The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread

[Hey_Hey]

The AMP is not funded. It received 75 million dollars from the Feds, but there is still a ~$100 million gap that has to be sorted out between the state and city.

[rookzie]

The AMP is not funded. It received 75 million dollars from the Feds, but there is still a ~$100 million gap that has to be sorted out between the state and city.

 

Aside from the $75 million from the federal government, Metro, as you already have stated, also has to seek state and/or local funds for the Amp as well, in addition to some $7.5 million approved by Council last year for final design and engineering on the project.  Needlessly stated, the state was outspokenly unsupportive last spring on funding the Amp project as proposed on its western portion, even though the city has stated repeatedly that it has not yet been prepared to seek funding from the state, a submission which indeed is to be expected eventually in succeeding years of budget.

Whatever the capital tab proposal will end up being, as a direct result of any heavy paring down of the originally proposed lane arrangement and the realignment through downtown, nevertheless, when Metro does decide to move forward with a proposal for the local funding portion of the Amp's total construction cost, the mayor has stated that Metro should have sufficient capacity to fund he Amp the same way that other infrastructure improvements have been funded — through capital spending allotments.

As far as the state-provided future funding is concerned, it has been suggested that the Metro contribution to the project could increase, or that the project's design could be altered (or both) should the state decide not to contribute in time.   In any event, in consideration of the upcoming mayoral change less than a year from now, it remains academic at this point in time, on landing a sustainable funding source, not only as capital outlay for the implementation of the Amp, but also for operational overhead.

Earlier this year, the mayor's communications director argued that the operating expenses for the Amp, once built, are to be covered in the same manner that MTA’s other operations are funded ─ that is through fare collections and the Metro budget – that none of MTA’s services currently require a dedicated funding source, and that the Amp would not as well.

I certainly cannot counter that assertion about the current M-O on standard transit operation funding, but I do beg to differ with this implied declaration that the Amp or any other future sizable transit initiatives for the MTA should not require a dedicated funding source, even as dedicated sources tend to vary immensely with the economy (as Cleveland’s GCRTA knows first-hand).  I, along with many others, doubt that future, much more ambitious projects for the MTA/RTA will end up being achievable, without some fund-earmarking manipulation, on the local or state level, however politically contentious (or suicidal) the hurdles may be.

While Metro’s current administration is avoiding any discussion about dedicated funding for the Amp, the succeeding administration might consider applying the same principal of tax-increment financing, as that which the current one has established for the recent funding to offset the cost of the about-to-be-built gulch pedestrian bridge.  Similarly the city of Kansas City (Mo.) finally came to terms to approve a start-up streetcar project in its CBD, and construction actually began last spring.  While this first phase of its new-start is considerably shorter in distance (2 miles) than that of the Amp, KC voters approved creation of a special taxing district that will fund construction and operation of this particular streetcar run, even though this enactment was not without challenge.

I’m not proposing any specific funding method of transit projects, but I do know one thing – that annual fiscal budgeting alone rarely is sufficient for ongoing expansion of large transit projects.  The Amp may not need this now, but as part of a larger system, that the new MTA CEO claims is necessary for the Amp to be successful, any superset of the Amp most likely will require some reserved funding source.

Without any new or periodic update or revelation from the mayor’s office and the MTA on the engineering status and finalization, it’s anybody’s guess on when any actual Amp construction will commence.  It’s no point in trying to second-guess what’s actually going on or what’s about to happen, that we aren’t already privy to, although I do feel that it would be “nice” to be kept abreast of the reports of the Amp Citizens Advisory Committee, along with the engineering changes for the route, as they are discussed and hashed out, without one having to stumble upon a news release.  I only hope that leadership eventually can get this Amp underway in some form or fashion, even if it ends up being a fleet of orange-painted SUV’s fitted with passenger trailers and with purple neon underbody ground effects (to draw attention as being the “Amp”).

Speaking of crazy things, they might consider an aqua-bus project, expanding on the river-taxi concept.  They can build and run hydrofoil speed-boat buses up and down the river from Pennington bend to Cockrill Bend (or even from Neely’s Bend to Bell’s Bend), and have shuttles from intermodal bus landings every mile or so.  Maybe then they can re-dub it the “Fender” or the “Wah-Wah”.

 

 

-==-

[fieldmarshaldj]

^What's the wake on those hydrofoils ? I know that's what sunk the river taxis with the erosion it was causing to the shoreline.

