Deirdre Fernandes
The Virginian-Pilot
©
VIRGINIA BEACH
A slim majority of City Council members said Friday that they favor letting residents decide whether light rail should be extended into the Beach.
In a 1999 referendum, 56 percent of the city's voters voted against light rail.
This week, the City Council agreed to spend $10 million in a proposed deal for a 10.6-mile rail line, reigniting the debate over light rail.
Mayor Will Sessoms, Vice Mayor Louis Jones and council members Harry Diezel, Bob Dyer, Bill DeSteph and Ron Villanueva said they favored letting voters decide.
"You really need" a vote, Dyer said. "This is just too big."
Councilman Jim Wood said he's against a referendum, citing other opportunities for public input.
"It's the governing body's responsibility to make a decision," Wood said. "If the citizens are displeased... there's a referendum on the City Council every two years. "
Council members Glenn Davis, Barbara Henley, John Uhrin and Rosemary Wilson said they haven't decided. More information on ridership
and cost is needed, they said, and they want to see results from a planned environmental study of light rail. That's expected to take 12 to 18 months.
"The study will give us the financial data and possible alternatives that the public needs to know before we make a decision," said Councilwoman Barbara Henley, a light-rail supporter.
Before a referendum, however, the city must acquire the Norfolk Southern Corp. right of way, Sessoms said. The deal is still in negotiations. The state would have to contribute $10 million and other incentives for the purchase of the land.
Sessoms added that although he supports a referendum, "if the majority of council said we don't want a referendum, you're not going to see me stand in their way."
Aaron Applegate, (757) 222-5122. aaron.applegate@pilotonline.com
Deirdre Fernandes, (757) 222-5121. deirdre.fernandes@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
Interesting excerpt from transportation expert Wendell Cox
Transit is About Downtown: Why are so few people leaving their cars and getting on transit?
Because it would be irrational. For most trips, transit is not an acceptable substitute for the
automobile. Transit may be too slow, too inconvenient or, more often than not, transit simply
does not go where people are going.
There are exceptions. There is no better way to get to Manhattan below 59th Street or the
Chicago Loop than transit. And, people use transit to those destinations. The reality is, however,
that the frequent, high quality service to downtowns with 2,000,000 jobs as in Manhattan or
500,000 as in downtown Chicago simply cannot be justified to much smaller downtown
(http://www.publicpurpose.com/hwy-19992005gas.htm) Portland, Kansas City or Minneapolis,
much less to the 90 percent of jobs located outside downtowns from New York to Phoenix and San Francisco.
The bottom line is that people will not abandon their cars to get on transit services that do not go
where they are going. Not at any price. Transit does a good job of providing travel to the nation’s
largest downtown areas. But, as for a transit in the rest of the urban area, it would s
Bus Rapid Transit: A waste of fuel and money
Bitter American, you said:
"Why not buy the right-of-way, pave it, and turn it into a bus-only road. This would feed into the Fraim Train at the Norfolk city line. This would be many, many times less costly, and would serve the same purpose. Several new busses (even those Big Bertha Busses they tried to force on us several years ago) would cost way less than a train. This could be done much quicker, maybe even quicker than Norfolk's folly. Stations would be much simpler and less costly, maintenance would be way less costly. Road crossing times would be much shorter."
For one thing, light rail uses electrical power only. Bus Rapid Transit, even if HRT buys the big New Flyer Buses with the General Motors Allison or ISE hybrid-electric drives (http://www.newflyer.com/pix/Brochures/brtbrochure.pdf), will cost money in fuel costs if gas prices riseabove $4.00 a gallon again.
It all comes down to some simple questions . . .
1. Do you feel that gas prices will rise near or over the $4.00 mark in the near future?
2. Do you own a fuel efficient vehicle (35 - 45 MPG or more) or do you plan to purchase one in the near future?
3. If you don't own a vehicle, do you think the present transit options are adequate?
If you answered yes, no, & no to these questions, then you will most likely will vote yes to expand light rail to the waterfront.
"as long as the price is right"
How much?
Where's the logic?
Why is it that so many people push for a referendum to use $10 mil on LRT when VB City Council just spent $60 on a building for TC? Why is it that although many disagree about the TC deal, they will sit back and let the council do its thing. Then, when they try to create the LRT to make TC a true success, it has to have a referendum? On a separate note, whoever thinks that transit is for the poor should read this: According to the American Public Transit Association, there are more transit riders making between $50,000 and $99,999 then there are making below the poverty line. In other words, there are more upper middle class riding it than poor people.
Light Rail and Lack of Leadership
What the heck do we even elect so-called city leaders for anyway? They can't make a decision one way or another without posturing and making sure that they don't p*ss anyone off. Sessoms is so wishy-washy and so are the others that won't make a decision without worrying about the next election. The cry babies that bit*h about the traffic situation and don't want to do anything about it because we might have to pay more taxes to make an intelligent decision and use light rail. It works in other cities that I have lived in and it does cut down on congestion as long as the price is right and the transportation people promote it right. Plus it will be one solution to help cut down on our dependence to foreign oil. One of many solutions. Come on you so called city leaders and lead this city out of the early 20th century into the 21st and be willing to make an unpopular decision.
Referendum means lack of backbone
I thought that when we elected our government officials, they would have the courage to take a stand on issues such as light rail and vote by themselves? However, some of our councilmen have decided that they lack the courage to vote themselves, thus their request for a referendum.
They cannot lose with this. If it works out well, they can take credit that they had the foresight to ask the residents of the city to decide. And if light rail fails, they can blame those who voted in favor of light rail and wipe their hands clean.
I thought we already had a referendum when we first elected them into office, but sadly I was wrong. When a tough decision comes in front of the council they lack the backbone to vote themselves. Of course, city council has a track record when it comes to referendums such as the 30th St site. Didn't the residents vote the project down, only to see the city move on against the wishes of the people?
If this is a trend for decisions that are "too big" as Bob Dyer stated, then why do we even need a city council? How about next we would only need the city manager and when issues comes up, let us vote as they do on American Idol. It will be alot cheaper and hope
2011?
Then why is the current council even discussing it now? Unless they plan to make their decision now, without the facts, without the DEIS without knowing the impact, cost, or value to the city.
tolls
I find it strange that some want the light rail to pay for itself with what riders pay but you also want new roads and bridges to be free, not tolled. It all falls under transportation and infrastructure.
HenryR....Light rail is NOT
HenryR....Light rail is NOT a right wing vs. left wing issue. If anything, it is a developer vs. taxpayer issue.
Why are most of the LRT supporters scared to place the issue on the November ballot?????