Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

C’VILLE / ALBE SHARED-VEHICLE SYSTEMS

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

At the request of several readers from Greater Charlottesville / Albemarle, we are posting this clarification:

Back on 18 February Jim Bacons posted “Bus Rapid Transit Studied for Charlottesville.”

We agree with Jim’s comments about the need for an authoritative analysis and who should pay for any shared-vehicle system.

Given our experience with shared-vehicle systems and our past work in the Charlottesville / Albemarle Subregion, we do not have high hopes for BRT penciling out.

At 6:30 PM we made the following comment on the original post (edited for clarification):

OK, no one seems interested in this topic so here are some thoughts:

BRT is primarily an “in-the-median” shared vehicle system.

In US of A, applications of BRT would work for a “two or three big stops” subsystem. For example Air and Space Annex / Dulles South Terminal, Dulles North Terminal and an Intermodal terminal in Tysons Corner.

(We should have noted a potential station at Reston Town Center. There would be vastly more demand and an existing limited access roadway with exclusive Airport Access lanes in this application as compared to a C’ville Zentrum to C’ville airport along US Route 29.)

In smaller agglomerations — e.g. Ottawa — BRT does not live up to its potential because there is not the nodal intensity to generate trip demand.

Unless there are Core stations underground as in Seattle, (very expensive) the system works best with when the station is under a big platform over the ‘expressway’ of which the BRT occupies the median.

Platforms such as employed in the U-Bahn service to Nordvest Zentrum in Frankfort AM would work well.

South American applications — e.g. Curitiba — have broad ‘Boulevards’ that separate Village-scale Superblocks.

C’VILLE does not have the Critical Mass to support any of these spacial distribution strategies.

What happened to the Street Car / Trolley idea for C’VILLE?

(Sean Tubbs of Charlottesville Tomorrow provided information on the Trolley proposal and provided other resource links in the original string which are very helpful.)

Following a post concerning the need for a “compelling vision”

EMR noted (again with editing for clarification):

The “compelling vision” must be a vision of future, functional settlement pattern, not of this or that Mobility and Access system. The Mobility and Access System comes after there is a decision on the desired settlement pattern.

This comment was misinterpreted by a commentor as being a suggestion that: “unless the plan is to Nuke C’VILLE and start all over”

There is a pervasive misunderstanding that it is hard to evolve functional settlement patterns from those that exist now.

Human settlement patterns are organic systems and they are continually evolving. The problem is that current Agency and Enterprise projects, programs, incentives and controls are not geared to evolving functional settlement patterns because alternatives make more money and / or gain more benefit for some in the short term.

“how does C’VILLE or any area that already exists and cannot be torn down and recreated – evolve to more optimal settlement pattern?”

(See above)

“If I understand EMR correctly, it is futile to be thinking in terms of different ways of accomplishing access and mobility if the settlement pattern itself is dysfunctional.”

(No, it means that the first step is to create a plan for functional settlement patterns.)

(It also means that it is futile to try to spend money on a shared-vehicle system in hopes that a functional settlement pattern will just evolve due to the new system. The settlement pattern and the Mobility and Access system must be planned and evolve together.)

There are many individuals and several groups that would like to see a clear rendition of what the shape of the future should be in Greater Charlottesville / Albemarle

Once those images are clearly articulated, a number of shared vehicle systems should be examined to see which (one or more) systems best serve these settlement patterns.

One of the many weaknesses of the Blog format is that posters, commentors and readers must be ever vigilant lest intentional or unintentional attempts to misinterpret comments mislead those who are seeking an understanding of complex issues related to human settlement patterns.

Comments on the original C’ville post by Jim Bacon and especially on the proceeding post by Jim titled “Heavy Rail and Flying Pigs” are prime examples of comments by those who have an agenda to (and/or are paid to) confuse and confound useful dialogue.

Our thanks to those who were confused by the comments and contacted us directly for clarification.

We hope this clarification is of use to those who are trying to bring functional settlement patterns in the Charlottesville – Albemarle Subregion.

EMR

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

  1. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “There is a pervasive misunderstanding that it is hard to evolve functional settlement patterns from those that exist now.”

    well.. not a pervasive misunderstanding – how about plain old ignorance?

    How about a lack of basic information on how to even start the process of advocating for changes?