[farm_boy]

There are numerous folks that no longer post to this thread. Why? Because some people like Ford over Chevy or Chevy over BMW or ....

 

Anyone who dares speak against the current "amp" plan is ..... anti - AC/DC/Klingon/condom/whatever ........... censored

 

Many good benefits have came to our city, thanks to our current mayor. But, Curly Dean would be fired if he worked for Donald Trump for being a disastrous project leader for amp. Sometimes a good project needs a good leader. Sometimes a better project is needed.

 

If this was "The Price Is Right", I would wait for the 2nd Showcase ....

[rookzie]

^What's the wake on those hydrofoils ? I know that's what sunk the river taxis with the erosion it was causing to the shoreline.

 

I really don't have even the slightest on that.  I do recall that having being an issue about those things a while back, and I never knew the type of craft or whether or not they used hydrodynamic lifting.

 

-==-

[BnaBreaker]

It would be nice to have more water borne transportation around here...though I suppose in order for that to work, there need to be places along the water that people actually want to go.  Also, with the curvaceous nature of the river, I kind of doubt that a water taxi to, say, Metrocenter, would be any quicker than just hopping on a bus that knifes right through town.

[ruraljuror]

There are numerous folks that no longer post to this thread. Why? Because some people like Ford over Chevy or Chevy over BMW or ....

 

Anyone who dares speak against the current "amp" plan is ..... anti - AC/DC/Klingon/condom/whatever ........... censored

 

Many good benefits have came to our city, thanks to our current mayor. But, Curly Dean would be fired if he worked for Donald Trump for being a disastrous project leader for amp. Sometimes a good project needs a good leader. Sometimes a better project is needed.

 

If this was "The Price Is Right", I would wait for the 2nd Showcase ....

 

 

I, for one, would never make the claim that anti-Amp folks are anti-AC/DC.  In fact I would imagine that just the opposite is the case as often as not.  I do however think that most of those who oppose the Amp can be categorized in one or more of the following ways:

 

Anti-Nashville:  Those from outside the city who think that Nashville already receives too much attention and state funding, despite the disproportionate revenue that Nashville generates for the state.

 

Anti-Growth:  Those from Nashville who bemoan the influx of new residents and the changes to the city that accompany the boom.  This group seems to misguidedly see opposition to the Amp as a means of curbing that growth. 

 

Anti-Mass Transit:  Those who make money selling cars and do not welcome the competition or even acknowledge the conflict of interest.  There is also a larger subset of the Anti-Mass Transit group who not only choose to ignore climate science but go as far as actively opposing carbon-reduction efforts because those efforts indirectly conflict with their preexisting ideologically-based conclusions, disregarding other obvious benefits like better air quality and reduced traffic that aren't even dependent on the acknowledgment of man-made global warming in order to see the upsides. 

 

Anti-Government Spending:  It's pretty easy to oppose any government spending for things you disagree with while applauding government spending for projects you like.  So easy that we all do it pretty much all the time, and the Amp is no exception to the rule.  It's worth noting however, that the same people who oppose the Amp supposedly on these grounds didn't all have giant wooden anti-New Sounds Ballpark signs in their yards. 

 

Anti-Traffic:  Those who believe that the Amp will make traffic on West End worse, despite the fact that the studies all show that the Amp will significantly reduce the travel time down West End both for people riding the Amp and for people driving in cars.  This group rarely acknowledges how much worse traffic is already going to be as a result of the projected population growth and don't seem to have any ideas regarding feasible alternatives to deal with the coming carmageddon. 

 

Anti-'Bus Riders' in their Neighborhood:  self-explanatory. 

 

Anti-BRT:  Those that claim to support Mass-Transit but don't think another bus-system is the answer and would instead prefer Light Rail, etc.  To these people I would say, if the anti-Amp groups want to propose a Light Rail and agree to funding it, I have little doubt that the pro-Amp groups will totally be on board, even if it's not necessarily the most cost-efficient system to address our current and expected needs. 

 

Anti-Route:  Those who think West End is the wrong location for the route.  This group usually fails to acknowledge that West End is just the first leg in a more comprehensive system, and it's the one we're leading with because the specifications of this route enabled us to get a lot federal funding to help kick start the whole project.  If the complaint is against the federal specs that made West End the best (if not only) choice, then the solution is to make better federal rules, which requires electing better representatives for Tennessee at the federal level, which I am certainly in favor of.

