Responses to Comments and Questions for Richmond City Council from the RVA Coalition for Smart Transit

Public engagement continues to be a crucial component to the GRTC Pulse (Bus Rapid Transit) project in the Greater Richmond Area. Questions and comments are received, logged, and answered. Sometimes the questions require thorough investigation. A recent document submitted to the Richmond City Council for the Informal Meeting on July 27, 2015 came from the RVA Coalition for Smart Transit. Project partners including the City of Richmond, Henrico County and GRTC worked together to thoroughly answer the questions and comments posed by the group.  Below, you will see the complete color-coded document.

Comments and Questions for Richmond City Council
RVA Coalition for Smart Transit (Text in Black)
City of Richmond answers (Text in Blue)
GRTC answers (Text in Purple)
Henrico County answers (Text in Green)

---

To the Honorable Members of Richmond City Council:

The RVA Coalition for Smart Transit appreciates your interest in asking for questions from the civic and business associations along the Broad Street corridor. The Coalition is absolutely in support of mass transit expansion in the Richmond region. The members of the Coalition want the very best transit system possible, and desire smart mass transit to function as an enhancement to the City and, especially, our neighborhoods and businesses.

Please accept these questions and comments that we are collectively submitting for your consideration, as you perform your due diligence as our elected officials in ensuring that this proposed project is executed in a way that will not have negative consequences.

Integration of BRT into the GRTC System and Overall GRTC System Reform

1.                  GRTC historically has operated a "hub and spoke" system, consistently arguing that this is the most efficient organization of mass transit in the City.  For many citizens representing the very large potential market of "choice rider”, the hub and spoke system has resulted in a non-useful, irrelevant route structure. Yet, GRTC officials have publicly stated that the BRT will operate as a "spine" onto which relevant routes will be appended, such as a multi-loop circulator model.
The hub-and-spoke system remains, of which BRT is a new route (a spine through the densest population and highest ridership zone). BRT is a new, more frequent, more efficient route added to the transit system. This is one major improvement to the whole system, while simultaneously examining existing routes and needed route modifications. The ongoing Companion Route Analysis Study is examining this, and future studies are possible (more changes to the system structure are a long-term possibility as the system continues to evolve along with the region’s evolution).

2.                  Before significant multi-year taxpayer support is committed, it is logical that GRTC should present its stated re-routing planning and vision.  Absent that, there is substantial skepticism of the legitimacy of the assurances of transit relevancy and usefulness.
City Council did vote to approve this funding on May 15, 2015 (Capital Improvement Project) for $3.8 million in FY16 and $3.8 in FY17. Future operating cost source is not finalized (long-term options being explored include a dedicated funding source, future grants, operating budgets, etc). See #3 below for all the studies that have identified transit for its legitimate relevancy and usefulness.

3.                  The proposed BRT route is already mostly served by existing GRTC routes. What surveys or data support the notion that substantial additional ridership will be developed?
Bus Rapid Transit has been part of the City’s planning for more than a decade with recommendations in the City Master Plan, Downtown Plan, the Mayor’s Anti-Poverty Commission Report and the Richmond Strategic Multimodal Transportation Plan.  BRT is also included in the transportation plans on a regional level to enhance quality transportation along the commercial corridors in the Richmond region.  The partners have also heard that the BRT plan could move faster, rather than slower. Therefore, the partners have outlined a project plan that strives to accommodate a reasonable schedule that can meet the October 2017 arrival date of BRT in the Greater Richmond Area.
Additional ridership will be developed, as outlined in the five-year study (Environmental Assessment) and the TIGER Narrative. Additionally, there is growing data regarding Boomers and Millennials moving toward multi-modal and transit options other than the automobile. Richmond Region Transportation Planning Organization (RRTPO) forecasts show that population and jobs in the corridor will increase by 22% and 13% respectively. Other cities were case-studied.

• Coordinate with local, regional and state current and future plans
• City Downtown Plan – BRT is a component of this plan, approved by the City Planning Commission.
• Richmond Strategic Multimodal Transportation Plan – BRT is a component of this plan. This was completed in 2013 and recommended Broad Street BRT as one of the highest transportation priorities. It specifically recommended a series of transit priority corridors on other major arterials and extending into surrounding jurisdictions to create a regional rapid transit system.
• City Master Plan – need for a rapid transit option along Broad Street (light rail or a precursor like BRT).
• City Bike Plan – BRT supports multi-modal transit choices, providing bike racks on the buses and at stations.
• Richmond Regional Transit Vision Plan – BRT is a part of this broader project currently being developed by the Commonwealth of Virginia.
• U.S. Department of Transportation LadderSTEP Transportation Empowerment Pilot – GRTC Pulse was one of only seven U.S. projects selected for this Pilot, described as such: “To help build and restore connections, develop workforce capacity, and catalyze neighborhood revitalization.”

