The county board for Arlington County, Virginia, has voted four-to-one to cancel all planning for a proposed $358 million, 7.7-mile streetcar line along Columbia Pike. This should also effectively shut down planning for a Crystal City streetcar that was projected to cost $227 million.
The decision came on the heels of board member John Vilstadt’s re-election with 56 percent of the vote. Despite being an incumbent, Vilstadt was running at a disadvantage as an independent in a strongly Democratic district. Streetcar supported had hoped that Vilstadt’s election in a special vote last spring was “a fluke.” Yet, by making the streetcar the centerpiece of his campaign, he was able to prevail against a strong Democratic challenger.
Local political experts predicted predicted that Vilstadt’s decisive victory would kill the momentum behind the streetcar. “There is no way” that board members who are up for re-election next year can win “if they’re running as pro-streetcar candidates,” said Ben Tribbett. Tribbett’s prediction has come true. At least three of the other Arlington board members could read the election returns and agreed with the board chair that “the only way to move forward together … is to discontinue the streetcar project.”
Her professional knowledge and expertise, combined with her personal passion vardenafil cost to help others, gives her the ability to walk. This best price on levitra oil is amazingly beneficial in treating different types of sex related issues. Just consult your doctor once and make use of different solutions to cater for their anti-ED needs. slovak-republic.org buy cialis without prescription By using internet facility, you can easily order for medications from anywhere whether you are in your office or at your home. viagra pills from india http://www.slovak-republic.org/video/ Congratulations to Vilstadt and Arlingtonians for Sensible Transit for helping Arlington County reach a sensible decision and for not giving up in the fact of well-funded support for the streetcar boondoggle.
As Arlington officials begin looking at alternatives, I suggest they look at the buses in Boulder, Colorado with names like Hop, Skip, Jump, Leap, and Bound. These tend to be small (26- to 36-seat) buses, each painted in a distinct style, most of which run every six to ten minutes during rush hour and every 15 minutes during non-rush hours.
In a corridor where planners were looking super-low-capacity streetcars, such small buses make a lot of sense. Smaller buses cost less to operate than full-sized buses (and well under half as much to operate as streetcars), and because the buses are nimble they will make less of a contribution to traffic congestion than either streetcars or full-sized buses.
msetty, gilfoil, the other transit boondoggles at any cost shills, go cry in your cornflakes, OK? About the only time transit boondoggles win is when the supporters (sic) unleash a tsunami of lies to pump up the worthless choo choo’s to a credulous public. Thankfully, voters are starting to wake up, if slowly, to these make work for corporate contractors charades.
“Smaller buses cost less to operate than full-sized buses (and well under half as much to operate as streetcars), and because the buses are nimble they will make less of a contribution to traffic congestion than either streetcars or full-sized buses.”
These buses are called ‘midi buses’ in the UK. They are lighter than traditional buses, cost less to buy and less fuel to operate, but don’t last as long. Therefore, private operators tend to run 50 seat buses. I am not sure why these buses cause less congestion because they are smaller. Perhaps Antiplanner could explain his observation.
FrancisKing—I believe the Antiplanner already answered your question when he said, “because the buses are nimble they will make less of a contribution to traffic congestion than either streetcars or full-sized buses.” They aren’t as cumbersome and can maneuver in the traffic flow without being as much of an obstruction as larger buses.
To cost savings of operating smaller buses and the impact of small buses opposed to larger buses on traffic congestion are marginal. The cost savings of operating buses of any size opposed to trains is another story.
“FrancisKing—I believe the Antiplanner already answered your question when he said,”because the buses are nimble they will make less of a contribution to traffic congestion than either streetcars or full-sized buses.”
How are they ‘more nimble’? Unless buses in the USA have much smaller and less powerful engines than in the UK. Antiplanner has not convinced me yet.
Buses primarily cause additional congestion over and above that of a car because they are parked up at bus stops, blocking the traffic lane. As examples, electronic ticketing and pre-pay ticketing are good ways of helping with this. I would also like to see people consider how to get buses out of bus laybys in a timely manner. Bus gates, perhaps?
@bennet:
Light rail is an expensive proposition. But I’d like to take time out to ask some pointed questions about light rail. For example – why is it so expensive? You have to pay for overhead wiring, substations, and such. Can we reduce costs by using hybrid drive or supercapacitors? Hybrid drive isn’t as clean on-street as an overhead supply, but when most vehicles use petrol or diesel anyway, how much benefit are we providing? The track is also expensive, but there are ways of making it cheaper. For example, the most successful light rail system in the UK is in Croydon, London, where about half of the route is an old railway line. In Karlsruhe, Germany, they use operational track, mixing the light rail in with heavy rail. Also, it is conventional practice to move all services out of the line of the track, which is expensive, and necessary in case the service need to be dug up. But actually, I wonder how often services are dug up, and how much they would be dug up if there was a charge for the time that the track was lifted.
Maintenance can be quite expensive, particularly switches which are overrun by heavy road traffic. Can we restrict road vehicle types in order to reduce maintenance costs?
There are also areas where light rail is overwhelmingly the best choice. At the moment, pedestrianised areas are limited in scope to how far people can walk from their cars. In the UK, one pedestrianised area was expanded too far, and it killed the retail area. Light rail would be good for extensive pedestrianised areas, where the distance is still quite short, and so the track cost is quite low, as a way of making the pedestrianised area larger.
FrancisKing the best way to cut the time buses waste trying to pull back into a traffic lane is to have them stay in the lane. Build a sidewalk extension so the bus doesn’t have to pull over. If it’s a low use route it won’t matter much, since buses won’t come often or need much time for everyone to get on and off. If it’s a high use bus route then slowing the buses down means slowing down a lot of people.
Offboard fare payment, all door boarding, level boarding – especially to cut the wheelchair penalty, wider stop spacing, transit signal priority, transit lanes and better frequency are all better ways to improve service for riders than expensive light rail systems. Light rail is used for placemaing in the US more often than transportation. Some trees and public art would be a better investmet there.
I keep asking the same question here and never getting an answer.
Why do municipalities have a transit monopoly? Especially for bus service.
Ah well, despite Frank thinking I’m a technophobe, I look forward to an uber-like application crushing the municipal bus monopolies, seeing them driven before it and hearing the lamentations of their women.
Fred_z, the answer is because our betters in government have decided that is the way it should be. No other reason for it.
IMO, Columbia Pike is a great transit bus corridor. And during peak commute periods, it is possible to take a bus that runs between this corridor (mostly in Arlington County, Va., some in Fairfax County, Va.) not just to the Pentagon and Pentagon City (which was the intended destination of the streetcar), but also to destinations on the other side of the Potomac River in the District of Columbia, Farragut Square and Federal Triangle. Some buses run limited stop or express.
A streetcar would not provide that sort of flexibility, unless a four-track line were built (that would effectively fill Columbia Pike with streetcar tracks).
Never understand what streetcars would be able to do better than bus service.
Never understand what streetcars would be able to do better than bus service.
Again, it’s not about improving transit service. This is a real estate development scheme. And the goal is to get as much of it paid for by non-beneficiaries or non-local taxpayers as possible.
“Again, it’s not about improving transit service. This is a real estate development scheme.”
Bingo!
“I look forward to an uber-like application crushing the municipal bus monopolies…”
Interesting idea. It may not be far away.