 

 

So what am I missing here?  I would love to add to this list if there are any other reasons for opposing the Amp that I am omitting. 

 

As it stands however, it seems to me that compromises have been made to address the concerns of the opposition.  The Amp will be a little less effective as a result, in my opinion, but even with the compromises in place the project is still a net positive.  We are already late to the game in terms of addressing our population growth and traffic issues, and no one seems to be bringing any new ideas to the table.  What are we waiting for?

[rookzie]

It would be nice to have more water borne transportation around here...though I suppose in order for that to work, there need to be places along the water that people actually want to go.  Also, with the curvaceous nature of the river, I kind of doubt that a water taxi to, say, Metrocenter, would be any quicker than just hopping on a bus that knifes right through town.

 

Yeah, I was just throwing that out to be facetious.  Since most rivers have meanders, some frequently with 180-degree or greater reversing of direction around the bends, a river-commuting system of any appreciable distance would be counterproductive and wasteful, in terms of travel time and fuel consumption, just to follow the travel path, let alone having to deal with wear and tear with reverse thrusting and docking time for each stop.  Meanders might work where development is well established and dense on both banks which have many bridges spanning them along the way, but not around here obviously.  Lake shores might lend themselves better to water transit, for large cities with heavy urbanization along an extensive shore-line distance and where there exists little or no need to cross that water barrier.

 

On the other hand, pedestrian ferries at least seem work reasonably well for large estuaries and bays, and where it might be an advantage to commute across water without need for a car on both sides of the barrier, and where tunnels and bridges are located far apart and frequently are subjected to congestion and exceeded capacity.  The SF North Bay, particularly the Marin Co. waterlocked cities of Sausalito, Tiburon, Larkspur, and San Rafæl, come to mind, as well as (on a much smaller scale) Algiers Point on the West Bank of the Miss. River and across from DT New Orleans.

 

I think I'll stick with wheeled vehicles for around here, though.

 

-==-

Edited October 27, 2014 by rookzie

[BrandonTO416]

The AMP is not funded. It received 75 million dollars from the Feds, but there is still a ~$100 million gap that has to be sorted out between the state and city.

 

When I mentioned it is funded, I was referring specifically to the federal funds, which is the most important battle. The city has already stated it will fund the amp, no?

[fieldmarshaldj]

It would be nice to have more water borne transportation around here...though I suppose in order for that to work, there need to be places along the water that people actually want to go.  Also, with the curvaceous nature of the river, I kind of doubt that a water taxi to, say, Metrocenter, would be any quicker than just hopping on a bus that knifes right through town.

We just need to build more canals. Yes sir, canals, that will be the answer to our mass transit traffic woes. Just imagine a nice gondola ride down the middle of Murfreesboro Road. Of course, from the top of the hill near the former Capitol Chevrolet dealership towards downtown, it would be more like a rapids.

[BrandonTO416]

There are numerous folks that no longer post to this thread. Why? Because some people like Ford over Chevy or Chevy over BMW or ....

 

Anyone who dares speak against the current "amp" plan is ..... anti - AC/DC/Klingon/condom/whatever ........... censored

 

Many good benefits have came to our city, thanks to our current mayor. But, Curly Dean would be fired if he worked for Donald Trump for being a disastrous project leader for amp. Sometimes a good project needs a good leader. Sometimes a better project is needed.

 

If this was "The Price Is Right", I would wait for the 2nd Showcase ....

 

In regards to how the BRT discussion has went, I don't think any project manager of any type could easily get AMP built. After all, it isn't every day that your local transit project becomes a target by Koch funded groups who lobby every state legislator they can against the project.

 

Don't forget the monied, out of state, radical political opposition that is tied to how the state handled this. Sure, there's local opposition for various reasons, but this cannot be forgotten.

 

I still don't understand why people who generally support transit can't support both this BRT line and a continued discussion of an elevated train later on that would be far superior than investing a billion (or more) into light rail in the street. I have the attitude that you can walk and chew gum at the same time, and I still think AMP is going to be built in due time.

