Welcome to What's Next, Richmond? (WNR), a newsletter that highlights upcoming improvements to the transportation system in Richmond, Virginia. This week we dive into the Fall Line Trail
First, the genesis of this project grew out of the Ahland Trolley Line Trail concept that had been slowly gaining traction over more than a decade, having been conceived and pushed by stakeholders exclusive of those now getting credit for the FLT (consisting of the northern half of the route). That is rarely acknowledged. Second, there was never consensus over the routing and it has been a political football since the beginning and was rushed through via the initial VDOT concept plan (when it was known as the Ashland to Petersburg Trail). It changed through Richmond even more as politicians, various city staff, and advocates pushed for their respective desired route, often without consideration for feasibility. Those were some of the least transparent diversions from the original route. The counties also impacted the alignment since they drove considerations as to where they wanted their alignments, thus that drove to a great extent where it entered the city both at the north and the south.
And as an aside, public input is good, but two considerations are warranted; first, the original alignment involved very little public engagement, especially at the more micro level where significant impacts would be seen (e.g. the initial plans to remove all of the mature trees on one side of Hermitage Ave), and secondly complex decisions in a fluid environment over several years are not something you leave to public opinion, especially since such engagement typically involves a very small percentage of the community. Consideration yes, but Richmond loves to bend to the voices of a few vocal people.
As for the City not keeping up with the counties; a little critical thinking is warranted. All but a few short segments of the Hanover and Henrico alignment follow the old trolley line which is now a Dominion power line. Chesterfield County likewise has the luxury of an alignment that is largely outside of roadway right of way, and where it does parallel roads, it is mostly along undeveloped roads with lots of space to work with. Compare that to the fact that the City's alignment must follow road right of way the entire length with the exception of the short section where it enters at Bryan Park (a little over half a mile). That means finding nearly 12 miles of streets that can accommodate threading a continuous route through the entire city, through historic neighborhoods, through the central business district, and over an existing river crossing, while also being fluid in the planning to maximize the benefit of the FLT by aligning it with cornerstone redevelopment efforts in multiple parts of the city. Never mind that any change to any street engenders pushback from people that feel like they own the street they live on. And lastly consider that Richmond is the only locality whose alignment will be able to serve as a viable transportation option as opposed to largely recreational in the counties.
Don't mistake this as an overt defense of the city. Richmond could screw up a two-car funeral procession and constantly under-delivers on projects and promises. But if we are talking about transparency, then these details need to be acknowledged as opposed to the constant refrain of the City falling behind the counties on this project.
Interesting post. In my view, the city has a slower pace for Fall Line construction because the situation there is much more complicated. A large portion of the Fall Line sections in Henrico and Chesterfield are on former rail lines. A dedicated right of way, without competing interests for that space, greatly simplifies the project development process as there are almost zero trade offs. Since these sections are simpler, they can move quicker and VDOT chose to prioritize them.
A second complication for the city is that the original Fall Line environmental work chose to use a shared use path for the entire length, including the city. A shared use path is appropriate for rural, suburban, and park like settings but not dense urban street settings. You will not find shared use paths parallel to urban streets in Europe or New York City as high volumes of bicycles and pedestrians need to be separated.
Because of the shared use path only mentality there are numerous portions in the city that need further study. The shared use path on Brookland Parkway as originally designed would have taken right of way from people’s front yards via eminent domain and caused the removal of hundreds of mature street trees all while an 8 foot buffered bike lane and set back sidewalk already exist. One could argue a raised bike lane in the existing footprint would accomplish the same goal without removing trees or taking right of way. In order to not take right of way or remove street trees on Hermitage an entire travel lane would need to be removed. While that may be worth it, it is a trade off and requires a lot of study.
A similar situation, further south on Route 1 is even more constrained. The original study proposed turning the 11’ 6” foot sidewalk right of way into a shared use path which is far too narrow to meet standards and conflicts with the existing bus shelters there. It’s slow because it’s complicated and there are a lot more trade offs.
