Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

TheCheeseDevil t1_ixhdz5z wrote

Who's surprised that low cost (now free) rapid transit in a busy urban corridor is popular? The article doesn't mention.

92

Wojiz t1_ixhgxv2 wrote

It's a very "America in 2022" thing to be shocked at the success and viability of public works and infrastructural tools invented over one hundred years ago.

"Imagine this: An automobile with over ten times the capacity of your average sedan. It travels along major thoroughfares in your city, stopping intermittently. Best of all: It's free.

No, this isn't a fantasy. It's called a bus, and it's been a stunning success here in Richmond."

A few years ago, I was visiting one of the Smithsonian art museums in D.C. Big, gorgeous building, carved out of stone and marble. My friend said, "Do you think we're still capable of making something like this today?"

The answer is OF COURSE WE ARE. Of course we're still capable of making highways and libraries and train stations and post offices and town squares and bus lines and subways. It isn't like the secret techniques of early-20th century urban planners have been lost to the sands of history. We just need to re-realize that there's such a thing as a Public Good and devote our politically will to spending money on it.

260

goodsam2 t1_ixhhkqv wrote

Yeah with a density around 10,000 per square mile a frequent bus would be popular. It's just you gotta have a lot of people and destinations.

I know Richmond copied the Houston bus reformatting when the pulse was proposed. Less bus routes but more frequent was the idea.

24

37BrokenMicrowaves t1_ixhhzpi wrote

How is this a surprise? This exact system used to be called a “trolley” and we had them for decades.

58

raindeerpie t1_ixhmw0u wrote

we put it in the perfect place. if it ran down boulevard or monument it would not be nearly as effective. rockets landing was the perfect stopping point and willow lawn is a great starting point. i think we could keep extending it west and it would be just as popular. we should add more lines too. Hull street or Midlothian trnpk should be our next target.

14

soupified t1_ixhnzbe wrote

Individual cars in a densely packed area make no fucking sense. Nice to see the collective delusion is beginning to wobble, I guess.

15

rhaphido t1_ixhomdn wrote

They started with a great initial route. Buy in and changing peoples habits will take time but slowly expanding the network should be a top priority. Making the Pulse more useable and accessible to more of the population will benefit us all. Adoption will take time.

18

I_Enjoy_Beer t1_ixhpu2o wrote

Turns out, some things we developed 100 years ago were, in fact, good but we took a wrong turn somewhere along the way. Probably right about the time WW2 was over and the U.S. had an abundance of labor, resources, and manufacturing capacity when the rest of the developed world was in shambles. "You, too, can have your own car!" "You, too, can own your own half-acre 10 miles away from the office!" Unsurprisingly, that kind of inefficiency doesn't work well outside of peak economic conditions, and the "old" ways are being rediscovered.

39

KazahanaPikachu t1_ixhs7ux wrote

I wonder how it would be if Richmond had a metro.

9

guptaxpn t1_ixhsp2q wrote

I've heard that we burned through our marble supply... So large scale marble projects aren't going to be a thing. That being said we can still do big beautiful public works projects!

6

Chickenmoons t1_ixhtrjg wrote

Not surprising. Maybe surprising to Chesterfield County Officials. But not surprising to anyone who lives in or visits the city often. Now the BRT system needs to grow. As does GRTC.

21

dalhectar t1_ixhu1bm wrote

It's a half hour route that takes 45 minutes to get from one end to the other.

It's nothing like Pulse. The combination of fewer stops, real bus stops with seats and covering to protect you from the elements, and more frequent service would be a game changer.

8

fusion260 OP t1_ixhu8c0 wrote

The good news is that both BRT and GRTC are actively researching expansion into West Broad and a potential north/south route.

It's also good that Chesterfield is a lot less resistant to public transportation than it was decades ago when it weirded its membership to seemingly block routes in a majority of the county while saying "see, we're participating."

18

raindeerpie t1_ixhuohb wrote

only 15 extra minutes to use the bus is pretty good actually. more frequency and real bus stops would be a huge game changer. that's for every route. our bus stops are practically hidden. most don't even have a sidewalk

3

KazahanaPikachu t1_ixhv544 wrote

Yea, like an underground system that would take you all around Richmond. Or an under/overground like we have in NoVA. I know that’s not gonna come to Richmond any time soon but I’ll at least fantasize about it.

7

fusion260 OP t1_ixhwl5x wrote

Richmond is unfortunately far too small to fund and support an underground metro system. In the current economy and crunch on heavy construction projects, those systems typically do well in planned cities with public transit in mind from the beginning so the infrastructure is built before anything is built above it.