    “Human settlement patterns are organic systems and they are continually evolving. The problem is that current Agency and Enterprise projects, programs, incentives and controls are not geared to evolving functional settlement patterns because alternatives make more money and / or gain more benefit for some in the short term.”

    “continuing evolving” … to what?

    certainly not functional settlement patterns.

    Isn’t the idea that if there is evolution that it not be random and that advocacy for where it should evolve to .. occur?

    If you have folks to would like to have C’ville… advocate to EVOLVE .. to a function settlement pattern… instead of wasting money on doomed-to-fail mobility & access efforts..

    then what needs to happen?

    what are the things that those enlightened citizens of C’ville should start advocating for?

    should they lobby the GA for a change in the way that C’ville is currently governed?

    should they tell the C’ville MPO that it’s part of the problem and not the solution?

    should they petition the State to change the definition and function and boundaries of the current Planning District 10 – the Thomas Jefferson District?

    what I get to this point is that .. we are doomed to fail without fundamental change but any further information with respect to exactly what fundamental change is or how to go about it is a super duper double secret and we’d have to be killed if we ever found out what the secret was…

    In the words of that grandma in the Wendy’s commercial “Where’s the beef?”

    🙂

  2. Darrell -- Chesapeake Avatar
    Darrell — Chesapeake

    Oh cmon Larry. You’ve seen the infomercials. They always present The Way, with all kinds of testimonials about how the information giver is the only one with an answer.

    And all you gotta do is buy the book, and it will tell you where to find the beef. But of course, the next link merely points you to another link and another until you begin to believe that the answer is as elusive as the Holy Grail.

    That is when the Great Revelation occurs that you were totally stupid to buy into the hype in the first place.

    Short of war or a dictatorship, no one is bulldozing houses in order to create a new world order. To believe otherwise is simply a delusional utopia, created by the same minds that present get rich schemes on Sunday morning TV.

  3. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    EMR,
    Once again, why do you use “we” when you write columns? You make it sound as if you are some kind of editorial board that is the authority voice on the blog. That’s hardly the case.
    Be mindful of what Mark Twain said:

    “The only people with the right to use the editorial “we” are editors and people with tapeworms.”

    Peter Galuszka

  4. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Except when walking for pleasure, most people won’t walk more than around 2000 yards. Less, if they are carrying something.

    A shared vehicle system that recognizes this fact will have many stops. More stops means slower transit time, which results in waste.

    In order to minimize the number of stops, more vehicles, and express vehicles are required. This is the reason for talk of two-tracking the Orange line, Especially if it is extended to Dulles. (Twenty-two butt numbing stops, as Jim Bacon described it.)

    In the limit, you need a lot of vehicles, ideally, private vehicles. Failing that, Jitneys.

    At present, private vehicles have a lot of problems. Many of those can be fixed.

    Many of the remaining problems ascribed to autos are not the autos fault, but are instead the result of incremental failures on the part of governments incentivized by money instead of people’s welfare.

    We are not going to uninvent private vehicles. They may beome more expensive, smaller, more efficient, etc. ,but they are not going away.

    The sooner we concede this and start woring on the real problems, ignoring all but the best shared vehicle systems, the better.

    Let’s can the idea that shared vehicles are universally “better” once and for all, so we can stop chasing bigfoot and get down to reality.

    RH

  5. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    so.. let me continue the use of “we”…..

    “We” have a new “situation” in Stafford… funny how I cannot read about these things any more without being drawn back to …the concept of evolution towards more functional settlement patterns.

    and RH will absolutely love this one …ha ha ha…

    Stafford County wants to “re-classify” an current industrial-zoned area to TND – commercial mixed use.

    They want to make the current industrial uses – non-conforming – which means they cannot expand and if the current operation ceases that it cannot replaced with a similar use.

    http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2008/032008/03162008/363669

    I’m interested in hearing RH’s view since they’re taking away some land-owners rights .. BUT .. in the process.. the reclassification is actually making the land much more valuable for a different use.

    and I’m also curious how a county assesses the value of such land .. do they assess it as industrial or do they assess it as commercial TND? nevermind.. I think I know the answer….

    The current owners of the land – unless they want to get into the development business.. their primary option might be to sell to developers.

    but the point is.. that thbe Stafford BOS wants to “evolve” this land use from Industrial to … a use that, in their words…

    “We think we can finally begin to live our long vision of a pedestrian-friendly center,” said Tim Baroody, Stafford’s economic development director. “We’ve always lacked a strong identity. We believe we can build a sense of place and really make it a destination.”