GRTC Pulse will meet existing and future population growth and density in the corridor while improving transit options and service for existing and new bus riders across the transit system.  As development has occurred along Broad Street historically and in recent years, the corridor has become more important as an activity center and economic engine for the region. Over 33,000 people live and over 77,000 jobs are located within a half‐mile of the BRT stations.

Importantly, GRTC BRT will create economic opportunity in a city with one of the highest poverty rates in Virginia. Simultaneous improvements in local fixed route service with BRT implementation can address these challenges and provide benefits to entire systems residents, commuters, businesses and institutions. As the downtown continues to develop, GRTC’s regional connections will be a critical part of multi-modal transportation.  As downtown redevelopment is pedestrian oriented, it will also be a transit supportive.

The next two maps are from the Environmental Assessment (EA), showing the route corridor (and the proposed station locations as of 2014) with Population Density expected increase, and then the existing on-offs for transit along the corridor.

4.                  Was there any consideration to revising the current routes to reach more riders more efficiently, and at less cost, like Houston, Omaha and Los Angeles are planning? Why or why not?
The Companion route analysis is also being performed simultaneously to examine existing and potential future routing. The companion route analysis is looking at, based on Title VI guidance, what existing local bus routes could be either reduced or eliminated, or re-routed to other areas for service. Each route modification goes through the Title VI process.

5.         Will any existing Broad Street local bus routes be eliminated? If so, when? Which ones?
The companion route analysis is looking at, based on Title VI guidance, what existing Broad Street-running local bus routes could be either reduced or eliminated, or re-routed to other areas for service. Each route modification goes through the Title VI process. The Broad Street 6 is required to run for at least another year after BRT implementation, according to the FTA. (FYI: Garland Williams is the resident GRTC expert on this Companion Study)

6.         Will any buses other than BRT continue running on Broad St?  If so for how long? Temporarily or in perpetuity?
See #5 above.

7.                  What is the total ridership you expect on BRT weekly, Saturdays and Sundays in the first six months, one year, and five years? How does this fit in with the total ridership for the entire GRTC system expected to be weekly, Saturdays and Sundays in the first six months, one year, and five years?
Expected total ridership on BRT: 3500 a day on the BRT route alone, for the first year of operation. This estimate includes 500 brand new daily riders who don’t currently use the system today (i.e., Mode Shift of 10% to 15%). The average total GRTC system ridership today across all routes on a weekday is 28,240 riders. Saturdays it’s 15,097 and Sunday’s it’s 10,476. One of the common requests we get from our riders is to extend service later in the evening, which BRT will do, and also offer more frequent service, which BRT will do. Knowing that our riders want more frequent and later service, we can reasonably expect our riders will utilize and benefit from the BRT.
This is an estimate based on Route 6 ridership alone, and the partners are therefore confident this ridership will be met when you factor in other potential riders on BRT from other Broad Street-running routes that will have longer trip times compared to the BRT. Because of the variety of City and Regional development variables always at play, it is not standard practice to project 5+ years into the future for ridership. For example, a transit company will not be able to definitely say that in 5 years a new apartment complex or new shopping center or new hospital will be in a specific location. We may know it’s coming within a year or two, and can begin preparing potential route modifications, and make educated guesses at what that ridership may become.

BRT Design Process and Plan Specifics

1.         How long is the period for comments and modifications before the design plans are finalized?
Comments continue to be welcomed now. The conceptual 30% design phase is complete, has been presented to the Public, and will be presented to the City of Richmond UDC (August 20, 2015 at 10AM) & PC (September 8, 2015 at 1:30PM). The 60% design phase schedule is August – February 2016 (Public Meetings are planned for October 2015 and January 2016). Major design revisions are not anticipated after 60% design.  Engagement with the public will continue beyond January 2016 to keep the public informed on the status of the project.