 

I wouldn't be unsupportive if they opted to build light rail in the street as it is planned with buses, but I think it would be a wasted opportunity to do better. Every reporter in Nashville as well as transit advisors at all levels (those who advise the state gov't, metro gov't, or media) should really start researching and traveling the country. Light rail transit has become the flavor of the month in the past 20 years, and its mixed environment has produced some very mixed results. A lot of these lines do take too long for an expensive investment. Its basically higher capacity buses in terms of speed, hence why I don't think BRT is a bad idea in Nashville with the routing as it is in-street.

 

If LRT service takes a long time to go a short distance, if a rail investment is being made it needs to be elevated and taken out of traffic whether its LRT technology, semi-heavy rail cars like Vancouver, or full blown heavy rail service like MARTA or BART or DC Metro. This is something that needs to get made clearly to all parties involved, because we have enough projects in use now to see the severe speed changes in regards to in-street vs dedicated right of way travel.

[BrandonTO416]

On another note, if they did opt to go with light rail vehicles, and they kept the in-street aspect of the project, I would rather them shorten the system to just a central city circulator and enhance bus services. It takes too much time for a light rail vehicle to go from Fine Points in East Nashville to White Bridge Road to spend that much money IMO.

 

A better light rail/streetcar/tram system in-street would be to start at Broadway/1st, go down Broadway and follow West End to 31st, then hop over to the One City project, then circulate the streetcar service back up Charlotte Ave, and either dive back into downtown and connect back in at 1st, or maybe jut northward to the new condos in Germantown and south through the new ballpark into 1st/Broadway again.

 

Just skip the whole East Nashville and St Thomas/White Bridge Road routing altogether and utilize better bus services outside the core.

 

There's already a Gallatin Pike BRT lite service in place, just add another stop or two in East Nashville and that'd be just as fast to transfer onto a streetcar system in the central city.

 

And from what I have been reading and hearing, most of the "West End opposition" to AMP is west of I-440. If they are that opposed to BRT, they'll hate when a light rail vehicle takes away a lane as well. Their primary concern is a reduced lane and inability to turn left, not that its bus (everything I've read indicates this). If that's the case, just don't give them rail or BRT service. I suppose that's democratic enough for them to listen to them.

 

EDIT: The Atlanta Streetcar project appears to cost just over $100 million for 2.6 miles of track as a reference:

http://www.myajc.com/news/news/local/atlanta-streetcar-to-start-later-cost-more/nd3jY/

Edited October 27, 2014 by BrandonTO416

[BrandonTO416]

Here is the above concept visualized. An alternative that I think would also work is instead of Broadway, have it follow 1st Ave down to Demonbreun, travel through the roundabout over to Division and 17th, then left onto West End. If it has to be in-street light rail this would probably be better.

 

 

 

EDIT: this routing is approximately 8 miles, which is about 3x the length of the Atlanta Streetcar. If estimations are similar, this idea would cost roughly $300 million for light rail trams in-street, of course that'd require costs to build to be similar per mile and I'm unsure how that translates between this concept and their new system.

Edited October 27, 2014 by BrandonTO416

[grilled_cheese]

Not sure where else they could add a stops on the Gallatin BRT (lite) but I would want them to add atleast another bus, extend their hours and start Saturday service.

[donNdonelson2]

We just need to build more canals. Yes sir, canals, that will be the answer to our mass transit traffic woes. Just imagine a nice gondola ride down the middle of Murfreesboro Road. Of course, from the top of the hill near the former Capitol Chevrolet dealership towards downtown, it would be more like a rapids.

RAPIDS Transit...I like it!!!

[UTgrad09]

I, for one, would never make the claim that anti-Amp folks are anti-AC/DC.  In fact I would imagine that just the opposite is the case as often as not.  I do however think that most of those who oppose the Amp can be categorized in one or more of the following ways:

 

Anti-Nashville:  Those from outside the city who think that Nashville already receives too much attention and state funding, despite the disproportionate revenue that Nashville generates for the state.

 

Anti-Growth:  Those from Nashville who bemoan the influx of new residents and the changes to the city that accompany the boom.  This group seems to misguidedly see opposition to the Amp as a means of curbing that growth. 

 

Anti-Mass Transit:  Those who make money selling cars and do not welcome the competition or even acknowledge the conflict of interest.  There is also a larger subset of the Anti-Mass Transit group who not only choose to ignore climate science but go as far as actively opposing carbon-reduction efforts because those efforts indirectly conflict with their preexisting ideologically-based conclusions, disregarding other obvious benefits like better air quality and reduced traffic that aren't even dependent on the acknowledgment of man-made global warming in order to see the upsides. 