The BRT is essentially an underground metro system but flexible enough to change its fleet, quantity of buses, and adjust its route to accommodate closures and detours. With the right initiative, the GRTC could easily test new routes before building out more-permanent stations and even explore seasonal rapid bus routes.

We're unlikely to see anything like Boston's Big Dig project nowadays without enough political and community will. Elon's Boring Company has yet to prove it's not a giant grift and PR stunt that puts individual small-capacity vehicles driven by humans in a tiny tunnel that only goes a mile or so underground.

ETA: formatting and context

15

SuicideNote t1_ixhwvmh wrote

Pulse was used as an example to move forward with BRT in Raleigh. Probably the best example of 'take notice'.

4

Chickenmoons t1_ixhx8cn wrote

Chesterfield is STILL a staunch opponent of bus service. They killed their last routes a few years ago and have only recently admitted they might need some GRTC service.

The Pulse gave GRTC a badly needed chance to rebrand. But really needs substantial investment from Henrico, Chesterfield, and the City to expand service and increase frequency. Why we are building a “temporary” bus shelter AGAIN is beyond me though.

11

Chickenmoons t1_ixhxa14 wrote

Chesterfield is STILL a staunch opponent of bud service. They killed their last routes a few years ago and have only recently admitted they might need some GRTC service.

The Pulse gave GRTC a badly needed chance to rebrand. But really needs substantial investment from Henrico, Chesterfield, and the City to expand service and increase frequency. Why we are building a “temporary” bus shelter AGAIN is beyond me though.

1

Chickenmoons t1_ixhx90n wrote

Chesterfield is STILL a staunch opponent of bud service. They killed their last routes a few years ago and have only recently admitted they might need some GRTC service.

The Pulse gave GRTC a badly needed chance to rebrand. But really needs substantial investment from Henrico, Chesterfield, and the City to expand service and increase frequency. Why we are building a “temporary” bus shelter AGAIN is beyond me though.

1

fusion260 OP t1_ixhxtff wrote

As requested by a commenter and relevant to this linked article, the GRTC is actively asking the public via a survey to provide feedback for a potential expansion of the Pulse BRT line to West Broad beyond Willow Lawn.

You can participate in this survey by going to https://live.metroquestsurvey.com/?u=bi3r3y

The survey closes on December 15th, 2022.

1

lame_gaming t1_ixhz28e wrote

its astonishing how many people in america dont know anything about public transportation

like no shit when the bus isnt stuck in traffic its pretty popular!

11

lame_gaming t1_ixhzjuf wrote

no, when its the best option available people will use it

nobody is going to ride the bus if it comes every 30-60 minutes and is constantly stuck in traffic, even if its free

29

HatefulDan t1_ixhzo6j wrote

Surprise? I don’t know about that,

1

lame_gaming t1_ixi0ezr wrote

chesterfield is run by dumb suburbanites that see the bus as what poors, homeless, drug addicts, and crazies use

the sad reality is suburbanisation means bus services wouldnt be too usefull anyway, unless its going to be zig zagging through residential streets, and even then the population density is just pretty low

9

pchnboo t1_ixi0is4 wrote

I’d love to see the expansion west. The number of folks that have to cross Broad at Willow Lawn to catch the bus at the old Hardee’s is frightening. That’s a lot of lanes to cross and someone is going to die one of these days.

9

buxtonOJ t1_ixi0pd8 wrote

Helps when you don't have a metro

2

pchnboo t1_ixi0rep wrote

It’s a dangerous crossing to get off the Pulse and run across Broad to catch the westbound bus. I love the Pulse and would be ecstatic is it ran to Short Pump.

4

lame_gaming t1_ixi1noh wrote

even though a subway would probably never come to richmond, lausanne has a really weird rubber tire metro system that’s actually really cool, especially considering how small the city is

2

bkemp1984Part2 t1_ixi7lut wrote

I was just coming here to inquire why it's so surprising. It's free, doesn't stop every 50 feet, has priority at intersections, and travels along the main artery of the "city proper". I guess it's surprising in the sense Richmond did something right, and in some ways Broad St is a bit embarrassing now with the lengths we went to preserve parking, but the latter wouldn't really affect ridership and it's a fundamentally very sound idea.

27

fusion260 OP t1_ixif4sl wrote

Nice! Yeah, it took me a few minutes, too.

Pretty sure VADOT used the same survey site for the 95/64 Bryan Park interchange feedback survey a year or two ago.

3

_RetroBear t1_ixiogr8 wrote

Now fix the rest of the bus system

2

darockerj t1_ixitv3i wrote

Yup. It's why I never use the Pulse outside of commuting hours, but moreso about frequency.

I thought about taking it to a spot about two miles from Scott's and the arrival time went from 15 minutes to 30 to none at all. Last time I try that.

