An Alternative Transit Plan for Shockoe Bottom Redevelopment

AN ALTERNATIVE TRANSIT PLAN FOR SHOCKOE BOTTOM REDEVELOPMENT

Geoff Urda Master Of Urban and Regional Planning Program L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs Virginia Commonwealth University Spring 2014. Prepared for GRTC Transit System and the City of Richmond.

2 3 An Alternative Transit Plan for Shockoe Bottom Redevelopment

Prepared For:

GRTC Transit System

City of Richmond

Prepared By: Geoff Urda Master of Urban and Regional Planning Program L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs Virginia Commonwealth University Spring 2014

Studio Panel Xueming (Jimmy) Chen, Ph. D., VCU James Smither, AICP, VCU Katie Schwing, GRTC Transit Company Mark Olinger, City of Richmond, Department of Planning and Development Review

No part of this publication may be reproduced or used in any form or means-graphic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping or information storage and retrieval systems-without written permission of Virginia Commonwealth University.

4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This plan would not have been possible without the assistance of many individuals from Virginia Commonwealth University, GRTC Transit System, the Michael Baker Corporation and the City of Richmond. In addition, none of the analysis in this plan would have been possible without the cooperation of transit agencies across the nation, which were extremely gracious in sharing their ridership data with me.

I would like to thank, in particular, my panel members, Xueming (Jimmy) Chen, James Smither, Katie Schwing, and Mark Olinger, all of whom have been very generous with their time. I would also like to thank Lorna Parkins and Scudder Wagg at the Michael Baker Corporation for helping me to get this project started. An extra round of thanks goes out to all of the individuals that I have been in contact with at all of transit agencies in cities this plan examines, without the help of whom no analysis would have been possible.

Lastly, I would like to thank my family, friends and classmates, many of whom I now count as close friends, for all of their support over the last two years.

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary 9

Introduction Introduction 11 Client 12 Plan Purpose 15 The State of the Art 16 Approach and Methods 18 Roadmap to the Document 20

Part I: Research and Analysis Flying Squirrels Attendance 23 Precedent Examples 25 Toledo, Ohio 27 Buffalo, New York 31 Cleveland, Ohio 34 Phoenix, Arizona 38 Washington, DC 41 Modal Split Projection 46 Bus Rapid Transit 49 Base Line vs. Alternative 51 Revenues 52

Part II: Recommendations Goal 1 55 Goal 2 58 Goal 3 59 Recommendations 62 Conclusion 73

Sources 76 6 FIGURES

Figure 1: BRT Map 13 Figure 21: Plan View 55 Figure 2: Revitalize RVA Plan 14 Figure 22: Valley Metro Interior 56 Figure 3: Downtown Toledo 27 Figure 23: HealthLine Interior 56 Figure 4: Fifth Third Field 29 Figure 24: BRT Stops and Stadium 59 Figure 5: Street Level View 29 Figure 25: Wayfinding in DC 60 Figure 6: Coca-Cola Field 31 Figure 26: Wayfinding in Shockoe 60 Figure 7: Seneca Station 32 Figure 27: BRT Stop Locations 62 Figure 8: NFTA Vehicle Interior 32 Figure 28: Farmers Market Existing Cond. 63 Figure 9: Progressive Field 34 Figure 29: Cathedral Walk 63 Figure 10: East 9th Street HealthLine Stop 35 Figure 30: GRTC Kiosk 64 Figure 11: Entrance Plaza 37 Figure 31: Organizing Element 65 Figure 12: Chase Field 38 Figure 32: Staging Area Connection 66 Figure 13: Jefferson Street Station 40 Figure 33: Great Ship Lock Park 66 Figure 14: Nationals Park 41 Figure 34: No-Passenger Train 67 Figure 15: Half Street 43 Figure 35: BRT-Only Lane 68 Figure 16: Half Street Pre-Game 44 Figure 36: Possible Choke Point 68 Figure 17: Navy Yard Metro Queue 44 Figure 37: Concern and Alternate Routes 69 Figure 18: Half Street Rendering 45 Figure 38: Broad and 14th 70 Figure 19: Farmers Market 45 Figure 39: Broad Street Overpass 72 Figure 20: Census Tract 205 50 Figure 40: Pedestrian Safety 72

7 TABLES

Table 1: 2013 Richmond Flying Squirrels Attendance By Day of Week 23 Table 2: Modal Splits and Other Information for Selected Downtown Ballparks Serviced By Transit 26 Table 3: Muddy Shuttle Ridership by Day Type 30 Table 4: Mud Hens Attendance by Day Type 30 Table 5: Percent Share of Modal Split by Day Type 30 Table 6: Average HealthLine Boardings (May-August 2013) On Indians Home Dates vs. Non-Home Dates 36 Table 7: Average Indians Attendance (May-August 2013) 36 Table 8: HealthLine Estimated Modal Split 36 Table 9: Nationals Attendance Sorted By Day Type 42 Table 10: Metrorail Post-Game Entries by Day Type 42 Table 11: Metrorail Modal Split Estimate 42 Table 12: Shockoe Bottom Stadium Modal Split and Ridership Projections 46 Table 13: Density By County 47 Table 14: Percentage of Employees Taking Public Transportation To Work 48 Implementation Table 74

8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This document was produced for the GRTC Transit System and the City plan and a BRT line, it is possible right now to link these two planning of Richmond as a transit plan to accommodate potential demand creat- processes together and have them implemented in concert when they ed by proposed redevelopment in Shockoe Bottom. It also fulfills the reach that phase, and that is what this plan seeks to do. Professional Plan requirement in the Master of Urban and Regional Planning program at Virginia Commonwealth University. BRT should be preferable to driving as a mode of traveling to and from baseball games, but to be the preferred mode, it must be a superior GRTC Transit System, which is preparing to begin running Bus Rapid experience for the passenger. This plan attempts to, by examining prec- Transit (BRT) in the coming years, requested a plan to anticipate, pro- edent examples, anticipate the level of demand on game days and project and prepare for increased ridership demand on its BRT line that ject a modal split. This plan also makes recommendations regarding would be generated by potential implementation of the Revitalize RVA where to locate both eastbound and westbound BRT stops in order to plan. Introduced to the public by Mayor Dwight Jones on November 11, handle this volume of ridership as efficiently as possible, and how to 2013, the centerpiece of the Revitalize RVA plan is a new minor league orient the stops so to fit into the neighborhood. baseball Stadium in Shockoe Bottom for the Richmond Flying Squirrels. Analysis of five cities with downtown ballparks served by transit reveals Other aspects of proposed redevelopment include a hotel, grocery a wide range of modal splits, with transit capturing as little as 1 percent store, apartments and a slave heritage trail. Independent of the Revi- of the mode share in one example, and as much as 30 percent in an- talize RVA plan, discussions are also underway to convert the 17th other. The cities examined (Toledo, Buffalo, Cleveland, Phoenix and Street Farmers Market into a European-style, pedestrian-oriented pub- Washington, DC) vary in population size and density, include four lic square. different types of transit systems with varying levels of penetration into the surrounding suburbs, and include both major and minor league baseball teams. The purpose of this plan is to seize the opportunity to use BRT as a choice transit mode for travel to and from a redeveloped Shockoe Bottom and to reimagine the area, with all its proposed attractions, es- Data acquired from these case studies inform a modal split projection pecially the stadium, as a transit-oriented destination. Since implemen- for the proposed Shockoe Bottom stadium, an anticipated mode share tation is still a year or more into the future for both the Revitalize RVA of 6-10 percent for BRT and the physical stops/stations themselves

9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

offer valuable siting and design lessons for the recommendations contained in this plan. Many of recommendations this plan makes seek to create a transit alternative that would not only alleviate current concerns about traffic and parking associated with the proposed Shockoe Bottom stadium, but would also produce an outcome where riding BRT to the stadium is a more attractive option than driving. Other recommendations focus on the BRT stop’s role in reimagining Shockoe Bottom as a transit-oriented destination; a place with a variety of attractions that will draw people from all over Richmond and how to feature BRT as a prominent part of that place.

10 INTRODUCTION

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and building a replacement stadium for The Diamond are both on the City of Richmond’s radar as near- future projects. While seemingly independent of one another, the two projects provide a unique opportunity if recognized early enough in the planning process for both. Last fall, Mayor Dwight C. Jones identified Shockoe Bottom as a potential site for a new baseball stadium. Unlike the current location of The Diamond, a stadium in Shockoe Bottom would give Richmond a neighborhood ballpark.

This is where opportunity in relation to Bus Rapid Transit emerges. Some of the most famous neighborhood ballparks in the country, including Fenway Park in Boston and Wrigley Field in Chicago, are served by transit and public transportation as prime methods of travelling to games. Furthermore, the Revital- ize RVA plan identifies a new baseball stadium as part of a larger downtown redevelopment project. BRT can plan an integral part in that process and, with concurrent timing of the BRT and stadium projects, a future scenario that has Richmond baseball fans riding Bus Rapid Transit to games is possible.

11 CLIENT

This Alternative Transit Plan for Shockoe Bottom Redevelopment (DRPT), has been conducting a Bus Rapid Transit study, including was requested by the GRTC Transit System (GRTC) and it also fulfills public meetings to evaluate the potential for BRT in Richmond. The the requirements of the Master of Urban and Regional Planning current proposed route would run from Willow Lawn to Rocketts program in the L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Landing and would include a stop at Main Street Station in Shockoe Affairs at Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU). Bottom, an area under consideration for significant redevelopment.

GRTC is the primary provider of public transit in the Greater Rich- The City of Richmond Department of Planning and Development mond region and jointly owned by the City of Richmond and Ches- Review is a secondary client of this plan. Much of the land studied terfield County. While best known for its local bus service, GRTC within this plan is city-owned; implementation of many recommen- also provides express and commuter bus services, van service, dations contained in this plan would require cooperation between vanpool and carpool organization services, as well as services for GRTC and the City. disabled passengers, such as Community Assisted Ride Enterprise (CARE). GRTC describes its mission statement as “to provide clean, safe and reliable transportation and to improve mobility and access throughout Central Virginia” (GRTC Transit System 2013). A core value of GRTC is having responsiveness to the needs of the communities it serves.