2.         What changes are non-negotiable?
Established project elements include: number of station locations (14); route corridor length and alignment (7.6 miles from Willow Lawn to Rocketts Landing); length and location of dedicated lanes (median or curbside); minimum lane width; project budget (based on National, State and Local allocated funding); BRT name, logo and branding; style of vehicles and number needed; service frequency (10 minutes on-peak, 15 minutes off-peak); and the colorized pavement sections.

3.         What changes endanger the TIGER grant funding?
Currently there are no planned changes that would endanger the TIGER grant funding (requirements are established). The good news is the project has the support of Secretary Foxx (our project was hand-selected out of 7 for the LadderSTEP Pilot by the US DOT), plus the Governor of Virginia and regional localities (Henrico Co & City of Richmond).

4.         Does the grant require dedicated median running buses? What is the data and research supporting median running buses?
The median running lanes in this section promote speed of the operation (i.e., “rapid” service) and safety. The grant we proposed includes dedicated median running lanes from Thompson to Adams. The 5-year study (led by DRPT and GRTC) concludes, as is the case in national FHWA studies, that running the bus in the center of the roadway helps minimize conflicts (i.e., reduces crash rates) with vehicles turning to/from side streets and private entrances, in addition to allowing parallel parking in this dense part of Broad Street. By introducing dedicated lanes from Thompson Street to Adams Street, and improving the existing bus lane from 4th to 14th Streets, crash rates along the corridor will be reduced. In the median guideway section of the corridor, one general purpose lane will be converted to a dedicated bus lane, reducing the general travel lanes from three to two in each direction. At certain intersections, the bus lane will be open for left turning vehicles to enter and make turns. Elsewhere along this section, left turns will be prohibited. The effect of this change, from a general traffic perspective, is similar to a road diet. From 4th to 14th Streets, the improved bus lane will function like a shoulder-running bus lane and will reduce conflicts between buses, general traffic, and pedestrians, increasing safety for all users.  Using FHWA crash reduction factors appropriate to both of these contexts, the value of safety benefits from reduced crashes will be $16,300 per year (2014 dollars), equivalent to $150,120 when discounted at 7% over 26 years.
Additionally, running BRT buses in a dedicated lane allows local routes to have an easier time at the curb for passenger boarding/alighting, promoting both a transit-oriented and pedestrian-friendly corridor that enhances the safety and use for all users. See #8 for more about speed limit and safety.

5.                  Why are there two stations, one in each direction? Could buses have doors that open on both sides to allow for one station per stop?
Because the vehicles have doors on the right side of the bus. This is the American-industry bus standard. Additionally, a bus is not like a train or trolley that can reverse direction within one lane. These are two bus lanes operating simultaneously. The platforms, however, are designed for the future to accommodate 60-foot articulated buses if future need warrants. (See #7 below for more details).

6.         What is the construction period for each station? Please differentiate between median and curbside and provide estimate for both.
Construction at each station will, on average, last about 3 to 4 months. Each station location is unique (because of existing utilities and urban environments), and will therefore have unique construction lengths. Construction will be scheduled so as to minimize the impact on businesses and properties. The Contractor will be required to maintain pedestrian access and have a traffic flow plan to access businesses at all times. Temporary lane closures, not full road closures, can be expected. Please see this chart to differentiate between median running, curb running, and mixed traffic segments costs.

7.                  Were narrower buses considered, rather than the 10 ½ ft. width? If no, why not?
The industry standard minimum bus width is 10.5 Feet (120 inches, plus 6 inches with mirror wingspan). Two primary vehicular styles were considered – with the ultimate goal of moving as many people as efficiently as possible through this corridor, within this budget and within the ridership projections. Any vehicle considered must be American-made because we are operating with Federal money (this disqualifies any foreign bus makers, and keeps American dollars in American hands). A 60-foot articulated bus and a 40-foot bus were considered. The cost of a 60-foot articulated bus ranges from approximately $750,000 to $1 Million per bus. The cost of a 40-foot bus is approximately $470,000 per bus. An articulated 60-foot bus can have doors on one or both sides with a seating capacity ranging from 46 to 62 seats, depending on the exact design and manufacturer. A 40-foot bus has doors on the right side with a 38 to 41 seating capacity. Custom 40-foot buses could be designed and ordered in America with doors on both sides, but at least 4-8 seats would be lost to accommodate doors on both sides (which is necessary to service both a single median station and also curbside stations). The project design resulting from a 60-foot articulated bus would have an estimated total project cost of $61.8 Million (not within budget). The total project cost for a 40-foot bus is $49.8 Million (within budget). Ridership projections for this first line of BRT in the Greater Richmond Area did not meet the warrant for articulated buses, but with growth in the future, it is possible to incorporate 60-foot articulated buses into the system (the platform design can handle either a 40-foot and/or a 60-foot).
When a narrower bus (eg. 96 inch NewFlyer is available in 30 FT and 35 FT versions. The aisle is 19 inches wide.) is used, the seat width is narrower (i.e., not conducive for the average American width) and the aisle is narrower (i.e., sideways movement is usually necessary to move up and down the aisle). The mirror-to-mirror wingspan must still be considered, which adds 3” on each side. There are no current narrower buses in American design and production.