    Note that Stafford County’s own planners are OPPOSED to this:

    “The Planning Commission recently voted to recommend denial of the rezoning. The commission was against a blanket rezoning until the Comprehensive Plan is fully updated.

    “We feel that a county-initiated zoning of that scope doesn’t allow the community to help decide how each of those properties are to be best used,” said Planning Commission Chairman Pete Fields. “I think rezoning all of that way in advance of its actual uses is not a good thing.”

    shazzzam… “does not allow the community to help decide”….

    (well.. geeze what the heck is a duly elected official to do when someone demands that they actually represent those that elected them – but heck that’s another story)

    Ahhhh… so the Planners want a broader vision of land-use while the BOS wants this particular area (next to an I-95 interchange of course) dedicated to a new (more profitable? bite-my-tongue use?)

    Here we DO have a situation where changes IS GOING TO HAPPEN – and the direction that it takes is open to discussion.

    Where are the Fundamental Change folks?

    Where are the Smart Growth folks?

    What would they recommend?

    or is the best that we can hope for is a short dismissive comment along the lines of ” we choose at this point to remain mostly silent except when given the opportunity to diss those who refuse to learn a proper vocabulary and continue to traffic in core confusing words”

    🙂

  6. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “I’m interested in hearing RH’s view since they’re taking away some land-owners rights .. BUT .. in the process.. the reclassification is actually making the land much more valuable for a different use.”

    I dunno. It’s a good question. If your land is rezoned to make it MORE valuable, it is hard to see how you owuld get standing to complain.

    But, suppose you had bought industrial zoned land with the intention of doing something industrial. So, you are off in the background getting permits, permission for royalty uses, buying equipment you have to order years in advance, negotiating pre-sales, etc. etc. Then suddenly all your plans go south — but your property is worth MORE.

    ????

    The real issue is here:

    “They want to make the current industrial uses – non-conforming – which means they cannot expand and if the current operation ceases that it cannot replaced with a similar use.”

    This is a guaranteed death knell by strangulation for your (existing) business. If the county does not want them there, they should buy them out at fair market and then shut down, throwing their own voters out of work, and letting them pay for the “benefit”.

    But, instead of paying for what they want (getting rid of industry) they will just let them wither and die.

    Lord knows we don’t want industry. This sounds like a green thing, run amok.

    Suppose the BOS can show that it is a net benefit for the community to convert. Then there ought to be enough money to pay off the “losers” and still come out ahead.

    RH

  7. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Comments on the original C’ville post by Jim Bacon and especially on the proceeding post by Jim titled “Heavy Rail and Flying Pigs” are prime examples of comments by those who have an agenda to (and/or are paid to) confuse and confound useful dialogue. “

    The original C’vill post had six comments, two by EMR and two by Larry Gross. I wonder who is on the payroll to confuse and confound.

    “If I understand EMR correctly, it is futile to be thinking in terms of different ways of accomplishing access and mobility if the settlement pattern itself is dysfunctional.”

    That’s pretty much the way I understood what EMR said and it was the gist of one of the other comments on the C’ville post (mine).

    But now we have the clarification that says the first step is to create a plan for functional settlement patterns but we have to do that at the same time as planning the mobility and access system.

    Gee, I’m glad I’m not paid to confuse and obfuscate. Too much competition in that market.

    RH

  8. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Wrong!

    If what we have in the way of settlement patterns is .. wrong.. doomed to fail.. and that efforts at mobility and access.. ultimately a failed strategy…..

    .. and we DO know that settlement patterns DO grow and DO evolve…

    .. AND one believes that when change in on the verge.. that there ARE choices…

    .. THEN.. if there ARE good/Better choices for more functional settlement patterns….

    THEN .. what are they.. and where is the advocacy?

    In other words:

    If you are a person or an organization that believes that there are BETTER ways to grow – and you are VOCAL in what the problems ARE.. but you are SILENT about how to change..

    .. THEN .. what is your purpose?

    capische?

  9. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    My purpose is to point out that the main problem we face is thinking that there are solutions with no costs.

    That IF there are Good/Better choices, there are also some really bad ones, too.

    We will never find them as long as our first response to anyone we disagree with is

    WRONG!

    RH

Leave a Reply

Read More