GRTC, founded in 1860, considers itself to have a progressive history and prides itself on a progressive attitude. Part of this progressive mindset is manifested in RideFinders, a division of GRTC acting as a non-profit agency with a defined goal of “working to decrease the number of single-occupancy vehicles in the Central Virginia Re- gion” (GRTC Transit System 2013). Since 2010, GRTC, in partnership with the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation

12 PLAN PURPOSE FIGURE 1: BRT MAP GRTC requested this transit plan to prepare for an increased demand resulting from potential implementation of the Revitalize RVA plan, introduced to the public by Richmond Mayor Dwight Jones on November 11, 2013. The Revitalize RVA plan proposes a new minor league baseball stadium, a Hyatt hotel, a Kroger grocery store and two mid-rise apartment buildings, all on currently underutilized land in Shockoe Bottom.

GRTC requested this plan specifically because of the anticipated demand for travel to and from Shockoe Bottom, generated by the proposed redevelopment, and the prospective for the Main Street Station BRT stop to become a significantly high-volume transit station. BRT has the potential to contribute quality to the proposed redevelopment by providing an alternative to the automobile as a means of access; this is in line with GRTC’s progressive character and directly sup- ports the mission of the company’s RideFinders divi- (Image Source: GRTC Transit System) sion. Above: The proposed stadium site is indicated by the green square. The proposed BRT route, which includes a stop at Main Street Station, passes in immediate proximity to the proposed stadium site. For GRTC, the need for this plan is inherent in its mission statement and one of its core values regarding responsiveness to needs within the communities it serves. If the Revitalize RVA plan is implemented and

13 PLAN PURPOSE FIGURE 2: REVITALIZE RVA PLAN all proposed redevelopment is constructed, it will require modes of access other than the automobile.

The core purpose of this plan is to seize an opportunity to use BRT as a choice transit mode to provide access to and from all proposed redevelopment in Shockoe Bottom, but specifically the proposed stadium, by antic- ipating the level of demand on event dates and planning a high-volume BRT stop to accommodate demand.

As indicated in the graphics on the following page, the proposed BRT route passes directly past the area in Shockoe Bottom targeted for redevelopment. Figure 1 shows the proposed BRT route with the stadium site indicated by the green square. Figure 2 illustrates the proposed locations of all facets of the redevelopment projects, as indicated in the Revitalize RVA plan. (Image Source: LovingRVA.com)

Above: The locations of all facets of the Revitalize RVA plan, including the grocery The concept of a Shockoe Bottom stadium is not a new store, hotel, and apartment buildings, are shown, as indicated in this image, pub- one. For nearly a decade, this idea has been in the published on the plan’s official Web site. lic consciousness in the Richmond region. The possibility has been discussed repeatedly with varying degrees of skepticism. Parking and traffic congestion have always been primary concerns when considering a Shock- oe Bottom stadium. The parking concern manifests it-

14 PLAN PURPOSE self not only in the lack of space for designated stadium parking, but and after events. It will require a site plan that goes beyond an average extends to surrounding businesses depending on what limited parking BRT stop somewhere else along the route. does exist in the neighborhood. While the Revitalize RVA plan attempts to address this with a parking garage, concerns over traffic congestion before and after stadium events remain. In the 2009 Richmond Downtown Plan, the Transportation Analysis section specifically refers to BRT as a first step to bring back streetcars, and explicitly states that “evidence of strong ridership levels will help Identifying marketing opportunities is important to GRTC, and this sce- Richmond compete for limited Federal streetcar funding” (City of Rich- nario offers the agency an opportunity to meet a community need and mond 2009) This plan also classifies part of Shockoe as Urban Center simultaneously seize a major marketing opportunity. BRT service to Area. The plan characterizes this as having higher density, mixed-use and from Shockoe Bottom creates an alternative mode of transporta- development, with wide sidewalks and minimal setbacks. A site plan tion to the stadium that has potential to be more attractive than driv- for the Shockoe Bottom BRT stop will help redevelopment adhere to ing. these design guidelines.

Many transit riders are so-called “captive riders.” They ride transit because it is their only option. By providing BRT service to baseball games and promoting that service as a preferable alternative to driving, GRTC can market its new product to “choice riders,” those that do not need to take transit, but choose to anyway. The key to successfully attracting choice riders is that the experience of taking transit to the stadium must be superior to the driving experience. Choice riders should prefer to ride BRT rather than driving.

To provide that superior experience, the stop at Main Street Station must be planned to handle high demand at peak travel times before

15 THE STATE OF THE ART

Completing a site plan for a transit stop near a major destination calls Arlington, Virginia, located in the Washington, DC metropolitan area, is for using principles of transit-oriented development (TOD). The stadium home to a well known TOD located along Metrorail’s Orange Line in the acts as a magnet, drawing riders from around the city on event days. Ballston-Rosslyn corridor. Planners look to this corridor as a benchmark The proposed hotel and apartments act as trip generators also. Princi- of TOD in America, with development focused nodes centering around ples of station area site planning in transit-oriented development guide five Metro stops. planners in making connections, maintaining movement and creating a place in the area for which they are planning. The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), which operates Metrorail, published its own Station Site and Access Planning Reconnecting America, a non-profit organization devoted to promoting Manual. This manual directly addresses TOD and contains guidelines best practices in transit-oriented development, released a series of and best practices for situating a station in a TOD and creating a place guidebooks on the topic, the first of which focused on station area around that station using the site planning process and design princi- planning and was released in 2008. In this publication, funded by the ples. These guidelines stem from the idea that “creating safe, enjoyable federal government to serve as a national TOD best practices clearing- and attractive pedestrian access to Metro stations is the highest priori- house, clear distinctions are made between the different kinds of trans- ty in planning TOD areas” (WMATA 2008). it-oriented places, including urban centers, suburban centers, etc. (Reconnecting America 2008) WMATA’s guidelines are too numerous to list pragmatically, however, some have particular relevance to a potential BRT stop in Shockoe One of these typologies is the Special Use/Employment District. These Bottom. These include: districts are often focused around a single use, such as a university or stadium. Camden Station in Baltimore is identified as a station serving a Special Use/Employment District. Other described traits of this type of  Create continuous pedestrian connections that discourage cir- district, such as land use consisting of “concentrations of commercial, cuitous pedestrian routes between the station entrance and employment and civic/cultural uses, potentially with some residen- other pedestrian destinations. tial,” (Reconnecting America 2008) apply very appropriately to Shockoe Bottom. The guidelines specifically identify BRT as an appropriate transit mode to serve this type of transit-oriented place.

16 THE STATE OF THE ART

 Transit stations should not interrupt pedestrian routes. Where redevelopment as a whole as it relates to the current status quo. For there are pedestrian routes on either side of the station, they the stadium specifically, it will be crucial to determine the special im- should continue through the TOD area allowing non-riders to pact of this trip generator. S. Corey Pitts examined the trip generation take the most direct route through the area. impacts of other proposed developments in the Richmond region in his plan, titled, “A Vision for Transit in Eastern Henrico: Transit Develop-  Utilize appropriately sized and designed public open space as an ment Plan” (Pitts 2008) organizing element to help define the station area within a larger center of activity or as a focal point for the community (WMATA 2008). Pitts examines the impacts of Rocketts Landing, Wilton on the James, Town of Tree Hill, The Shops at White Oak Village and White Oak Tech- nology Park as trip generators. For Rocketts, the plan quotes specific The site plan is not the only aspect of a plan for a BRT stop serving a projections for AM and PM peak travel times and their impacts on major destination such as a stadium. Calculating a projected modal Route 5 to conclude that if properly designed, the community could split is also essential in order to plan for the level of demand at such a support transit (Pitts 2008). stop.

Similarly, for this plan, to determine the special impact of the stadium The Seattle Arena Multimodal Transportation Access and Parking as a trip generator, it is necessary to compare the different projected Study, which examined the multimodal access and parking infrastruc- BRT ridership levels that would occur if the stadium were built as com- ture near a proposed arena site in Seattle, contains a completed modal pared to what they would be if the area remained as it is. split estimate. This estimate assumed base attendance levels, and then estimated a modal split based on percentage of attendees that would use each mode and used this number to project how many people would travel to any given event using each mode. This information is crucial to projecting potential ridership (City of Seattle 2012).

Another facet of this study is examining the stadium’s role as a trip generator and trip generation impact of the proposed Shockoe Bottom

17 APPROACH AND METHODS

To complete this plan and produce a modal split estimate, project rid- Washington, DC is one nearby example of a new stadium that was ership and create an appropriate site plan, it was necessary to answer planned to be a transit-oriented destination from the start. The Navy a number of questions. The answers to many of them lie in careful ex- Yard Metro station underwent extensive renovations to be ready for amination of precedent case studies in other cities and in conducting the opening of Nationals Park, one block away. The station had to be interviews to gather crucial data. overhauled and converted into a high-volume stop in order to accommodate event day demand. In this case, stadium construction and work on the station occurred simultaneously so the transit mode could Several smaller questions stem from one key question: How many peo- be ready for the first Opening Day in 2008. ple would use BRT to travel to an average baseball game? In order to project this, several other questions had to be answered first; beginning with how many people will attend an average game and what An example on a scale more similar to Richmond is Buffalo, New York, modal split can be expected? What are the differences between aver- a similarly sized city with a team in the same league played in by the age weeknight attendances as compared to weekends? It was also nec- Richmond Braves. Buffalo has a downtown stadium accessible from essary to ask where patrons are coming from. What percentage of the city’s light rail line. Like the proposed BRT route in Richmond, the attendees live in the city of Richmond versus the outlying counties? All light rail in Buffalo only consists of one route that runs in a relatively attendance data was information that needed to be obtained from straight line. The stadium is at the line’s southern terminus. personal interviews with Richmond Flying Squirrels management. All data built towards projecting a modal split. Three other case studies, Toledo, Cleveland and Phoenix, were also examined to create a thorough cross-section of examples. Having nu- Next, it was important to examine case studies in other cities with merous examples is necessary when analyzing modal splits to elimi- transit-oriented stadiums in downtown areas. This is important to both nate potential outliers when creating a methodology to project a mod- major facets of the plan. A major question to answer was what are the al split for the proposed Shockoe Bottom stadium. Contact was made modal splits in the cases studied and what factors cause the splits to with persons with knowledge of each situation. However, acquiring be what they are? In addition, what design elements worked in these extensive data was especially important in the Washington, DC case cases and which did not? study, given how the stadium was planned as a transit-oriented destination from the beginning.