8.         The proposed BRT will run for approx. 7.6 miles. For approx. 4.6 miles, or about 60 per cent of the route, the BRT will run on surface streets without major changes to the street. If it suits the plan to use existing surface streets for 60% of the route, why can't the remaining portion of the route use the existing street also?
There are several reasons why curb-running doesn’t fit through the entire corridor: existing speed limit here is 25 mph instead of 35 mph, parking preservation and existing width of right-of-way. Regarding the speed limit of 25 mph, this is often not observed by vehicular traffic through a high-pedestrian corridor. This dedicated bus lane along this section of Broad Street will act as a traffic calming tool, slowing through traffic naturally to the actual speed limit of 25 mph, especially where on-street parking remains in tandem with the travel lanes. Altogether, this will decrease speeds on Broad Street, fostering safer and slower interactions between various modes of transit and encouraging a safer-feeling for pedestrians on the sidewalk or in designated crosswalks.
See #4, which specifically applies to the densest population growth, and also the ongoing growth of VCU. The BRT will provide transit to many of those currently using a vehicle and parking throughout the Fan, such as VCU students. Having BRT will help take away their vehicular use into the Fan, and encourage the students to utilize BRT instead of parking in the Fan.

9.         What plans are in process for a park and ride at Willow Lawn and Rocketts Landing? If there are no plans, why was this component not secured or researched earlier in the planning process? What plans have been made for parking at the other twelve stations?
In the five-year study process, potential park-and-ride lots were examined along the route. Anthem at Staples Mill initially agreed to partner as a Park-and-Ride facility. Since then, they have put their plans for this on hold, for internal Anthem reasons not known to the Project Partners. The funding does not allow for acquisition of property. However, Henrico Co at the two termini points has been aggressively investigating where they can locate park-and-ride lots in their jurisdiction, and those conversations are ongoing. Within the City limits, park-and-ride locations are also ongoing. The Science Museum of VA has verbally agreed to be a natural park-and-ride location for the Robinson St station, as they currently have the parking inventory available and anticipate having more in the future.  Businesses that have long-term plans already in place have been communicating with us about parking and BRT implementation.

10.       Can the project be slowed down and implemented in fall of 2018 as originally envisioned, to allow for a more thoughtful holistic and inclusive process? If not, why not?
The initial project timeline (prior to the US DOT matching grant in 2014) did extend into 2018, and would mean a longer construction period. The proposed project timeline arrived at now seeks to balance the wishes, concerns and realities of all parties involved. The project partners asked to move the schedule up a year for completion in Fall 2017.

11.       For a project of this scale and cost, current professional traffic studies should be conducted and presented to the public for comments.  To our understanding, GRTC does not have such an analysis beyond stale efforts that have not been part of the discussion publicly.
GRTC has been working with professional traffic engineers to conduct traffic analysis, including with City Traffic Engineering, Commonwealth VDOT and K-H engineers. These are professionals who have degrees and tremendous experience in their fields, and they are the experts in traffic.

City Review and Approval Process

1.                 What is CAR’s position on the impact of the BRT plans on the Old and Historic District / Arts District between Belvedere and 1st Street?
Old & Historic districts do not cover improvements in the ROW unless they are attached to a building in the district; thus the CAR has no review authority for this project. Nonetheless, they can advise on projects such as these as to how they may impact historical resources. CAR is currently drafting such a letter.

