Jim Bacon sketched out a menu of potential actions for the City of Richmond and Chesterfield County in “Midlothian Leviathan” the column and Bacons News Service release he previewed in the Blog post “Challenged in Chesterfield” of 28 June.
It is too bad that the loooooong Fourth of July weekend(s) seems to have sapped interest in discussion of the topic. Hopefully, governance practitioners will give attention to Jim’s ideas.
Here are some marginal notes upon a first reading of Jim’s column:
HOW IMPORTANT IS A NAME?
Commuter Rail is commuter rail. The heyday of commuter rail was from 1890 to the 1920s and for good reason. Commuter rail is 19th century technology that fleetingly served a need to serve transitioning late Industrial Agglomeration settlement pattern. It was not just 19th century technology it best served 19th century settlement patterns.
Even if one uses the old track in the old alignment this is 2007. Why not use new technology? How about light weight, quiet “hybrid” diesel / electric self-propelled cars?
Rebuilt locos and rebuilt coach cars are the way VA Express started. As we all know ridership is stagnate even with terrible roadway alternatives. The new section of I-66 that opened recently and the Springfield interchange completion removes incentives on both lines to put up with bad service that is in part a product of old technology.
Loco and coaches are slow to start, slow to stop and noisy going past. The reality of “commuter rail” will bring out the NYMBYs to oppose change. To generate ridership and spur quality development in the station areas, the service needs to be frequent, two way (bringing workers out as well as in), etc…
BALANCED COMMUNITIES
An even bigger problem than technology is the problem of a goal to serve “commuters.” Greater South Richmond / Chesterfield does not need commuter bergs. It needs Village-scale components of Balanced Communities focused at each station. Places like Andrea Epps suggested that Brandermill almost was for her in the earlier Blog comment.
GETTING IT DONE
Community Development Authorities are a nice idea but they probably cannot carry the load, even with major changes in the Comprehensive Plans, new regulations and incentives.
How about some new thinking on the taxation of property owners enriched by the improvements both private and public.
OK, we are talking Henry George at every station. OK, Henry was a mid-19th century guy. Not all 19th century ideas are bad, especially when the property tax is a realistic approach in an 18th century agrarian society. The property tax should reflect public and private investment and the increase in land value, not the buildings or worse vacant land.
More on these three issues in “The Commuting Problem” 17 Jan 2005, “The Problem with Mass Transit” 15 May 2006 and “Solving the Commuting Problem” 5 February 2007.
Oh yes, In 2004 (16 February) we wrote the “Shape of Richmond’s Future” based on two reports on the future of the Richmond New Urban Region. An idea like the one Jim sketches out might be a way to jump start the sort of real Regional rethinking that we advocated in that column. To work Mobility and Access solutions need to be Regional in scope, not just one or two corridors.
EMR