 

Anti-Government Spending:  It's pretty easy to oppose any government spending for things you disagree with while applauding government spending for projects you like.  So easy that we all do it pretty much all the time, and the Amp is no exception to the rule.  It's worth noting however, that the same people who oppose the Amp supposedly on these grounds didn't all have giant wooden anti-New Sounds Ballpark signs in their yards. 

 

Anti-Traffic:  Those who believe that the Amp will make traffic on West End worse, despite the fact that the studies all show that the Amp will significantly reduce the travel time down West End both for people riding the Amp and for people driving in cars.  This group rarely acknowledges how much worse traffic is already going to be as a result of the projected population growth and don't seem to have any ideas regarding feasible alternatives to deal with the coming carmageddon. 

 

Anti-'Bus Riders' in their Neighborhood:  self-explanatory. 

 

Anti-BRT:  Those that claim to support Mass-Transit but don't think another bus-system is the answer and would instead prefer Light Rail, etc.  To these people I would say, if the anti-Amp groups want to propose a Light Rail and agree to funding it, I have little doubt that the pro-Amp groups will totally be on board, even if it's not necessarily the most cost-efficient system to address our current and expected needs. 

 

Anti-Route:  Those who think West End is the wrong location for the route.  This group usually fails to acknowledge that West End is just the first leg in a more comprehensive system, and it's the one we're leading with because the specifications of this route enabled us to get a lot federal funding to help kick start the whole project.  If the complaint is against the federal specs that made West End the best (if not only) choice, then the solution is to make better federal rules, which requires electing better representatives for Tennessee at the federal level, which I am certainly in favor of.

 

 

So what am I missing here?  I would love to add to this list if there are any other reasons for opposing the Amp that I am omitting. 

 

As it stands however, it seems to me that compromises have been made to address the concerns of the opposition.  The Amp will be a little less effective as a result, in my opinion, but even with the compromises in place the project is still a net positive.  We are already late to the game in terms of addressing our population growth and traffic issues, and no one seems to be bringing any new ideas to the table.  What are we waiting for?

 

Overall, I think you did a really good job of addressing the various reasons people don't want the AMP.

 

I think there are a few nuances, though, to opposition. Some people are not convinced that this is necessary. I've talked to a number of these people that think this way -- I don't think they are outright anti-public transit or anti-government spending, but rather just stuck in the present. After talking to them about the future growth anticipated for the city, and the specific needs for a comprehensive transit network (along with shrinking public parking availability in certain areas) some backed off a little bit.

 

I would say that a large number of people in Nashville are simply not well educated on the impacts of future growth, traffic, and how transit will address it (which is a product of living in a city where the vast majority of residents never use public transit at all).

 

 

Count me in the group that is lukewarm to the Amp proposal, and would like a route adjustment (less West End, more East Nashville...where residents actually support it), and drop the stupid Amp name. 

 

I am also in the group that think the mayor did a poor job of pitching this and getting the majority of the city on board. Transit-heavy parts of town felt left out -- it probably would've been good to be proactive and lay out a master plan for the BRT system, not just one "fix it" line that happens to serve the wealthier side of town.

[farm_boy]

No point in arguing with a fence post

 

...for what it's worth, personally, I am all for BRT. But, I can assure you that mass transit does not work unless people save time by using it. Having personally experienced riding mass transit in some of the larger cities of the world and many US/Canadian cities; I have learned when mass transit is useful for me.

 

ruraljuror, you asked what you are missing? Answer: We are missing a plan and a leader

[grilled_cheese]

No point in arguing with a fence post

 

...for what it's worth, personally, I am all for BRT. But, I can assure you that mass transit does not work unless people save time by using it. Having personally experienced riding mass transit in some of the larger cities of the world and many US/Canadian cities; I have learned when mass transit is useful for me.

 

ruraljuror, you asked what you are missing? Answer: We are missing a plan and a leader

 

What is YOUR plan and who is YOUR leader?

 

Edited October 27, 2014 by grilled_cheese

[BrandonTO416]

Overall, I think you did a really good job of addressing the various reasons people don't want the AMP.

 

I think there are a few nuances, though, to opposition. Some people are not convinced that this is necessary. I've talked to a number of these people that think this way -- I don't think they are outright anti-public transit or anti-government spending, but rather just stuck in the present. After talking to them about the future growth anticipated for the city, and the specific needs for a comprehensive transit network (along with shrinking public parking availability in certain areas) some backed off a little bit.