2.         What is the role of the Urban Design Committee and the City Planning Commission in reviewing the BRT plans?
The Urban Design Committee and Planning Commission review this project for “Location, Character and Extent” as a “change in use of streets” - defined in Section 17.07 of the City Charter. The UDC is a recommending body to the PC and provides advice of an aesthetic nature to the PC. The UDC will review the conceptual plans at a special meeting on Thursday, August 20th at 10am in the City Council Chambers, 2nd floor of City Hall. Their recommendation will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for inclusion on their agenda on Tuesday, September 8th at 1:30 pm in the City Council Chambers, 2nd floor of City Hall.

3.         How does this plan fit in with the Downtown Master Plan and the Master Plan for the Arts District?
The location of BRT along W. Broad is identified in the Downtown Master Plan as one component of a system which can provide affordable public transportation for employees and residents in a revitalized Downtown (pp. 5.21-5.22).  In addition, BRT is mentioned in Richmond Connects, prepared for the City by Baker Associates, as part of an overall strategy to improve and expand service in the Richmond region.  In both cases the Broad Street is identified as the BRT corridor.

4.                  What is the specific action that will be required of Richmond City Council before the plans can proceed? At what time will this occur?
City Council does not review Location Character & Extent (LC&E) projects unless the Planning Commission denies approval and the applicant appeals that decision to Council. Council will be approving a number of papers related to the funding, such as the Project Partner’s Agreement (which specifies and establishes the responsibilities, roles, duties, etc of each Partner).

5.         Current City zoning designations and regulations have requirements regarding parking availability. What efforts are being undertaken to ensure that existing businesses do not fall into any form of non-compliance with their zoning if on-street parking is reduced and the availability (via increased demand) of off-street private parking is reduced? How will zoning regulations regarding parking be amended to accommodate and encourage future businesses and development?
As this is in the public right-of-way, loss of on-street parking or loading has no effect on zoning regulations. Parking and/or loading is a feature of a use and even if it took private property, any loss of parking or loading would result in that loss as legally permitted (taking by public action) and result in non-conforming status for that feature.

Impact on Business Operations

1.                  What is the plan to ensure businesses are able to stay open, and that customers will have easy access to each business?
Construction will be sequenced and localized to minimize impacts on businesses and properties. Road closures will be limited to temporary lane closures during non-peak hours during construction. Duration of work for stations will be typically 3 to 4 months per station. Most of the construction will be in the median area with the exception of curbside stations, ramp improvements, and signal upgrades at intersections. In order to provide parking accommodations during construction, the contractor will be required to maintain temporary parking spaces on Broad Street, except directly in front of proposed curb-side stations. Construction work will be performed in compliance with daytime and nighttime noise ordinances. A 24-hour hotline will be established for businesses and the public to contact the Construction Manager. Signs will be posted to inform the public that businesses are open during construction, and work will be monitored to make sure safe pedestrian access is provided at all times. During non-working times, the contractor will accommodate roadway and pedestrian access in construction areas with safety being the primary objective. Staging for median construction work will be in the median.

2.         Will all existing valet parking locations be retained on Broad St when the plan is finished?
The City of Richmond has been working with businesses and the project team to identify valet solutions. For example, valet zones are proposed to be preserved at Theatre IV and also at Tarrants on Broad Street. The City of Richmond is exploring future valet zone solutions as a whole for the City, beyond the scope of this project.
Graffiato’s valet service will be moved to Jefferson Street.

3.         If eliminated, how will loading zones be reconciled with current zoning requirements for them?
The City of Richmond continues to work with businesses to address any loading zone changes and zoning impacts. The City of Richmond is considering a curb management study that could result in revisions to the existing overlay district ordinances. The Project Partners, however, are requesting public feedback regarding proposed loading zone changes on Broad Street (information just presented for the first time at the July 2015 Public Meetings).

4.         How will businesses on Broad receive deliveries, such as FedEx and UPS? Do any businesses currently receive large deliveries to the front of the business, due to constraints in the alley? How will these be accommodated?
Please see #3 above.

5.         How will restaurants receive large deliveries of food and beverage if alley access is restricted for maintenance, etc.?
Please see #3 above.

Neighborhood/Pedestrian/Biking

1.                  How many parking spaces will be lost, taking into account loading zones and bus stops?
Based on July 2015 conceptual design plans, 306 parking spaces between Thompson and 14^th Street on Broad Street are proposed to be removed out of the existing 708 spaces. This preserves 402 spaces.
West of 195, there is no parking on Broad Street and will therefore not be impacted/changed. East of 14^th Street on Main Street, approximately 4 to 5 parking spaces are expected to be lost at each curbside station.