18 APPROACH AND METHODS

Another significant question was how much of the BRT fleet would be necessary to accommodate pre-game and post-game travel and would it take away from other service? This could only be determined once potential ridership was projected, but also required information about the BRT fleet size and bus capacity. GRTC is outsourcing much of its BRT work to a third-party consultant. It was necessary to conduct meetings with that consultant and learn about its plans for BRT, such as vehicle size and normal operating schedules. This information helped to inform the potential for special event schedules.

Once all questions were answered, a modal split was estimated and potential ridership projected, a clearer picture of anticipated volume emerged. Only once all mathematical tasks were complete and all cases studies thoroughly evaluated did this plan move on to the station locating and design phase, where the majority of the recommendations take place.

A site plan for a Shockoe Bottom BRT stop must first and foremost be appropriate for the anticipated volume of ridership, but it must also focus on making connections to all parts of the proposed redevelopment, not only the stadium. It must respect the historic character of Shockoe Bottom and fit with both existing architecture and proposed redevelopment. The Richmond Downtown Plan will serve as a guideline to design in this part of the city.

19 ROADMAP TO THE DOCUMENT

Part I of this document presents all data and information needed to tion. This methodology will be heavily influenced by information ac- move forward with planning for a high-volume BRT stop to serve the quired in case studies within the preceding section. Once a modal split proposed Shockoe Bottom redevelopment. is projected, attendance data obtained from the Flying Squirrels will then be plugged in to that formula to project potential ridership levels. The first section presents attendance data acquired from the Flying Squirrels needed to answer the questions about potential ridership. The fourth section presents data acquired from Michael Baker Jr. Inc., This includes overall average attendance, the difference between a consultant handling the BRT study for GRTC. Data presented in this weeknight and weekend averages, the percentage of patrons that live section will include information regarding fleet size, vehicle capacity in the City of Richmond and other relevant data that emerges during and their projected ridership levels under ordinary circumstances. This, interviews. along with the projections from the fourth section, will be the primary source for a comparison between a base line scenario where no development occurs with Shockoe Bottom remaining the way it is, and a The second section presents the findings from each of the case studies scenario where all proposed development in the Revitalize RVA plan is examined in precedent cities. This section will not only provide infor- built. mation on modal splits in each city, but will examine successful and unsuccessful planning approaches in each site, with particular empha- sis on success or failure in making connections between transit stops Part II of this document utilizes all data acquired and analyzed in Part I and destinations. In each case, there will be an analysis of why taking to make informed recommendations for a BRT stop serving the pro- transit to the stadium is, or is not, a superior experience to driving. posed baseball stadium and other proposed redevelopment in Shock- Similarities and differences to Richmond’s situation will also be noted. oe Bottom. This part begins by using all the data examined above to The data obtained on modal splits in each case will inform and help project the anticipated passenger volume for this transit stop during determine the methodology to use in projecting a modal split for the peak pre-event and post-event travel periods. With this established, proposed Richmond stadium. the rest of Part II will focus on the site planning process.

The third section includes the methodology for projecting a modal split The final section delivers stop-siting and design recommendations for a to the proposed stadium in Shockoe Bottom if BRT were a transit op- high-volume BRT stop to serve the proposed baseball stadium and oth-

20 ROADMAP TO THE DOCUMENT er proposed redevelopment in Shockoe Bottom. There will be an em- phasis on pedestrian connections and using the best practices and guidelines detailed in the “State of the Art” and on delivering a passenger experience that is superior to driving and will attract choice riders to BRT as their preferred mode of travelling to these destinations.

The recommendations are immediately followed by a complete list of sources, published and unpublished. An appendix contains a series of maps and tables relating to the case studies examined.

PART I: RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS

22 FLYING SQUIRRELS ATTENDANCE

Recognizing attendance patterns for Richmond Flying Squirrels baseball ance data. For each day in Table 1, that number is identified as 60 per- games is a crucial to projecting ridership. It is important to have a clear cent of the median. picture of how many people attend, when they attend in large numbers and where they come from. A study of 2013 Flying Squirrels attendance, using the total number of attendees from every home game, re- Moving forward, it is also important to consider that the proposed sta- veals key patterns. dium’s capacity is 7,500, considerably smaller than The Diamond’s ca- TABLE 1 The Flying Squirrels draw more fans on weekends (Friday-Sunday) than weekdays (Monday-Thursday). Unsurprisingly, attendance is highest for Saturday games, with a mean of 8,249 attendees and a median of 8,407. However, Friday follows closely behind with a mean attendance of 7,954, and a median of 7,858. Sunday is a distance third, with attendance levels that trend closer to weekdays than to Friday or Saturday nights (see Table 1). If the team relocates to Shockoe Bottom, that move will likely exacerbate this trend, given the proposed location’s proximity to nightlife.

It is also important to consider locations from which fans attending Fly- ing Squirrels games travel. Approximately 20% of an average crowd is from the city of Richmond, 40% from Henrico County, 25-30% from Chesterfield County and the remaining 10-15% from other localities (Confidential Interview). Since the Bus Rapid Transit line will terminate at the Richmond-Henrico line at its eastern and western ends, it is important to consider the cumulative 60 percent attending from these localities as potential BRT riders and identify that number in the attend- (Source: Richmond Flying Squirrels)

23 FLYING SQUIRRELS ATTENDANCE pacity of 9,560. Thus, it is reasonable to project a majority of Friday and Saturday games would be sold out events. While a new ballpark might attract more fans than normal in its inaugural year, for the long term, Sunday through Thursday could be projected to maintain similar attendance levels.

When projecting a modal split for the proposed stadium, specifically the percentage of the modal split that BRT might attract, it is important to apply that projection to the different medians for different days of the week, as number of riders could be dramatically higher on Friday and Saturday even though the percentage would be same.

24 PRESCEDENT EXAMPLES

To project a modal split for the proposed Shockoe Bottom stadium, and Washington, DC. The cities, stadiums, transit systems and modal splits what percentage of the mode share that BRT might attract, this plan are presented in Table 2. has examined five other cities with downtown stadiums across the ma- In comparison to these numbers, the Richmond MSA has a population jor and minor leagues that are served by a variety of transit modes. The of 1,258,251 and 1.8 percent of employees in the Richmond MSA take transit systems in these five cities attracted a wide range of modal split public transportation to work, although that number jumps to 7.2 per- percentages, from as little as 1% to as much as 30%. cent in the City of Richmond and shrinks to 1.2 percent in Henrico County. The transit systems in the cities studied included a shuttle bus service using traditional buses, a BRT line, two light rail systems and a subway. Washington, DC immediately stands out as an outlier with 30.8 percent They also included a variety of station area designs and a significant of fans using Metrorail (Metro) to attend games on weekdays and 27.4 difference in the quality of pedestrian connections linking the transit percent on weekends. Some, if not much of this can be explained by stops to the various stadiums. In this section, the data regarding modal the fact that a lot of people in the DC area in general ride Metro to any splits will be presented first, then a city-by-city breakdown will examine place they can because of the significant traffic experienced on the why people do or do not use transit to attend games. Capital Region’s highways. The Washington Metropolitan Transit Au- thority’s Metrorail service is the second-most ridden subway service in For a transit system to attract choice riders (those that choose to ride the United States, behind only New York City. Thus, it is not a surprise transit even though they own an automobile), the passenger experi- that a city with such a high rate of transit usage in general should have ence typically must be superior to driving, and largely, the cities with a high rate of transit ridership to downtown baseball games. However, station areas with quality pedestrian connections that offer a better the station area around the Navy Yard Metro stop and Nationals Park experience to disembarking passengers achieve higher ridership, with still contains some important takeaways discussed in the Washington one significant outlier. section (see page 42).

The stadiums and transit stops examined include Fifth Third Field in To- The transit systems in Toledo and Buffalo both attract very small per- ledo, Ohio; Coca-Cola Field in Buffalo, New York; Progressive Field in centages of the modal split, with less than 1.5 percent of fans using Cleveland, Ohio; Chase Field in Phoenix, Arizona; and Nationals Park in transit. While both are cities with minor league baseball teams, the Buffalo Bisons drew several crowds in 2013 that were larger than many 25 PRESCEDENT EXAMPLES

TABLE 2

(Data Sources: American FactFinder, Baseball team Web sites, Correspondence with transit agencies.)

Major League games, including some Cleveland Indians crowds. In the pedestrian connection. Cleveland also has the newest transit system of cases of these stadiums, they present destinations that are merely all cities studied, the HealthLine Bus Rapid Transit and thus offers a transit-accessible, not transit-oriented. sleeker riding experience to the passenger.

Phoenix, by contrast, offers a transit-oriented destination with attractive public spaces and a simple, yet effective pedestrian connection. Cleveland falls somewhere in between the two. While Cleveland’s stadium is two superblocks away from the transit stop, there is still a clear

26 TOLEDO, OHIO FIGURE 3: DOWNTOWN TOLEDO

Above: Fifth Third Field in the context of downtown Toledo. (Image Source: Bing Maps)

27 TOLEDO, OHIO

Fifth Third Field, which opened in 2002, is the home of the Toledo Mud The signs indicated in Figure 5 are all that identify the space adjacent to Hens who play in the AAA International League, the same league for- the stadium along Washington Street as a transit stop. While the pick- merly played in by the Richmond Braves. The Toledo Metropolitan Sta- up/drop-off area is immediately contiguous to Fifth Third Field, there is tistical Area’s 2010 population of 651,429 makes it the smallest of the little room to queue pedestrians waiting for the bus, especially as the five cities examined, and about half the size of the Richmond MSA. Fifth rest of the crowd streams out of the stadium after the game. Third Field, which seats 8,943, is located in downtown Toledo, one block from the waterfront and within easy walking distance of several high-rise buildings and numerous surface parking lots. Figure 3 provides The transit stop at Fifth Third Field, while convenient, is poorly defined. a sense of the stadium’s context within downtown Toledo. It is also not a pleasant place to wait for a bus as the exterior of the stadium presents a harsh façade other than the gate area and pedestrians queuing to board the bus are directly in the path of other people leav- The area radiating out from the first-base side of the stadium (the area ing the stadium. Further, the Muddy Shuttle itself is a regular bus, albe- to the right in Figure 3 that is not seen in the image) contains Toledo’s it a non-stop one, which does not offer riders a unique or enjoyable rid- warehouse district and in addition to warehouses, include more surface ing experience. In addition, most potential riders must get in their cars parking lots, some vacant parcels and multi-family housing. to drive to one of the park-and-ride origin points, so they are already driving. With parking available around the stadium, including a nearby parking deck beyond left field, the overwhelming majority of attendees Fifth Third Field is served by the Muddy Shuttle, which is a shuttle bus opt to make the drive to downtown Toledo rather than park and get on service operated by the Toledo Area Regional Transit Authority the Muddy Shuttle. (TARTA). The Muddy Shuttle is primarily a park-and-ride service providing a direct round-trip ride from ten suburban points of origin to Fifth Third Field, although this number will decrease to nine at the beginning of the 2014 season. The cost is $1 each way and uses traditional buses. The buses drop off and pick up passengers on Washington Street, the street that bounds Fifth Third Field on the first-base side. This pick-up/ drop-off area is indicated in Figure 4 and a ground-level view is provid- ed in Figure 5.