A few significant details are in order here.
First, the genesis of this project grew out of the Ahland Trolley Line Trail concept that had been slowly gaining traction over more than a decade, having been conceived and pushed by stakeholders exclusive of those now getting credit for the FLT (consisting of the northern half of the route). That is rarely acknowledged. Second, there was never consensus over the routing and it has been a political football since the beginning and was rushed through via the initial VDOT concept plan (when it was known as the Ashland to Petersburg Trail). It changed through Richmond even more as politicians, various city staff, and advocates pushed for their respective desired route, often without consideration for feasibility. Those were some of the least transparent diversions from the original route. The counties also impacted the alignment since they drove considerations as to where they wanted their alignments, thus that drove to a great extent where it entered the city both at the north and the south.
And as an aside, public input is good, but two considerations are warranted; first, the original alignment involved very little public engagement, especially at the more micro level where significant impacts would be seen (e.g. the initial plans to remove all of the mature trees on one side of Hermitage Ave), and secondly complex decisions in a fluid environment over several years are not something you leave to public opinion, especially since such engagement typically involves a very small percentage of the community. Consideration yes, but Richmond loves to bend to the voices of a few vocal people.
As for the City not keeping up with the counties; a little critical thinking is warranted. All but a few short segments of the Hanover and Henrico alignment follow the old trolley line which is now a Dominion power line. Chesterfield County likewise has the luxury of an alignment that is largely outside of roadway right of way, and where it does parallel roads, it is mostly along undeveloped roads with lots of space to work with. Compare that to the fact that the City's alignment must follow road right of way the entire length with the exception of the short section where it enters at Bryan Park (a little over half a mile). That means finding nearly 12 miles of streets that can accommodate threading a continuous route through the entire city, through historic neighborhoods, through the central business district, and over an existing river crossing, while also being fluid in the planning to maximize the benefit of the FLT by aligning it with cornerstone redevelopment efforts in multiple parts of the city. Never mind that any change to any street engenders pushback from people that feel like they own the street they live on. And lastly consider that Richmond is the only locality whose alignment will be able to serve as a viable transportation option as opposed to largely recreational in the counties.
Don't mistake this as an overt defense of the city. Richmond could screw up a two-car funeral procession and constantly under-delivers on projects and promises. But if we are talking about transparency, then these details need to be acknowledged as opposed to the constant refrain of the City falling behind the counties on this project.
Interesting post. In my view, the city has a slower pace for Fall Line construction because the situation there is much more complicated. A large portion of the Fall Line sections in Henrico and Chesterfield are on former rail lines. A dedicated right of way, without competing interests for that space, greatly simplifies the project development process as there are almost zero trade offs. Since these sections are simpler, they can move quicker and VDOT chose to prioritize them.
A second complication for the city is that the original Fall Line environmental work chose to use a shared use path for the entire length, including the city. A shared use path is appropriate for rural, suburban, and park like settings but not dense urban street settings. You will not find shared use paths parallel to urban streets in Europe or New York City as high volumes of bicycles and pedestrians need to be separated.
Because of the shared use path only mentality there are numerous portions in the city that need further study. The shared use path on Brookland Parkway as originally designed would have taken right of way from people’s front yards via eminent domain and caused the removal of hundreds of mature street trees all while an 8 foot buffered bike lane and set back sidewalk already exist. One could argue a raised bike lane in the existing footprint would accomplish the same goal without removing trees or taking right of way. In order to not take right of way or remove street trees on Hermitage an entire travel lane would need to be removed. While that may be worth it, it is a trade off and requires a lot of study.
A similar situation, further south on Route 1 is even more constrained. The original study proposed turning the 11’ 6” foot sidewalk right of way into a shared use path which is far too narrow to meet standards and conflicts with the existing bus shelters there. It’s slow because it’s complicated and there are a lot more trade offs.