2.         How will pedestrians and those on bikes navigate across Broad St?
This project will improve north-south access across Broad Street over its existing conditions today. There will be six new dedicated pedestrian crosswalks across Broad at controlled crossings (Strawberry, Goshen, Pine, Henry, Madison and Jefferson) & at 37 signalized intersections. Three of the new signals are Tilden, Monroe, Byrd (Willow Lawn) and Orleans (Rocketts Landing). These all have a 6-foot pedestrian refuge, which is considered by national standards to be a safe width to hold in and be protected from traffic. All are ADA-accessible.

3.         How wide are the medians for pedestrian refuge?
Standard median width is 4FT, except where noted (these are “pedestrian refuges”):
     Thompson to Sheppard:     4 feet median; 3 feet at left-turns & stations
     Sheppard to Harrison:        4 feet median; 2 feet at left-turns & stations
     Harrison to Pine:                6 feet median
     Pine to Foushee:                 4 feet median; 2 feet at left-turns & stations

4.         Ingress and egress from surrounding neighborhoods appear to have been an afterthought in the BRT process.  Specific plans must be developed and worked through the affected civic associations.
North-south movements have been a part of the broader, long-term planning to make this corridor more pedestrian and user-friendly for all users.

5.         How many left turns will remain, and at what intersections?
17 proposed protected left turns going east-west on Broad:
Westbound: Adams to Thompson.  7 left turns – Monroe, Belvidere, Harrison, Meadow, Robinson, Sheppard and Tilden. (Boulevard under review by City.)

Eastbound: Thompson to Adams. 10 left turns – Roseneath, Sheppard, Terminal, Davis, DMV, Allison, Meadow, Allen, Bowe and Belvidere. (Boulevard under review by City.)
Protected, dedicated left turn lanes will contribute to a lower crash risk on Broad Street. The proposal for left turns in the BRT project increases in exclusive dedicated turn lanes from 3% of the crossings to 28% eastbound and from 3% to 18% westbound, respectively. Good access management principles are applied in the median through the BRT project for improved safety in the corridor for pedestrians and motorists. The City, along with the other Project Partners, will continue to determine where additional left turns are needed and address that need in the detailed design balancing parking and the station locations.

6.                  New congestion in the neighborhoods will result from limited left turns off Broad. How will this congestion be managed?
BRT is part of the long-term plan for the City to both encourage growth and manage any increased congestion. The City of Richmond is also planning for current and future lights and traffic flow options and needs.

7.         What plans are being made for parking at the stations in heavily residential areas where parking is already at a premium, like the Museum District, Carver and the Fan? For example, at the Cleveland Station, there is currently an overnight bus company running to/from New York. Passengers currently park in the residential area and leave cars for extended periods of time.
DPW/Parking Unit will be working with various community associations to create Residential Parking Districts where needed or other alternatives to restrict parking.

8.         How will events, like Broad Appetit, continue to function? Will BRT be rerouted like regular buses are currently?
The application process is as follows. The decision to grant access to any event causing a road closure (on which local fixed route or GRTC Pulse service will operate) is up to the City of Richmond’s Special Events procedures. That includes involvement from the Richmond Police Department, The CAO Office, the Director of City Parks & Rec, Chief of Fire, and Chief of Police. GRTC Pulse will be capable of moving lots of people quickly, conveniently and in a multi-modal-friendly capacity to and from special events. For example, some cities with a form of rapid transit (rail or bus) choose to run service up to a point to get people to the event area, then temporarily suspend service if there is a road closure (like for a Christmas Parade), and then resume service at the conclusion of the event to mobilize people afterward. Regardless, as explained, any road closure request is subject to the City of Richmond’s Special Events procedures.

Financial

1.         Of the estimated $54 million cost of the project, how much will be used to build the median dedicated lanes for the BRT buses? How much will be used for the stations?
(Please see Design section, question #6 above) The cost of the final design and construction is $49.8 Million. Preliminary engineering was $4 Million. You add those two up to get the total project cost of $53.8 Million. The cost of the stations listed on this chart is $3.4 Million for Median-Running Stations, the cost of the Median Guide Way is $1.6 Million.

   2.                     The GRTC’s own report estimates that the BRT will attract thirty new daily riders. At this rate of ridership, how much additional revenue will the BRT require per year to break even? How much of the projected shortfall will be billed to Richmond taxpayers?

