttles and other vehicles and watercraft capable of connecting the majority of the region’s urban and suburban residents to the light rail system in a way that allows them to get where they want to go in a predictable and timely fashion.
• Cities need to give greater respect to those who prefer to commute by means other than personal vehicles. That means accommodations for bicycles, buses, ferries and other modes that increase efficiency and reduce adverse personal health and environmental impacts.
• The light rail system also has to allow travelers throughout the region to connect to the nation’s growing high-speed rail network so that Hampton Roads’ communities remain connected to the major markets of the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast.

These beliefs came from all across the political spectrum, from both rich and poor and young and old, and reflect the growing preference among a majority of Americans for more “livable” communities better suited to those who are unable to drive and those who simply want to reduce or eliminate their dependence on personal motor vehicles.

We Know It Can Be Done

Because of its geographic spread, the interruption of so many bodies of water and our patchwork quilt of independent local governments, Hampton Roads is a challenging place for transportation planning. Yet, many Hampton Roads citizens have lived in and visited other parts of the world where there are similarly complex confluences of land, water, municipalities and even nations. They’ve seen and used major bridges and tunnels in Asia. They’ve enjoyed using the extensive rail networks of Europe and Japan. They don’t think twice about using cable cars in San Francisco, subways in New York, Chicago, Boston and Washington, ferries in the Pacific Northwest and the growing number of metropolitan light rail systems throughout the country.

In short, they know that solutions can be found and achieved by those who care to look for them. They know it takes bold elected leaders and citizens with foresight. They know that solutions are not cheap. They recognize, however, that there are cost trade-offs to be made and that these solutions are investments in future economic vitality and quality of life. They conclude, when they see no progress taking place locally, that Hampton Roads citizens and leaders are either so backwards as to be unaware of these solutions, unwilling to work together or, more likely, that they simply do not care enough to do what it takes to make progress in solving these problems.

It may be rash to refer to Hampton Roads citizens as backwards or unwilling to work together. We know from the 2009 CNU/HRCCE study that a substantial amount of “social capital”—that is, networks of people united for civic, social, charitable, faith and other purposes—exists in Hampton Roads. But the demographics of our region, particularly our growing proportion of retired people, make us particularly resistant to change and sensitive to increased costs.

Solutions Require Change

Photo by Rob Hooft : Cable cars started servicing San Francisco in the 1870's; many have now been replaced by trolleys.

Just as some people living at the advent of the 20th Century couldn’t envision a country where people wouldn’t always use horse-drawn carriages to get around, there’s no way Hampton Roads can make itself into a world-class region in the 21st Century without accepting the inevitability of some changes.

To begin with, the more our region focuses on increasing highway capacity, the easier it will be for area citizens to stay in their cars, test their patience wasting time and fuel and complain about the traffic. This is why it makes sense to stop trying to solve traffic congestion with highways and instead make it easier for people to get around other ways.

Research and common sense tell us that drivers will endure a lot of hardship before they will consider breaking the automobile habit. Nearly 30 years ago, local transportation leader Jim Echols observed that people will reduce their use of personal vehicles and use other modes of transportation when:

• Traffic congestion became intolerable.
• The time it takes to get anywhere by personal vehicle becomes so lengthy that people can no longer stand it.
• Parking at work and other destinations becomes either so limited or costly that drivers of personal vehicles are priced out of the market.
• Gasoline prices climb to a level that commuters can no longer afford.

Part Three >>

"

"

• Ethan | July 20, 10 @ 10:23 am

  First, HRT is a pretty bad organization. They’ve never handled money well. Some time ago on an old forum system on PilotOnline a user would constantly spill the beans about their mismanagement. It’s a horrible organization.

  Second, light rail isn’t the future. It’s redeployment of a technology that was already deployed and removed. “Huh huh, look what we found while putting in the light rail line, trolley tracks.”

  Third, there really hasn’t been any new interstates added to our region in a while. The 164 expansion is the last I can think of, and it really helped.