 

I would say that a large number of people in Nashville are simply not well educated on the impacts of future growth, traffic, and how transit will address it (which is a product of living in a city where the vast majority of residents never use public transit at all).

 

 

Count me in the group that is lukewarm to the Amp proposal, and would like a route adjustment (less West End, more East Nashville...where residents actually support it), and drop the stupid Amp name. 

 

I am also in the group that think the mayor did a poor job of pitching this and getting the majority of the city on board. Transit-heavy parts of town felt left out -- it probably would've been good to be proactive and lay out a master plan for the BRT system, not just one "fix it" line that happens to serve the wealthier side of town.

 

He had a great list and those points aren't mutually exclusive. Most people who oppose AMP usually fall into several of his categories instead of just one. AMP as a name is purely marketing, I don't care if its AMP or PUNK or FUNK or FML as long as it works.

 

In regards to planning, the MTA originally planned this route years ago. You can find documents (the library has Tennessean copies from the 90's) and it shows the exact same route. The general routing for this hasn't changed in 20 years. Its not a Karl Dean thing, the same plan was discussed under many administrations. Karl Dean is the only mayor to take transit and push it from talk to action.

 

Re: East Nashville, I thought a line from downtown to Five Points is serving the entire East Nashville region? The traditional bus system could be re-worked to pull in riders and transfer at AMP stations that live further away.

Edited October 27, 2014 by BrandonTO416

[BrandonTO416]

If AMP isn't going to work as BRT, I think a Streetcar system utilizing a slightly reduced route than I outlined would be worth debating (if it really is easier to get rail approved just because its rail). Streetcars are typically unidirectional so going to Germantown may not be a good idea, but the simplified design doesn't require platforms in the middle of the street, which overcomes the insane new law the state passed saying you can't have central street platforms.

 

If costs are roughly $50 million per mile (as it has been in Atlanta's recent construction project), a 1st Ave-Broadway/West End-31st-Charlotte-Union/1st connection would probably be around $300 million as its about 6 miles.

 

BRT lite is going to be the best bet for Charlotte, Gallatin, Murfreesboro, and Nolensville corridors based on projected riders vs cost of installation not to mention how slow light rail is in the street for that cost. Nashville could use a frequent city circulator as much as anything, especially if the RTA eventually builds more commuter trains out with these BRT lite services.

Edited October 27, 2014 by BrandonTO416

[UTgrad09]

He had a great list and those points aren't mutually exclusive. Most people who oppose AMP usually fall into several of his categories instead of just one. AMP as a name is purely marketing, I don't care if its AMP or PUNK or FUNK or FML as long as it works.

 

In regards to planning, the MTA originally planned this route years ago. You can find documents (the library has Tennessean copies from the 90's) and it shows the exact same route. The general routing for this hasn't changed in 20 years. Its not a Karl Dean thing, the same plan was discussed under many administrations. Karl Dean is the only mayor to take transit and push it from talk to action.

 

Re: East Nashville, I thought a line from downtown to Five Points is serving the entire East Nashville region? The traditional bus system could be re-worked to pull in riders and transfer at AMP stations that live further away.

 

1) I already said the list was pretty good. I just added that in my opinion some people didn't fit an "anti" category that opposed it. You don't have to be "anti-government spending" to question the value of using public funds. 

 

2) I never said the route plan was a Dean thing. I just think it's short sighted. Perhaps if the route was conceived 20 years ago, then they should have updated it as East Nashville became a more popular neighborhood. I commend Mayor Dean for taking the plan to action, but I think he hurt its chances by crowding it with a number of other large civic projects that made people start questioning spending. He got the MCC done (he didn't start it, but again, he made it a reality). That was a HUGE project. I think he could've done that and Amp and called it a career (since Nashville mayors are term-limited). Instead he added the ballpark, ampitheater, Gulch pedestrian bridge, and former convention center redevelopment to the mix. He definitely promoted Amp, but I think he didn't put the focus on it that was necessary to make it happen. Perhaps he thought the public would just go along with it? Perhaps he underestimated the opposition? I don't know. I just know that whomever is going to bring any form of OTHER public transit system is going to have to make that their PRIMARY focus. 