On page 3-8 (page 73) of the Environmental Assessment the following information is provided for ridership as the baseline.

            EA 3.3.1 Transit Service and Ridership

            EA 3.3.1.1 Ridership and Trips

Because the regional travel demand model is inadequate to develop long range forecasts of transit ridership, the forecasting for the Broad Street Rapid Transit Study is limited to the 2015 results provided by the data-driven model developed for this project. Ridership growth from 2015 to 2035 is expected to grow in tandem with the surrounding land use and mode split is expected to increase as transit oriented redevelopment occurs in the station areas. Table 3-4 shows the passenger boarding results from the 2009 on-board survey as well as the forecasted weekday passenger boarding estimates for the 2015 No-Build and Build Alternatives, grouped by the type of GRTC route. Given that the modeling tool available for this analysis is based primarily on existing travel patterns and transit usage, the results with respect to new transit riders are conservatively low.

EA No-Build Alternative

According to the results from the on-board survey, there were approximately 27,000 weekday passenger boardings of GRTC local and express routes (VCU routes excluded). Forecasts project that overall passenger boardings will increase to just over 30,000 under the No-Build. Route 6, which operates most

closely to the proposed BRT alignment, had 3,600 passenger boardings in 2008. The 2015 ridership

forecast predicts that daily boardings would decrease to 3,000 on Route 6 under the No-Build Alternative.

When the TIGER application was completed and submitted to the FTA, the ridership was refined by adding this language:

TIGER: Energy Efficiency Improvements & Reductions in Oil Dependence and Emissions.

The Broad Street BRT reduces travel times for transit service in the corridor. As previously identified, the Broad Street BRT will provide a reduction in the travel time of 14 minutes compared to existing conditions in both the peak and reverse peak directions. The combination of automobile competitive travel times, high frequencies and span of service provided under BRT will be particularly supportive of more transit-oriented development by providing a transit service that allows residents and workers in the corridor to access transit without regard to a specific timetable thereby encouraging a much less auto-centric development pattern. Therefore, the BRT will attract riders who would otherwise use personal vehicles for commuting or other trips.

These riders will benefit from savings in vehicle maintenance, fuel, and vehicle wear and tear. Based on conservative ridership modeling (SEE APPENDIX B), the BRT will likely attract 490 “choice riders”, resulting in 581,000 fewer vehicle miles traveled per year as the baseline.

            This is how the estimated ridership number was arrived at of 500 new daily riders (people who don’t currently use the system) with 3000 daily riders (people who currently use the system), and a sum of 3500 daily riders in the first year of service.

            Farebox recovery is about 20 cents on every $1. This is why public transportation is subsidized.

3.         It is understood that the budget for the BRT construction is already set.  Who will be responsible for any cost overruns?
The Project is not projected to go over the existing budget, and the Project Partners are committed to working within that budget accordingly. However, the Project Partners Agreement will specify and establish the roles, duties, responsibilities and rights of each party during the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the service. In the event there are changes to the project (like betterments beyond the scope of the project or existing budget) the Project Partners will identify and locate available funding necessary to meet those needs, if they are agreed upon and exceed the existing budget.

4.         Has the construction manager at risk (CMAR) been selected? How many companies bid for the project?
GRTC decided to pursue a Construction Manager option. An RFP for a CMAR was pursued first, but during that procurement process, GRTC decided to pursue a CM instead, and thus ended the CMAR procurement route. A CM is a more traditional method. Please contact the Director of Procurement at GRTC for further information regarding the procurement process: Tonya Thompson at 804-358-3871, Ext. 372.

5.         What firms have already been or are scheduled to be paid for work on the BRT?
For the preliminary design phase, there is Kimley-Horn (the Prime consultant), Wendel, RK&K, Accumark, Quantum, LTK, PMI, and Value Based Design. Additionally, Nelson-Nygaard is performing the Technical Assistance (Companion Route Analysis Study), and Dovetail.

6.         Most of the discussion about BRT has centered on the initial capital contribution cost to the City of approximately $8 million. However, the City now contributes about $12 million annually to the GRTC system. It could be expected that the BRT system may exacerbate operating deficits, increasing annual costs.  An independent fiscal analysis should be developed so that City Council and the public can understand whether substantial annual additional subsidies will be required for this endeavor. To the extent that there is a likelihood of additional taxpayer general fund support, City Council should consider negotiating a multi-year "hold harmless" agreement with the Commonwealth to avoid further City taxpayer risk and exposure.
The Companion Route Analysis will inform the operating cost. The funding structure will be the same as it is today. City money pays for City service. County money pays for County service.
The Project Partners Agreement will specify and establish the roles, duties, responsibilities and rights of each party during the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the service.