  Replacing the HRBT with our own Golden Gate would be pretty pimp, IMHO.

  Past that, elevated maglev trains would be forward looking. Light rail is not.

  You’re not going to get all the cars off the road with a couple of train lines and busses. You’re not going to transform Hampton Roads into Manhattan with a couple of slow trains.

  
  Log in to Reply
• Chris Bonney | July 20, 10 @ 4:31 pm

  Ethan, I’m afraid you judge HRT too quickly and too unfairly on a short period of time in what has been a long history. HRT’s southside predecessor, Tidewater Regional Transit (TRT) was in the 70s and 80s one of the nation’s most respected and innovative transportation agencies. They introduced the Elizabeth River ferry, trolleys and downtown shuttles and other services during that time. It’s recent history isn’t as respected. But Phil Suchet is doing an excellent job of cleaning that up.

  Local transit agencies are only as good as what localities will support. Buses and trains may not make profits, but neither do highways. Highways are extremely expensive to maintain and repair. If there in inadequate bus service where you live, speak to your elected council members or country supervisors.

  You might want to study the history of rail commuter systems. Streetcar systems and subways were in fact responsible for the development of the nation’s earliest suburbs. Upper Manhattan, for example, would have remained wilderness if not for the streetcar and subway. Philadelphia’s prestigious suburbs were those located along the “Main Line.” It was this way in most cities.

  You’ll find that a lot of highly successful streetcar operations, for example, didn’t go out of service because nobody wanted them. They went out of service because various players in the auto industry bought them and reduced services so that people would want to buy more cars, tires and gasoline.

  No one’s proposed building new interstate highways in our region in a long time. What they have proposed is adding lanes. But even highway engineers and auto proponents acknowledge that you can only build so many lanes. Historically, expanded highways may have some short-term benefit, but ultimately they just welcome more traffic.

  Finally, no single transportation solution is going to solve every problem, certainly not “all cars.” The idea, is to reduce the number of cars by providing people with alternatives they can use when they don’t need or want to use their cars.

  
  Log in to Reply
• Reid Greenmun | July 23, 10 @ 5:39 am

  I particiapte in HRCCE events, these well staged events that are misleadingly advertised as unbiased venues seeking public input – seriously, are we going to try to pretend that these well staged sessions are an honest attempt to find the truth rather than an elaborate scam designed to manipulate the results to “discover” a predetermined outcome?

  I attend the Beach’s “Envision” sessions – they are stacked events chock full of the business lobby and folks with a obvious “expand government” agenda.

  Chris, why not disclose in this story that you were well paid to write the report? Further, having read the report and having listened to Quinton Kidd brief the HRTPO CTAC (Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee) I was not amused at how the conclusions were stated. The questions asked did not include the right mix of questions. The process used was not impartial. Quinton pretty much admitted this – it is on video, on line, so people can see it for themselves.

  Clearly YOU are not unbiased in YOUR anti-suburban views towards private vehicles and the freedom of choice and many benefitsd they offer us. We get it. But the truth you fail to disclose is that far more citizens love our cars than love the bus – or HRT.

  
  Log in to Reply
• Ethan | July 23, 10 @ 11:57 am

  If I recall, TRT and PennTran merged. As was written (and I’ll admit I don’t remember the facts, I wish I had access to the old talknet writings) the better of the two that was performing well, all the management was shoved out by the bad management during the merger. Maybe it was Penntran that was good, TRT that was bad, and after the merger the bad management from TRT ruled. I mean, come on, look at the golden parachute they are giving to get the guy out. The fact they have to pay Phil to come in and run things says a lot.

  And I still stand by the fact that we’re deploying the past. It’s just not a forward looking solution. No technical innovation is coming out of light rail. The ODU maglev, on the other hand, shows innovation. It get’s bashed pretty badly tho. The German Transrapid does 250mph (uses a different setup, though.) It’s 20+ years old now.

  We’re just not moving forward.

  
  Log in to Reply