28 TOLEDO, OHIO

FIGURE 4: FIFTH THIRD FIELD

At left: A closer view of Fifth Third Field, with the Muddy Shuttle drop-off/pick-up area along Washington Street indicated by the red rectangle.

(Image Source: Bing Maps)

FIGURE 5: STREET LEVEL VIEW At left: A ground-level view of Washing- ton Street, with the blue boxes indi- cating signs for the Muddy Shuttle.

(Image Source: Google Maps)

29 TOLEDO, OHIO

TABLE 3 TABLE 4

(Source: Toledo Area Regional Transit Authority) (Source: Toledo Mud Hens

TABLE 5 Above and at left: As seen in Tables 3-5, very few attendees of Toledo Mud Hens games choose the Muddy Shuttle as their travel mode.

30 BUFFALO, NY FIGURE 6: COCA-COLA FIELD

(Image Source: Bing Maps)

Above: An aerial view of Coca-Cola Field with a train pulling into the Seneca Street NFTA Metro Rail stop one block to the right of the stadium.

31 BUFFALO, NY FIGURE 7: SENECA STREET STATION Coca-Cola Field, which opened in 1988, is the home of the Buffalo Bi- sons, who also play in the AAA International League. The Buffalo- Niagara Falls MSA’s 2010 population of 1,135,509 is very similar to the Richmond MSA’s 2010 population of 1,258,251. Coca-Cola Field, which seats 18,025 is located in Downtown Buffalo and is shown from above in Figure 6.

Coca-Cola Field is one block away from the Seneca Station (seen at the bottom of Figure 6) on the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority’s (NFTA) Metro Rail line, a north-south light-rail line which runs from the State University Of New York (SUNY) at Buffalo’s South Campus through downtown to the Erie Canal Harbor and First Niagara Center, a hockey Above: A ground-level view of the Seneca (Image Source: Google Maps) Station with Coca-Cola Field in the background. arena. Riding Metro Rail is free in the downtown zone and passengers board on the honor system in this area, making daily boardings difficult FIGURE 8: NFTA VEHICLE INTERIOR to track. The NFTA only keeps estimated annual ridership and estimated weekday ridership data for each station, making a comparison of game day and non-game day ridership impossible.

The NFTA estimates 819 daily boardings and 781 daily alightings at the Seneca Station for the 12 months from April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2013, with the majority of that traffic being commuters (Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority). With this data, it is reasonable to infer less than one percent of fans attending Buffalo Bison’s games use the light rail service. This could be partially attributable to the line not pene- trating deep into the suburbs and/or to the fact that the system is old (it opened in 1985), and so are its transit cars. Above: The interior of an NFTA Metro Rail car. (Image Source: YouTube) 32 BUFFALO, NY

However, the most direct pedestrian connection from the station to the stadium runs through a surface parking lot between two buildings. It is possible (and perhaps more desirable) to take a slightly longer walk around the northernmost of the two buildings along Swan Street, as shown in Figure 7. In Buffalo’s case, the stadium was built after the station, so NFTA had little influence over the area design. The result is a stadium that is transit-adjacent, but not transit-oriented. There is no open public space that makes the two places feel like one.

In addition, the transit system and its transit cars are nearly three dec- ades old. The passenger experience offers a harsh, unattractive interior that shows its age, as in Figure 8.

33 CLEVELAND, OHIO FIGURE 9: PROGRESSIVE FIELD

Above: An aerial view of Progressive Field as it relates to the HealthLine, with the (Image Source: Bing Maps) th HealthLine route in pink and the East 9 Street Station indicated by the red rectangle.

34 CLEVELAND, OHIO

Progressive Field is home to the Cleveland Indians, a Major League Progressive Field is a two-block walk from the East 9th Street station on Baseball club which plays in the American League. The Indians market the HealthLine, a Bus Rapid Transit System operated by the Greater Progressive Field, which opened in 1994 and has a capacity of 43,345, Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (RTA). The HealthLine runs in the as an urban ballpark. The team notes on its website that Progressive middle of Euclid Street from Cleveland Public Square in the city center Field is bounded three of its four sides by three of the main streets in to the suburbs in East Cleveland. The BRT route, along with the East 9th downtown Cleveland. It also features pedestrian plazas at the corners Street station and their spatial relationship to Progressive Field, is of the fourth side. The population of the Cleveland MSA is 2,077,240 shown in Figure 9.

FIGURE 10: EAST 9th STREET HEALTHLINE STOP

Above: The East 9th Street HealthLine station with Progressive Field and its entrance plaza visible (Image Source: Google Maps) further down East 9th Street in the upper-right background.

35 CLEVELAND, OHIO

The HealthLine opened in 2008 and is one of the most famous and suc- The Regional Transit Authority does not have data on boardings by sta- cessful BRT lines in the United States. Its vehicles are sleek and futuris- tion, but does track cumulative daily boardings for the entire line. On tic looking with comfortable interiors that look much more like the inte- weekdays when the Indians play a home game, the HealthLine averages rior of a train than a bus and offer a more comfortable and enjoyable 2,041 more boardings than on a non-baseball weekday. On weekend ridership experience. days when the Indians play a home game, the HealthLine averages 3,391 more boardings than on a non-baseball weekend day. If this

TABLE 6

(Source: Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority)

TABLE 7 TABLE 8

(Source: ESPN.com)

36 CLEVELAND, OHIO FIGURE 11: PROGRESSIVE FIELD ENTRANCE PLAZA difference is attributable to baseball, and if each fan riding the HealthLine accounts for two of the extra boardings (a stadium-bound trip and a return trip), then the HealthLine averages 5.93 percent of the modal split on weekdays and 7.86 percent of the modal split on weekends. This relationship is illustrated in Tables 6-8.

Crediting the ridership experience offered by BRT and the novelty of what is still a relatively new transit mode in Cleveland for the higher modal split is reasonable, but the pedestrian connection from the East 9th Street Station to Progressive Field should also be considered. The two-block walk down East 9th Street is the longest walk by distance from station to stadium of any of the five case studies examined in this plan. However, there are wide sidewalks along this sec- (Image Source: Google Maps) th tion of East 9 Street, and both Progressive Field and the open space Above: A closer view of the East 9th Street entrance plaza to Progres- th in front of it are visible from the corner of East 9 and Euclid, as sive Field, which is visible from the BRT stop two blocks away. shown in Figure 10.

The HealthLine in Cleveland likely attracts its high modal split not for any one reason, but for a combination of the reasons above. The vehicles are sleek and offer an enjoyable riding experience and the service is new and still holds a novelty factor. The Health Line also extends far enough into the suburbs to attract suburban choice riders. The design of the two blocks between the station and the stadium makes it a comfortable walk despite the increased length of the walk.

37 PHOENIX, ARIZONA FIGURE 12: CHASE FIELD

Above: An aerial view of Chase Field with the entrance plaza indicated by the orange box and the Jefferson Street (Image Source: Bing Maps) Valley Metro station indicated by the red box.

38 PHOENIX, ARIZONA

Chase Field has been the home of the Arizona Diamondbacks since the opened ten years after Chase Field, meaning Valley Metro was able to team’s inaugural season in 1998. The Diamondbacks are a Major plan the station in relation to the stadium, unlike in Buffalo where the League Baseball club and play in the National League. Chase Field, stadium was built after the light rail system. which has a capacity of 48,633, is located in downtown Phoenix and is This meant that transit planners were able to create a transit-oriented immediately accessible from the Jefferson Street stop on the Metro destination at the area around the Jefferson Street station and Chase Light Rail line operated by Valley Metro, a regional transit agency in the Field. A rider disembarking is immediately welcomed to the area by an Phoenix area. Phoenix is a major metropolitan area with an MSA-level open public space and a clear path to the stadium as shown in Figure population of 4,192,887. 13.

The Phoenix light rail line is different from BRT in that it runs on the This scene combines all the modernity of the HealthLine in Cleveland outermost lane of the street, rather than at the center of the street. with the immediate stadium access of the Muddy Shuttle in Toledo, but This is important to note, because in Shockoe Bottom, BRT will run in with a clearly marked station area and an open public space designed the outer lane of the street, unlike the section along Broad Street, around the pedestrian. This is the first of the areas discussed so far to where it will have a dedicated lane in the center. provide a transit experience that is arguably superior to driving.

The Jefferson Street station itself takes up an entire block of sidewalk Anyone choosing to drive will likely also become keenly aware of the on the next block over from Chase Field. A short street crossing and an opportunity to take transit also, as the Chase Field parking deck is locat- entrance plaza are all that exists between the station and the stadium, ed directly behind the Jefferson Street station, meaning motorists can- as shown in Figure 12.The solar panels in the entrance plaza are not not help but notice the existence of the opportunity to take transit erected before, during, and after Diamondbacks games. when they walk from the parking deck to the stadium and back.

Valley Metro staff estimates 10% of people attending Diamondbacks games at Chase Field use the light rail service. Metro Light Rail opened in 2008, and as with the HealthLine in Cleveland, has a sleekly designed interior and exterior and extends beyond the downtown area. It also

39 PHOENIX, ARIZONA FIGURE 13: JEFFERSON STREET STATION

Above: A ground-level view of the Jefferson Street Valley Metro station and Chase Field. (Image Source: Google Maps)

40 WASHINGTON, DC FIGURE 14: NATIONALS PARK

At left: An aerial view of Na- tionals Park with Half Street indicated by the red rectangle and the Navy Yard Metro station indicated by the green rectangle.