Economic Development

1.         A central premise to BRT's benefit is substantial economic development, which is presented in conclusory fashion. Claims of greatly expanded retail and office development are not supported by analyses or support from the City Administration, as far as the public has been made aware.  City Council should require as a condition to moving the proposal forward, an identification of these opportunity sites, since it would appear that the route is in an already developed environment.
The City’s Department of Planning & Development Review, along with the Department of Rail and Public Transportation, have entered into a contract with the Richmond Regional Planning District Commission (RRPDC) to prepare a Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) plan for the BRT Corridor. Included in that study and plan will be potential opportunity sites, proposed rezonings to accommodate additional growth in the vicinity of the fourteen (14) stations (1/4-mile and 1/2-mile radii), design guidelines, and other elements to spur this growth. That study is to be completed by July 2016. While some portions of the Corridor are developed, there are also significant opportunities to create additional economic and neighborhood development opportunities.

2.         To the extent that the BRT promises jobs availability principally at Willow Lawn, the public has not been presented with data that jobs are available at that location.  If Willow Lawn is not in a jobs-deficit position, then the BRT access to potential employees (who already have service to this location) seems thin.
Henrico County has not evaluated the status of a jobs deficit at Willow Lawn. However, the BRT stop at Willow Lawn provides a connection to a number of GRTC’s local routes that serve a much broader area of Henrico County, including several major commercial corridors (portions of W. Broad Street, Staples Mill Road, Parham Road, and Laburnum Avenue).
The biggest employers along the corridor are VCU, The Commonwealth of Virginia, and Anthem. There are other employers along the corridor, including the new Stone Brewing Company site in the East End, as well as the revival of the Willow Lawn Area.

3.         Whether at Willow Lawn, Rocketts Landing (another "jobs" location without study or justification), or along the way, the idea of BRT would require substantial parking requirements, both as ridership collectors and for the speculated new developments.  Substantial planning and modeling has either not been done, or has not been disclosed to the public.
For those areas in the city of Richmond, the TOD study and plan mentioned in question #1 of Economic Development, will certainly look at parking as it relates to new development within the ¼-mile and ½-mile radii of the stations. As to any new development that occurs on privately-held land, the City expects that parking will be accommodated on the property. Of course, the City believes that access to the BRT and the development that surrounds will make it possible for more of the employees of any development (new or existing) along the Corridor to use the BRT and to reduce the need for parking.
Henrico County has been working with GRTC, the State, and City staff to identify a potential park-and-ride location for the BRT service in the Willow Lawn area.

In Summary

1.         The sense overall is that there is substantial - even enthusiastic - support for mass transit in the City.  However, there is discontent over the continued operation of the legacy route structure that excludes major markets (choice, students, tourists, business outside of commuter).  To the extent that BRT is superimposed on a discontented structure, it is difficult to embrace this proposal as beneficial.

2.         As with any public spending, the public should clearly understand the costs and the benefits.  The current state of affairs, described in summary and throughout our questioning, falls short.

3.         There is substantial concern about impacts, and a prevailing opinion that promises of future ameliorations or intentions, while perhaps sincere, are not substantial and committed.

4.         It is a matter of concern to many of us that when substantive issues are raised, key supporters cannot answer specific questions (most probably due to the lack of adequate due diligence as described above) in favor of a general statement that "we have to do something."

5.         To the extent that the City's policy is to favor development "by design and not default," the design and careful process for this project appears to be broadly weak and lacking, with crucial City departments mainly in a responsive and secondary role.  The citizens are in even a less important position. The process, therefore, has been and is woefully inadequate.

6.         We look forward to hearing GRTC’s response to our comments and questions, and to City Council’s continued oversight of this significant public transportation infrastructure proposal.

Here ends the document. But not the end of the engagement! During this next phase of public outreach, the team will broaden their reach beyond the corridor line, meeting with organizations, businesses, neighborhood associations and community centers across the Greater Richmond Area. If you would like to meet with the team, please email your request to brt@ridegrtc.com, including the requested date, time, duration, location, and any other specific request. The team will provide informational folders, update the status of the project, answer questions and receive feedback.