7

darockerj t1_ixiuld5 wrote

I keep seeing it suggested, but anyone who genuinely expects an underground rail system to come to Richmond is either naive or out of their minds.

I also come from NOVA and love to use the Metro up there, but it's made for a much bigger population (and much higher commuting population, at that) and famously comes plagued with its own delays. Much as I think trains are cool, a bus route is a much cheaper and suitable solution for Richmond. Love the Pulse for commuting.

6

KentWallace t1_ixj69z0 wrote

Cheaper to buy upfront, but much more expensive to maintain. And lifespan of a bus is only a decade or two before it needs replacing while trolley cars from before WW2 are still running in SF, New Orleans, and Rome.

4

guptaxpn t1_ixjeiy4 wrote

I remember reading a news article years ago that made arguments against it in favor of rapid transit. Basically I support buses because I feel like they are something that provide for many but are an achievable thing to lobby for because of the up front costs. I do like a smooth running metro system, don't get me wrong, but I'm much more attracted to the reconfigurability of rapid buses with priority lanes. Much cheaper to fix errors than to dig up tracks.

Basically I think a system should trial a light rail line with buses first. Then move to introduce trains.

6

iNEEDcrazypills t1_ixjhmt7 wrote

I frequently have to drive through Chesterfield to work and that whole county has its head in the sand regarding the future of development. Tons of new shopping centers with no pedestrian access or any regards to ANYTHING besides a car. So fucking stupid.

7

BurkeyTurger t1_ixjj0tc wrote

>They killed their last routes a few years ago

There are a couple active GRTC routes in Chesterfield, mostly near the County/City line but they're there. 1A, 2B, & 3B

You'd need to make park and rides with security for them to be viable anywhere else in the county.

3

tmos540 t1_ixjpql9 wrote

That's because the benefits are inversely proportional to income. Basically it benefits the poors more than everyone else, and we can't have that. They need to pick themselves up by their bootstraps and buy a car. /s

4

tmos540 t1_ixjqg82 wrote

Oooh yeah that's clever. You could turn priority lanes into tracks in some places, especially if you could bury the lines when the priority lanes ended.

2

tmos540 t1_ixjro0c wrote

Don't you know? That keeps the poors out, makes it a much more pleasant experience for the upper middle class, keeping the harsh realities of a system that utterly fails more people than a country as wealthy as ours easily ignorable. It's fine to have some folks panhandling at major intersections, you can give a granola bar and a water bottle to those folks and pat yourself on the back and consider your charity for the month done. But if the poors start shopping at your favorite store, they'll start lowering prices and offering more inexpensive options, put stuff on sale. How are you gonna feel well-to-do when you don't have 9 options over 4 brands of overpriced scented candle?

5

CBassTian t1_ixjvdv4 wrote

Thank you for posting this. I had some harsh words for the intersection along Cox Road which is a deathtrap for pedestrians trying to cross the street with no crosswalk or light.

3

knife_hits t1_ixk1tr1 wrote

It's like when weirdos say shit like "the United States Postal Service is losing $XX million a year!" Like, no, it's not "losing" anything, it's a public service and it COSTS MONEY TO RUN IT. Not everything needs to exist to turn a profit, god damn

18

goodsam2 t1_ixk3a44 wrote

Well actually the post office was a service that cost a lot of money. (They actually had arguments because in rural areas the postal service only delivered to town and when people came into town they would buy something at the store next door but it would go to urban houses because it was far easier, this was a huge cost and a significant portion of the federal budget)

Anyway then people started sending a lot more mail back and forth. The post office then generates a profit, they decide they want to semi-break off from the government. Now less letters to and from people are falling and they are looking at downsizing in real ways. Since they made a profit they increased pay and pensions and such and at some point it's just another normal government position which is why the Republicans asked to prepay their pension because the post office finances look to be decreasing profitability. Which pushes them to look insolvent sooner but also makes the transition easier to when they go back as a full government agency.

But back to the topic, I mean think about all the land used for parking or driving that could be sold. I mean I heard there was a plan for 64 to be closed and I was just trying to quantify how much that would be worth. I mean nobody bats an eye when we increase parking in land that would otherwise sell for hundreds of thousands and then generate tax revenue.

−1

OlGreggMare t1_ixv700r wrote

How much profit does the Dept of Defense make? I've been to exercises of just single brigade vs regiment that likely burned more fuel in a month than the entire USPS does in a year

0

goodsam2 t1_ixvdpom wrote

But the USPS was profitable and asked to be partially spun off is the difference maker here. The USPS was profitable and wanted to pay workers more but was stuck to federal government salaries but they wanted to spin off. Now the situation has changed and they need to be a government service at some point soon enough. That or they operate a bank which I think is personally a better option.

1