(Image Source: Google Maps) 41 WASHINGTON, DC TABLE 9 Nationals Park opened in 2008, three years after the Montreal Expos relocated to the District of Columbia to become the Washington Nationals. The Nationals are a Major League Baseball club that plays in the National League. Nationals Park, which has a capacity of 41,546, is a one block walk on Half Street from the Navy Yard station on Metrorail’s Green Line.

This case study is an outlier in many ways, but still contains valuable lessons for Shockoe Bottom. The 27-30% modal split that Metrorail (Metro) achieves is an (Source: ESPN.com) outlier when compared to the other four case studies, and major part of this number likely has to do with the fact that more people in general use transit in TABLE 10 the Washington area, whether going to work or anywhere else, than any other city examined in this plan. Another part is likely attributable to the Metro having five lines, all of which reach outside the Capital Beltway and penetrate deep in- to the Maryland and Virginia suburbs.

Metro also keeps detailed data on boardings at every station in its system and sorts those boardings by the hour. This makes it extremely easy to determine the number of postgame boardings at the Navy Yard station and project a mod- (Source: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority) al split. In many cases, the number of postgame boardings exceeds 10,000 compared to often less than 200 in the identical hours on non-game days, meaning TABLE 11 that essentially all of this ridership is attributable to baseball. This is illustrated in Tables 9-11. Since the number of boardings on non-game days is statistically insignificant by comparison to game-day boardings, only game days are considered.

42 WASHINGTON, DC FIGURE 15: HALF STREET While Metro attracts a modal split more than twice as large as any other example and far greater than what would likely be possible in Rich- mond, the area surrounding the station and ballpark is of particular note to Shockoe Bottom. Specifically, the development currently occur- ring around the Navy Yard station and Nationals Park is of the most relevance to Shockoe Bottom.

The Navy Yard station existed long before Nationals Park and was originally a lower volume stop. When the site was chosen for Nationals Park in 2005, the station needed to undergo extensive renovation, including a brand new station entrance in order to be ready for Opening Day in 2008. The stadium site was chosen in no small part due to the proximity of a Metro station. Nationals Park was planned as a transit-oriented destination from the start. The stadium, and its relationship to Half Street and the Navy Yard station, is illustrated in Figure 14. Above: The Navy Yard Metro station on Half Street with Nationals Park in the background. Of more concern to the Revitalize RVA plan, Nationals Park is also the In addition, two major developers, Monument Realty and Forest City centerpiece of an effort to revitalize the Navy Yard neighborhood. Be- Washington, have invested significant money into development pro- fore the baseball stadium was built, the Navy Yard area was much like jects will bring further residences, restaurants, office space, and a gro- Shockoe Bottom, described by the Washington Post as “a mix of indus- cery store to the neighborhood. This ambitious makeover of the Navy trial facilities, after-hours clubs and vacant lots.” According to the Post, Yard neighborhood mirrors, albeit on a much larger scale, the transfor- fewer than 1,000 people lived in the area in 2004, but nearly 3,600 peo- mation that the Revitalize RVA Plan envisions for Shockoe Bottom. Of ple lived in the area as of March 2012. A high-rise luxury apartment particular interest to this plan is Half Street and the planned develop- building now sits directly opposite South Capitol Street from the first- ment for it. Figure 15 illustrates what Half Street looks like right now base side of Nationals Park. with the Navy Yard station in the foreground, and Nationals Park in the

43 WASHINGTON, DC FIGURE 16: HALF STREET PRE-GAME FIGURE 17: NAVY YARD METRO QUEUE

Above: Pedestrians walk down Half Street from the Navy Yard Metro Above: The Navy Yard station is the only Metrorail stop with ground- stop to Nationals Park. level turnstiles, which allow people to queue in the open air to enter background. Figures 16 and 17 above show the pedestrian connection Plan proposes to turn into a pedestrian promenade, but which current- in use before and after a Nationals game. ly is also is planned for extensive renovation into a European-style pub- th lic square. The Half Street rendering and the 17 Street Farmers Mar- ket are compared side-by-side in Figures 18 and 19. Right now, the street has a lot of empty space on either side. However, several buildings with first floor restaurants and bars on either side are in the vision. The pedestrian-oriented stretch with bars and restau- This section of Half Street is closed to automobile traffic and is a pedes- rants on either side bear some similarity to the uses on either side of trian-only space on game days. This acts as an organizing element for the 17th Street Farmers Market in Richmond, which the Revitalize RVA fans when arriving and leaving games. In addition, turnstiles in the Na-

44 WASHINGTON, DC FIGURE 18: HALF STREET RENDERING FIGURE 19: FARMERS MARKET

Above: A developer’s rendering of its future vision for Half Street (left) contrasted with the existing conditions of the 17th Street Farmers Market in Shockoe Bottom (right). vy Yard station are at street level, allowing riders waiting to enter the station to queue up on the street rather than underground. The Revital- ize RVA plan proposes removing the sheds in the 17th Street Farmers Market. The image in Figure 18 is very similar to what could occur on 17th Street in Richmond, with the exception of building height.

45 MODAL SPLIT PROJECTION

Given the range of modal splits in the case studies examined and de- BRT in Richmond would run from Willow Lawn to Rocketts Landing, sig- tailed in Table 2, it is reasonable to project conservatively that BRT nificantly out of downtown in both the east and the west. It will also be could attract -6 10% of the modal split for a Shockoe Bottom baseball a new service with a feeling of novelty and vehicle interiors will be stadium, in line with the examples in Cleveland in Phoenix. These two more pleasant. It is the kind of service far more likely to attract a park examples offer new, pleasant to ride, sleekly designed transit lines that and ride crowd than a regular bus would. BRT in Richmond, as it is pro- extend just far enough out of downtown and into the suburbs. posed, is more comparable to the relevant transit lines in Cleveland and TABLE 12 With this projected modal split, this plan projects that anywhere from 214-450 fans would ride BRT to an average Flying Squirrels game, depending on the day of the week. This is illustrated in Table 12, by introducing the projected modal split of 6-10 percent to the attendance numbers from Table 1.

In Toledo, the Muddy Shuttle, while a direct round-trip, is still a traditional bus and people accustomed to driving are unlikely to utilize a park and ride to board a regular bus because the passenger experience is not superior to driving. In Buffalo, the age of the rail system and the drab interior, combined with a route that does not significantly penetrate the suburbs, does not attract riders either.

46 MODAL SPLIT PROJECTION

Phoenix than it is to Buffalo or Toledo, despite the fact that the latter how far the county extends into the Arizona desert. However, when two are minor league cities. Thus, the modal split projection is more in only the Phoenix CCD is considered it, along with Cuyahoga County, line with the former two. provides comparable densities to the City of Richmond and helps to better support a modal split projection for Richmond of 6-10%. Washington, DC is an outlier due to the prevalence of transit use in that area in everyday life. Its benchmark for this plan is more closely related In addition to density, the existence of a culture of transit use and will- to design lessons rather than projecting the modal split. Metrorail’s 27- ingness in each of these cities to ride transit in general can help inform 30% modal split is far more than BRT could reasonably expect to attract the projection. Table 14 indicates the percentage of employees that in Richmond. take public transportation to work in each of the studied municipalities. The Washington-area again emerges as a significant outlier. Given the

Cleveland and Phoenix also offer similar densities to Richmond. Meas- TABLE 13 uring density at the MSA level is misleading because densities can vary wildly from one part of the MSA to another. To better capture the density of the cities served by the transit systems studied above, the county level is more appropriate, or in the case of Phoenix (since Maricopa County extends dozens of miles past the city’s developed footprint) the Phoenix Census County Division is used. The densities of all core counties of the ballparks studied as well as local jurisdictions are listed in Table 13.

The municipalities in the Washington, DC area are outliers, as they are much denser than and any of the other areas studied, as well as much denser than Richmond. Erie County and Lucas County are much less dense than the City of Richmond, but are comparable to Henrico Coun- ty. Maricopa County is the least dense jurisdiction on the board, due to (Source: American FactFinder)

47 MODAL SPLIT PROJECTION TABLE 14 density comparison to Phoenix and Cleveland, particular attention to these two places is warranted when examining the table.

While transit use is more prevalent in the City of Richmond than in either Cuyahoga County or the Phoenix CCD, transit use in Henrico County lags behind both. This is an instance where the political split of cities and counties that is unique to Virginia influences data. With Richmond and Henrico tak- en together, they way they would be in any other state, the commuting modal split for transit would probably fall shy of Cuyahoga’s 5.4%, but higher that the Phoenix CCD’s 2.8%.

As indicated in Table 2, the HealthLine in Cleveland the Val- (Source: American FactFinder) ley Metro in Phoenix attracts a 10% modal split and the HealthLine in Cleveland attracts weekday and weekend modal splits of 5.93% and 7.86% respectively. These numbers inform this plan’s projected modal split of 6-10% for the proposed new Richmond Flying Squirrels stadium in Shockoe Bottom.

48 BUS RAPID TRANSIT

GRTC has outsourced much of its BRT research and development to the Baseball games will typically end between 9:30 p.m. and 10 p.m. on Michael Baker Group, Inc., generating much relevant data. Michael most nights. This time does not fall within a peak transit hour. Howev- Baker Group Inc. projects 3,300 daily boardings for BRT on an average er, while arrivals at the stadium before the game will be somewhat weekday. This estimate is based on the current average of 3,400-3,600 staggered, the return trips will be much more concentrated into a half- daily boardings (on weekdays) for GRTC’s bus route 6, which runs along hour period immediately after a game ends, causing a post-game roughly the same route. The BRT service, at its core, is intended as an “crush.” This is when the system capacity could be challenged, as de- upgrade to service along that route. Research performed by the Mi- tailed in the Base Line vs. Alternative section. chael Baker Group indicates that an aggregate total of 35,557 live in the 14 station areas, which are defined as a half-mile radius around the stations.

The BRT fleet will consist of seven vehicles, of which at least one must be in the garage at all times, meaning a maximum of six can be in oper- ation at any given time. Michael Baker Group Inc. projects based on the vehicle models available for the fleet that each BRT vehicle would con- tain approximately 39 seats. Standing room will also be available.

For the majority of operating hours, BRT will make each stop once every 15 minutes. During AM and PM peak time, BRT will make each stop once every 10 minutes. In the spring months, most Monday-Saturday Flying Squirrels games begin at 6:35 p.m. with 7:05 p.m. the typical start (Sunday games generally start at 2 p.m. all season long). Since the PM peak time runs from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m., this means some baseball- bound passengers will be riding during the end of the PM peak.

49 BASE LINE vs. ALTERNATIVE FIGURE 20: CENSUS TRACT 205

A base line scenario for this plan would assume that Shockoe Bottom stays as it is and daily BRT boardings would remain at or around 3,300 on average weekdays. The alternative scenario would be that the Revitalize RVA Plan is implemented and the proposed development contained in that plan is built in Shockoe Bottom.

According to 2012 American Community Survey 5-year data, in Census Tract 205 (shown in Figure 20), only 38 of 2,286 workers age 16 years and over use public transportation to commute to work; 196 walked, 153 carpooled and 1,850 drove alone. The re- mainder either worked at home or commuted by other means. Thus, the impact of the proposed apartments is likely to be negli- gible, as many tenants would likely drive as reflected by the existing trend in the neighborhood. The stadium is the key trip generator.

If the Revitalize RVA Plan were implemented, that would add anywhere from approximately 214 to 450 BRT passengers per day on Flying Squirrels game days, each of them making a stadium- bound trip and a return trip. This adds anywhere from 428 to 900 boardings on game days to the estimated 3,300 boardings established in the base line scenario above, an increase of 17- 27%. The grocery store and hotel do not significantly impact the planned Main Street Station BRT stop, but would likely add boardings and alightings to the planned BRT stop at 12th and Broad.

50 BASE LINE vs. ALTERNATIVE

There are currently ten stops (five eastbound with five sister west- though the overwhelming majority will be immediately after a game bound stops) on the No. 6 route in Shockoe Bottom. The five west- ends. bound stops cumulatively average 121 boardings and 114 alightings per week with stop #1620 (20th and Main) averaging none of either. The five eastbound stops cumulatively average 71 boardings and 214 alightings per week with stop #1619 (20th and Main) accounting for over half the alightings, with the other four. This means that in both directions, the No. 6 bus averages 192 boardings and 328 alightings per week across all stops from which a Main Street Station BRT stop would attract passengers (GRTC Transit Company).

In a base line scenario with Shockoe Bottom staying as it is, the Main Street Station stop would average 27 boardings and 48 alightings per day. This is not a significant percentage of the 3,300 estimated system- wide boardings in the baseline scenario. However, in the alternative scenario, where there is a 17-27% increase in boardings, all of that increase centers around Main Street station, in the form of 214-450 alightings before games, and 214-450 boardings after games.

Six buses will have 39 seats each, allowing space for 11 passengers to stand comfortably, that is a capacity of 50 passengers per vehicle multi- plied by six vehicles for a system capacity of 300 passengers at any single moment. Thus, postgame travel demand could exceed system capacity. The nightlife in Shockoe Bottom will also retain a small percentage of the baseball crowd, causing a small number of return trips to be staggered over a period of one to two hours after a game ends, even

51 REVENUES

GRTC expects BRT fare to be equivalent to bus fare, which is currently $1.50 per ride. Operating under a modal split assumption that each fan opting to ride BRT to a game will make both a stadium-bound trip and a return trip, the 428-900 trips will generate a total of anywhere $642 to $1,350 in revenue for GRTC. A true cost-benefit analysis would be in- complete without wage data for drivers, as game nights would require some short shifts for drivers. The revenues above, however, can be projected with much more confidence, subject to any potential fare increases, which would increase net revenues.

PART II: RECOMMENDATIONS

53 PLAN VISION

This plan envisions a redeveloped Shockoe Bottom existing as a transit- oriented destination where Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is a preferred means of accessing the neighborhood’s amenities and attractions.

54 GOAL 1 FIGURE 21: PLAN VIEW

Above: Plan view of the connection from the stop to the stadium via the 17th Street Farmers Market. The two BRT stops (eastbound and westbound) are indicated in purple and the farmers market in orange.

GOAL 1 GOAL 1 OBJECTIVES

Create a situation where riding BRT to a Shockoe Bottom baseball stadi- 1.1 Provide a pedestrian connection from the transit stop to the um is a more attractive option for choice riders than driving. stadium that is a superior experience than walking from any nearby parking garage. 55 GOAL 1

A choice rider (as opposed to a captive rider) is someone who chooses after parking in this garage would walk south on 17th Street past the to ride transit rather than drive even though they own a personal auto- proposed grocery store and hotel and then have to cross Broad Street mobile or otherwise have the means to drive. A choice rider is more to arrive at the right field gate. likely to choose transit over driving if the transit option offers a superi- or experience to driving. Part of that experience is the enjoyment of the ride itself being more pleasant than driving a car, however, another By contrast, anyone disembarking the BRT at a stop located at the Main th part is the pedestrian experience at either end of the transit journey, Street end of the proposed 17 Street Farmers Market would instead before boarding and after disembarking. be able to walk through a pedestrian-only public space, which is lined on both sides with bars and restaurants, and then cross Franklin Street to reach the third base gate. This scenario offers a vastly better pedes- The Revitalize RVA plan proposes a new 1,200-plus space parking deck trian connection to the stadium than the parking garage offers. Even on 17th Street north of Broad Street. Anyone walking to the stadium though the distances are comparable, the quality of the public realm is

FIGURE 22: VALLEY METRO INTERIOR FIGURE 23: HEALTHLINE INTERIOR At Left: A view of the interior of a light rail car on Phoenix’s ValleyMet- ro line.

At Right: The interior of the HealthLine in Cleve- land.

(Image Source: orphanroad.com) (Image Source: urbanohio.com) 56 GOAL 1 far more enjoyable and will become better in the future as plans to re- th develop the 17 Street Farmers Market into a European-style public square are implemented.

1.2 Produce a more convenient, more enjoyable and more rapid means of entering and leaving Shockoe Bottom on game nights (and other nights) than the automobile would offer.

Bus Rapid Transit is different from traditional buses not only because of the sleeker design of the transit vehicle, but because it is, as the name suggests, more rapid. Unlike regular buses, which make regular stops almost every other block, BRT stops are much more spaced apart, with longer distances between stops, enabling it to cover more ground fast- er.

This convenience is also important to attracting choice riders. BRT should be an easier and quicker means of entering and leaving Shockoe Bottom on game nights than trying to park in and exit from a parking garage.

57 GOAL 2

GOAL 2 vate automobiles will still have two lanes of westbound travel open to them, even with the rightmost lane dedicated to the BRT vehicle. Create a transit alternative that would help to alleviate the public concern about traffic and parking at the proposed Shockoe Bottom base- To ensure that a BRT vehicle reaches Broad Street in a timely manner, a ball stadium. uniformed police officer should be deployed at the corner of 14th Street and Broad Street after games to ensure that a BRT vehicle travelling north on 14th Street is not delayed while attempting to turn left onto GOAL 2 OBJECTIVES Broad Street to travel west. Transit must have priority.

2.1 Ensure that BRT buses have priority along the Main Street and 14th Street corridors before and after baseball games. 2.2 Implement a marketing program that increases awareness of Bus Rapid Transit as an alternate means of travel to and from For most of the planned Bus Rapid Transit route along Broad Street, the a redeveloped Shockoe Bottom. BRT vehicle will have its own dedicated lane in the center of the road, adjacent to the median. However, for the 14th Street and Main Street portions of the route including the section through Shockoe Bottom, Much of the current public pushback against a potential Shockoe the BRT vehicle will run in the right-most lane, adjacent to the curb and Bottom baseball stadium stems from parking and traffic concerns. How- share that lane with general traffic. ever, public awareness of the BRT study is still minimal. If the city chooses to build a stadium in Shockoe Bottom, marketing BRT as an alternative means of travel to and from games will be crucial for GRTC to To ensure that BRT travel out of Shockoe Bottom remains rapid after attract choice riders. the conclusion of baseball games, the right-most westbound lane of Main Street should become a BRT-only lane beginning at the start of the 9th Inning and lasting at half hour after the end of the game or until Advertising in the free program that is handed out to all patrons as they the queues to board have subsided. Since Main Street has three lanes enter Richmond Flying Squirrels games would be a tremendous oppor- running in the westbound direction from 17th Street to 14th Street, pri- tunity to market BRT directly to its intended audience. 58 GOAL 3 FIGURE 24: BRT STOPS AND STADIUM

Above: A view looking north at both the westbound and eastbound BRT stops, with Main Street Station to the left, the proposed stadium in the back, and the redeveloped 17th Street Farmers Market in the center.

GOAL 3 GOAL 3 OBJECTIVES

Fashion an area surrounding the BRT stop that emphasizes a redevel- 3.1 Design and orient the BRT stop in a prominent manner that oped Shockoe Bottom as a transit-oriented destination. makes it a conspicuous part of the urban fabric of the redevel- th oped 17 Street Farmers Market.

59 GOAL 3

The westbound stop should be located at the Main Street end of the This would serve to enclose the farmers market on all four sides, thus 17th Street Farmers Market and should be a visible landmark of the enhancing its design as a public square, while simultaneously making promenade. It should be sleekly designed, much like the Jefferson the transit stop a visible part of that design. To pedestrians in the Street light rail stop in Phoenix (see Figures 12 and 13), but should also promenade, this makes transit an inescapably noticeable part of that be sufficiently sized to provide an edge to the farmers market at its end public space. the way buildings do on its sides.

FIGURE 25: WAYFINDING IN DC FIGURE 26: WAYFINDING IN SHOCKOE BOTTOM At Left: A view of a wayfinding sign in Washington, DC, which directs pedestrians to Metrorail stations, in addition to attractions. At Right: Wayfinding signage in Shockoe Bottom.

(Image Source: urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com) 60 GOAL 3

3.2 Incorporate the use of wayfinding signage that directs people This would enable residents of the New Urbanist community at West from all destinations in a redeveloped Shockoe Bottom to the Broad Village to become choice riders of transit to baseball games in nearest BRT stop and improve those pedestrian connections. Shockoe Bottom. It would also enable guests of the proposed hotel and residents of the proposed (and existing) apartments in Shockoe Bottom to take BRT to Short Pump Town Center. While the stadium is the most obvious utility for the BRT stop on Main

Street, it is not the only destination that would be created if the Revi- talize RVA Plan were implemented. The plan also proposes two apartment buildings, a hotel, a grocery store and a slave heritage site. These places could all be served by transit and, for some of them, the Main Street Station/Stadium stop may not be the most convenient one. From the hotel, grocery store and slave heritage site, the 12th and Broad stop would be a more convenient place to board BRT. Conspicuously located signage should be placed near all of the destinations in a redeveloped Shockoe Bottom to direct pedestrians to the nearest BRT stop, which- ever one that may be.

3.3 Establish a possibility for potential future connections that could be created by an extension of the BRT line.

All previous objectives and all following recommendations are made with the possible future extension of the BRT route in mind. The potential Phase II of BRT in Richmond would extend the route to Short Pump by sometime in the 2030s. The implementation of this plan opens the possibility to link Shockoe Bottom to Short Pump via Bus Rapid Transit at a future date.

61 RECOMMENDATIONS FIGURE 27: BRT STOP LOCATIONS

Above: A view of the proposed eastbound and westbound BRT stops to serve a redeveloped Shockoe Bottom, with the westbound stop in the foreground and the eastbound stop in the background.

Relocate the planned Main Street Station BRT westbound stop from This is a central recommendation of this plan for site planning and de- the station steps to the front of the redeveloped 17th Street Farmers sign purposes. This plan recommends locating the westbound stop at Market and locate the eastbound stop at the northern end of the Ca- the Main Street end of the 17th Street Farmers Market and locating the thedral Walk. eastbound stop at the northern end of the Cathedral Walk across the street and slightly to the east.

62 RECOMMENDATIONS FIGURE 28: FARMERS MARKET EXISTING CONDITIONS

Locating the westbound stop, which would absorb most postgame boardings, at the end of the farmers market provides a direct, straight-line connection from the stadium to the transit stop. This also closes the rectangle, so to speak, for the farmers market, creating a more complete public square.

Locating the eastbound stop, which would receive the majority of pregame alightings, at the Cathedral Walk, would allow passengers to disembark within sight of the twin stop across the street. It is also across the street from Main Street Station, which was the originally planned location for a Shockoe Bottom BRT stop. It would also allow passengers to disembark at a place that is already designed as a FIGURE 29: CATHEDRAL WALK public space.

In addition, both of the places that this plan recommends locating for stops are already owned by the City of Richmond, meaning GRTC

Above Right: The Main Street end of the 17th Street Farmers Mar- ket, which is currently planned for extensive renovations and con- version to a European-style public square. The Main Street end of the Market is this plan’s recommendation for the westbound BRT stop.

Below Right: The northern end of the Cathedral Walk, where this plan recommends locating the westbound BRT stop.

63 RECOMMENDATIONS FIGURE 30: GRTC KIOSK would not face any prohibitive acquisition costs that would prevent construction of these stops. This recommendation means the eastbound and westbound stops would not be directly across the street from one another, however each would still be visible from the other and it would take no more than a minute to walk between the two. There is also a GRTC kiosk located on the Cathedral Walk, which while non-functioning now, could be restored to use.

Utilize the 17th Street Farmers Market as an organizing element for large crowds of pedestrians to form a queue while waiting to board.

As mentioned in the State of the Art section in the introduction, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority’s Station Area Site Planning Manual lists as one of its TOD station area design guidelines: “Utilize appropriately sized and designed public open space as Above: The GRTC kiosk on the grounds of the Cathedral Walk. an organizing element to help define the station area within a larger center of activity or as a focal point for the community.”

This plan recommends using the proposed 17th Street Farmers Mar- ket as exactly that. In addition to the station benefiting the public space by closing the rectangle, the public space helps the station by providing a natural organizing element for a crowd of people waiting to board during the post-game “crush.” It also emphasizes the revi- talized Farmers Market as a transit-oriented destination in and of it-

64 RECOMMENDATIONS FIGURE 31: ORGANIZING ELEMENT

Above: Pedestrians waiting to board after games would have plenty of room to queue in an open public space. The redeveloped Farmers Market provides such a space for the westbound BRT stop.

self, even on non-game days, by placing the transit stop in a prominent destrians waiting to enter the station to queue for the turnstiles in the position. open air at street level in the pedestrian-only environment of Half th Street. This same philosophy is applicable to the 17 Street Farmers Market as it is redeveloped; it will be a large, pedestrian-only space The Navy Yard Metrorail station in Washington is unique among all where people waiting to board can queue safely. Metrorail stops in that the turnstiles are at street level. This allows pe-

65 RECOMMENDATIONS FIGURE 32: STAGING AREA CONNECTION Utilize special event scheduling to accommodate the post-game “crush.” Use a staging area to the east of the stadium to queue up five buses for post-game westbound travel.

As indicated in the modal split projection, post-game travel demand has the potential to exceed system capacity, with the majority of the demand being for westbound travel. Since only six of the seven buses in the fleet can be on the road at once, this plan recommends utilizing special event scheduling where all six possible buses are in service. Five of the six should be dedicated to westbound travel. (Image Source: Google Maps) Above: The route from Great Ship Lock Park down Main Street to this plan’s rec- This plan recommends using the Great Ship Lock Park as a staging area for ommendation for the westbound BRT stop. This is an approximately 0.9 mile trip that would take no more than five minutes for a vehicle to make. these five buses, and beginning at the start of the ninth inning, moving these FIGURE 33: GREAT SHIP LOCK PARK buses one at a time into position at the westbound stop to begin boarding passengers. Once a bus fills, the next bus is only two to three minutes away to begin boarding passengers again. By using the park as a staging area and utilizing this form of queuing buses, BRT will be able to accommodate westbound postgame travel demand continuously without leaving passengers at the stop for extended periods of time waiting for the next bus to arrive.

The park is owned by the City of Richmond Parks and Recreation Depart- ment, thus acquisition costs are not involved. However, The park would have to be closed by the time its parking lot would be used as a staging area. This Above: Great Ship Lock Park, which is already (Image Source: Bing Maps) is not a problem for night games, but could be problematic on Sunday after- owned by the City of Richmond, offers the prox- noons. imity needed to serve as a staging area for five buses and enable them to move easily into position to accommodate the post-game “crush.” 66 RECOMMENDATIONS FIGURE 34: NO PAGGENGER TRAIN

During the post-game “crush,” designate two or three buses as “no passenger” buses to allow for nonstop travel back to the stadium after terminating at Willow Lawn to avoid excessive waits if demand exceeds system capacity.

As mentioned immediately above, since demand for some games has the potential to exceed capacity, five buses alone will not always be able to accommodate all the demand. In Washington, Metrorail will often run “No Pas- senger” trains south on the Green Line after a Nationals game, so they can be turned around and be empty when they pull in to Navy Yard to service northbound travel demand after games. These trains do not stop when they pass through other stations in their empty southbound journeys. (Image source: popville.com) Above: An example of a “No Passenger train on the WMATA metrorail in the Washington, DC area. By having two or three of the five westbound buses convert to “No Passenger” status after they reach Willow Lawn, this will enable these buses to return swiftly to Shockoe Bottom without making any of the intermittent eastbound stops. This will minimize wait time for passengers that did not make it on to one of the five initial westbound buses.

67 RECOMMENDATIONS FIGURE 35: BRT-ONLY LANE Close the right-most lane of Main Street to private automobile traffic at the beginning of the 9th Inning until a half hour after the game ends.

As stated in Objective 2.1, while the BRT will have its own dedicated lane along the Broad Street sections of the route, it will not have that luxury on Main Street, where it will have to share the outer-most lane with general traffic. This plan recommends closing that outer lane to general traffic in the westbound direction and operating it as a BRT- only lane for the period of time from the beginning of the 9th Inning until a half hour after the game or until the post-game “crush” has subsided. This will expedite the departure process and enable full buses to leave Shockoe Bottom in a swift manner. Much of this lane is currently used a passenger loading area and taxi stand during train station hours. Above: The rightmost lane of Main FIGURE 36: POSSIBLE CHOKE POINT Street in the westbound direction Another possible choke point occurs at the corner of Broad and 14th (highlighted in purple) could be a bus Streets, where the bus must make a left turn from the northbound only lane immediately after games. th lanes of 14 Street to the westbound lanes of Broad Street, as indicat- At right: The left turn from 14th Street ed in the map presented in Figure 36 to the right. Many baseball onto Broad Street is a potential point th attendees will likely park in the garage at Franklin and 14 Streets and of delay for a BRT vehicle if motorists th exit onto 14 and turn north. Many of these cars will likely turn right exiting the parking deck at 14th and on Broad Street to access Interstate 95. However, it will only take a Franklin also attempt turn left on few cars turning left onto Broad Street to cause the BRT to miss a light. Broad Street. The parking deck and intersection of concern are circled in red. (Image Source: LovingRVA.com) 68 RECOMMENDATIONS FIGURE 37: CONCERN AND ALTERNATE ROUTES For this reason, this plan recommends sta- tioning a uniformed police officer to direct traffic at the corner of 14th Street and Broad Street to ensure that a bottleneck does not form waiting to make the left on- to Broad Street so as not to hold up the BRT.

For this reason, this plan recommends sta- tioning a uniformed police officer to direct traffic at the corner of 14th Street and Broad Street to ensure that a bottleneck does not form waiting to make the left on- to Broad Street so as not to hold up the BRT.

Private automobiles that are not seeking to access Interstate 95 should be highly en- couraged to use the 15th Street exit to leave the State parking deck. From here, Above: The potential choke point on 14th Street and alternate routes west for automobiles are Main Street, Canal Street or the Downtown identified. Expressway all offer alternate routes west as opposed to using Broad Street. Automo- biles seeking the quickest way to the Inter- state should still be allowed to use the 14th Street exit as they will be in the right lane

69 RECOMMENDATIONS FIGURE 38: BROAD AND 14th of 14th Street and thus will not pose an obstacle to BRT. Signage at the entrance to the garage can communicate these options to motorists before they enter the garage. Figure 37 highlights the area of concern and the various alternatives.

Advertise BRT in the Flying Squirrels free game night program.

The Flying Squirrels distribute a free program to all fans as they pass through the front gates, full of advertisements for local businesses. GRTC should advertise BRT as a means of travel to and from games on a prominent page in this program, such as the back cover or inside cover.

While the ValleyMetro in Phoenix offers free light rail fare to anyone th with a U.S. Airways Arena event ticket, there is no such arrangement Above: The 14 Street northbound intersection with Broad Street, for baseball games at Chase Field. This plan recommends against such where the BRT vehicle must make a left turn. A long queue of cars seeking to turn left at this intersection could significantly delay the BRT. an offer for BRT service to Shockoe Bottom on game nights because the revenues generated by ridership are too important to GRTC to sac- rifice. Parking at The Diamond is currently $3. If BRT trips are $1.50 Extend service on Friday and Saturday nights until 2:00 a.m. each, then a round trip is still equivalent to cost of parking. If parking costs increase with the move to Shockoe Bottom and GRTC fare re- During an interview with the Flying Squirrels front office, team officials mains flat, then BRT would become a more affordable option. expressed concern that some fans, especially in the young professional demographic, would hesitate to ride BRT to games because they would not be able to ride it home if they wanted to remain in Shockoe Bottom after the game to enjoy the nightlife in the neighborhood. Currently,

the Number 6 bus makes its last run at 11:30 p.m. 70 RECOMMENDATIONS

This plan recommends BRT extends service to 2:00 a.m. on Friday and be diverted to help GRTC Transit System pay for some of the transit Saturday nights. This recommendation applies to all Friday and Satur- improvements that will help a redeveloped Shockoe Bottom a transit- day nights, not only game nights. Special event scheduling need only oriented destination. apply on game nights, and would likely not push into these hours anyway. Regular bus service also need not stay open this late.

However, to market a redeveloped Shockoe Bottom as a transit- oriented destination, transit must be available at one of the most popular times to visit this area. This would offer safe transportation home to anyone wishing to remain at the restaurants and bars in Shockoe

Bottom past midnight on these two peak nights.

Seek access to Revitalize RVA plan funds to help pay for construction of bus shelters and acquisition of land for the eastbound stop.

The sleekly designed, larger, high-volume transit shelters that this plan recommends will be more expensive to construct than an average bus shelter. It will also cost $210,000 to acquire the land for the recom- mended eastbound stop. This plan recommends that GRTC Transit Sys- tem seek to access to City of Richmond monies earmarked for the Revi- talize RVA plan to help pay for shelter construction and land acquisition.

Rather than GRTC Transit System picking up the entire expense for transit improvements that will clearly benefit the aims of the Revitalize RVA Plan, it is a fair expectation that some of the funding for that plan 71 RECOMMENDATIONS

Construct a protective barrier along the sidewalks of the Broad Street the Broad Street overpass above Interstate 95, something many VCU overpass that crosses above Interstate 95 to reinforce pedestrian safe- Medical Center employees currently do at their own peril. ty. The Revitalize RVA Plan identifies this section of Broad Street as part of For all facets of the redevelopment proposed in the Revitalize RVA Plan the Slave Trail, however nothing more specific is indicated. This plan to be transit-oriented, BRT access must be convenient to the hotel, gro- recommends constructing a barrier similar to the one in Figure 40 to cery store and slave heritage site, not just the stadium. For the three make this pedestrian connection safer and less intimidating that it is in aforementioned destinations, the planned BRT stop at Broad and 12th its current unprotected form. This recommendation could be imple- Streets is the more convenient stop. This involves using the sidewalk on mented by the Virginia Department of Transportation.

FIGURE 39: BROAD STREET OVERPASS FIGURE 40: PEDESTRIAN SAFETY

(Image Source: Google Maps) (Image source: brownstoner.com) Above Left: The Broad Street overpass above I-95, an uncomfortable sidewalk setting for pedestrians. Above Right: Example of a protective barrier offering a greater sense of security to pedestrians.

72 CONCLUSION

Bus Rapid Transit and a replacement for The Diamond may at first ap- pear to be separate issues. However, when considered together, they present a tremendous opportunity for the City of Richmond. If planned and implemented in concert, these two projects hold the potential for creation of a transit-oriented destination in Shockoe Bottom.

Shockoe Bottom is a neighborhood full of history, but which is poised to undergo many changes in the near future, only one of which is the stadium, which would become Richmond’s neighborhood ballpark. Many of the best neighborhood ballparks in the nation are served by public transit, and Richmond could be and should be no different. BRT holds the potential to be a preferred mode of transportation to and from a Shockoe Bottom Stadium and the precedent case studies examined in this plan lay a blueprint for how to provide that reality for Richmond.

73 IMPLEMTATION TABLE

Recommendation Entity to Implement Costs and/or Variables

Relocate the planned Main Street Station BRT GRTC Transit System. No acquisition costs. Both sites are on city- westbound stop from the station steps to the owned land. Construction costs would be front of the redeveloped 17th Street Farmers borne by GRTC Transit System. See funding Market and locate the eastbound stop at the recommendation below. northern end of the Cathedral Walk. Utilize the 17th Street Farmers Market as an City of Richmond. Area is public realm. organizing element for large crowds of pedes-

Utilize special event scheduling to accommo- GRTC Transit System No acquisition costs. Great Ship Lock Park is date the post-game “crush.” Use a staging area city-owned. Sundays could prove challenging to the east of the stadium (Great Ship Lock as the park is a popular Sunday afternoon des- Park) to queue five buses for post-game west- tination. bound travel. During the post-game “crush,” designate two GRTC Transit System Gas costs and driver wages. or three buses as “no passenger” buses to allow for nonstop travel back to the stadium after terminating at Willow Lawn to avoid excessive waits if demand exceeds system capacity. Close the right-most lane of Main Street to pri- City of Richmond Pushback from motorists possible, especially vate automobile traffic at the beginning of the likely from taxis, which use this lane as a taxi 9th Inning until a half hour after the game stand. ends. Advertise BRT in the Flying Squirrels free game GRTC Transit System Cost would likely vary with size and location of night program. advertisement placement in program.

74 IMPLEMENTATION TABLE

Recommendation Entity to Implement Costs and/or Variables

Extend service on Friday and Saturday nights until GRTC Transit System Gas costs and driver wages. 2:00 a.m.

Seek access to Revitalize RVA plan funds to help pay GRTC Transit System This recommendation is aimed at reducing for construction of bus shelters. costs to GRTC Transit System.

Construct a protective barrier along the sidewalks of City of Richmond, Virginia Department of Materials and labor costs of constructing the Broad Street overpass above Interstate 95 to Transportation barrier.

75 SOURCES

City of Richmond. 2009. Richmond Downtown Plan. http://www.ci.richmond.va.us/planninganddevelopmentreview/documents/ PlansDowntown/Rich_Ch5_080509_lores.pdf

City of Seattle. 2012. Seattle Arena Multimodal Transportation Access and Parking Study. http://www.seattle.gov/arena/docs/120523PR-SDOT- ArenaReport.pdf

GRTC Transit System. Overview. http://www.ridegrtc.com/about-us/overview/

GRTC Transit System. Services. http://www.ridegrtc.com/services/

Pitts, S. Corey. 2008. A Vision for Transit in Eastern Henrico: Transit Development Plan. http://www.has.vcu.edu/usp/MURP/projects762/S08/ S08_CPitts_Eastern_Henrico_Transit_Plan.pdf

Reconnecting America. 2008. TOD 202: Station Area Planning, How to Make Great Transit-Oriented Places. http:// www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/tod202.pdf

Revitalize RVA Plan. http://www.lovingrva.com/

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. 2008. Station Site and Access Planning Manual. http://www.wmata.com/pdfs/planning/ station%20access/ssapm.pdf

Schwing, Katie. GRTC Transit System (personal communication), January-April, 2014.

Parkins, Lorna and Scudder Wagg. Michael Baker Corporation (personal communication), January 27, 2014 and March 18, 2014.

Feke, Maribeth. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (personal communication), January 24, 2014.

Tierney, Susan. Valley Metro (personal communication), January 27, 2014. 76 SOURCES

Lehnert, Matthew. Toledo Area Regional Transit Authority (personal communication), February 6, 2014.

Dahlberg, Erik. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (personal communication), February 11, 2014.

Morrell, James, Christopher Cronin and Matthew Grabau. Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority (personal communication), February 13, 2014.

Richmond Flying Squirrels (personal communication), January 31, 2014.

Toledo Mud Hens. Game-by-game results. http://www.milb.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?t=t_sch&cid=512&sid=t512&stn=true&y=2013.

ESPN.com. Washington Nationals Regular Season Schedule/Results. http://espn.go.com/mlb/team/schedule/_/name/wsh/year/2013/half/1/ washington-nationals

ESPN.com. Cleveland Indians Regular Season Schedule/Results. http://espn.go.com/mlb/team/schedule/_/name/cle/year/2013/seasontype/2/ half/1/cleveland-indians

ESPN.com. Arizona Diamondbacks Regular Season Schedule/Results. http://espn.go.com/mlb/team/schedule/_/name/ari/year/2013/half/1/ arizona-diamondbacks

Toledo Mud Hens. Parking. http://www.milb.com/content/page.jsp?ymd=20100219&content_id=8098956&sid=t512&vkey=team2

The Ballpark Guide. Coca-Cola Field Parking Review. http://www.theballparkguide.com/minors/buffalo-bisons/coca-cola-field-parking

Washington Nationals. Nationals Parking Options. http://washington.nationals.mlb.com/was/ballpark/parking.jsp

Cleveland Indians. Parking Map. http://cleveland.indians.mlb.com/cle/ballpark/parking_map.jsp 77 SOURCES

Ballpark Chasers. Chase Field. http://www.ballparkchasers.com/notes/Chase_Field

American FactFinder. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml

O’Connell, Jonathan. “Near Nationals Park, a neighborhood is emerging.” Washington Post. March 20, 2012. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ realestate/near-nationals-park-a-neighborhood-is-emerging/2012/03/05/gIQAsOCTPS_story.html

78 APPENDIX

2013 RICHMOND FLYING SQUIRRELS ATTENDANCE

79 APPENDIX

2013 TOLEDO MUD HENS ATTENDANCE AND MUDDY SHUTTLE RIDERSHIP

80 APPENDIX

81 APPENDIX

DAILY HEALTHLINE RIDERSHIP (MAY-AUGUST 2013)

82 APPENDIX

CLEVELAND INDIANS ATTENDANCE (MAY-AUGUST 2013) HEALTHLINE RIDERSHIP BY DAY TYPE

83 APPENDIX

NATIONALS ATTENDANCE AND POSTGAME METRO ENTRIES ( MAY-AUGUST 2013)

84 APPENDIX

NATIONALS ATTENDANCE AND POSTGAME METRO ENTRIES SORTED BY DAY TYPE

85 APPENDIX

PROPOSED BRT ROUTE (FULL ROUTE)