 

3) Why should 5 Points serve the entire East Nashville area? That would be like having the other end terminate at the Broadway/West End split and claim that it serves the entire West End area. I've said this before: if you cut off the highly opposed St. Thomas to 440 section of the Amp, and add that mileage to the East Nashville side, it would run to about Trinity Lane. Not only that, but mileage-wise, it would actually have about as much on the East as the West. THAT would be a true East-West connector, not the tourist line for the show Nashville so everyone can check out 5 Spot.

[12Mouth]

If AMP isn't going to work as BRT, I think a Streetcar system utilizing a slightly reduced route than I outlined would be worth debating (if it really is easier to get rail approved just because its rail). Streetcars are typically unidirectional so going to Germantown may not be a good idea, but the simplified design doesn't require platforms in the middle of the street, which overcomes the insane new law the state passed saying you can't have central street platforms.

 

If costs are roughly $50 million per mile (as it has been in Atlanta's recent construction project), a 1st Ave-Broadway/West End-31st-Charlotte-Union/1st connection would probably be around $300 million as its about 6 miles.

 

BRT lite is going to be the best bet for Charlotte, Gallatin, Murfreesboro, and Nolensville corridors based on projected riders vs cost of installation not to mention how slow light rail is in the street for that cost. Nashville could use a frequent city circulator as much as anything, especially if the RTA eventually builds more commuter trains out with these BRT lite services.

 

I have heard from a very good source that the AMP is almost certainly going to happen as BRT on the already-proposed route with the proposed compromises and small engineering changes. Given all of the factors, including the federal funding density requirements, this was really their only option all along (except for perhaps light rail or a streetcar on a similar route, which they studied). Don't ask me how they are going to deal with the state-funding issue. I think that we will see the following in the coming decade(s) to compliment it:

 

1. BRT-lite down all of the major pikes

2. A North-South Connector of some kind

3. Smaller circulars connecting neighborhoods to each other and the brt lines

4. Various regional solutions

 

I think that transitioning BRT-lite to full(er) scale BRT on the other pikes will eventually be done on an as-needed basis down the road. 

[ruraljuror]

Overall, I think you did a really good job of addressing the various reasons people don't want the AMP.

 

I think there are a few nuances, though, to opposition. Some people are not convinced that this is necessary. I've talked to a number of these people that think this way -- I don't think they are outright anti-public transit or anti-government spending, but rather just stuck in the present. After talking to them about the future growth anticipated for the city, and the specific needs for a comprehensive transit network (along with shrinking public parking availability in certain areas) some backed off a little bit.

 

I would say that a large number of people in Nashville are simply not well educated on the impacts of future growth, traffic, and how transit will address it (which is a product of living in a city where the vast majority of residents never use public transit at all).

 

 

Count me in the group that is lukewarm to the Amp proposal, and would like a route adjustment (less West End, more East Nashville...where residents actually support it), and drop the stupid Amp name. 

 

I am also in the group that think the mayor did a poor job of pitching this and getting the majority of the city on board. Transit-heavy parts of town felt left out -- it probably would've been good to be proactive and lay out a master plan for the BRT system, not just one "fix it" line that happens to serve the wealthier side of town.

 

I think you're right about the nuance.  I'm sure there are definitely some people who just aren't that educated on the plan and/or growth projections, etc.  At this point though, there have been enough information sessions and publicly released studies that ignorance of the issues involved is mostly a personal choice.  I would guess that a lot of the people in this group are coming from a similar place as the anti-Growth crowd--that Nashville already has adapted enough to accommodate the city's evolving demographics and therefore opposing new projects that address changing needs is a reasonable default position.  Either way, regarding the coming population growth, I would say there's not much practical difference between those that bury their heads in the sand and those sticking their fingers in the dam cracks, especially when they are both actively opposing the city's efforts to prepare for the flood. 

 

I also agree that the branding for the Amp is kind of stupid.

[BrandonTO416]

It is likely that when the state budget is crafted, Bill Haslam will put the AMP in the budget (he's former mayor of Knoxville and probably supports infrastructure dollars) and it'll be negotiated in the context of a general budget announcement. It will be hard for the anti-government faction of his party to get it out of a general budget since it'll be tied to other items.

 

^^^In regards to East Nashville, the Five Points location can serve as an end station and transfer point where standard buses can drop passengers off to transfer after they are collected in the lower density single family home neighborhoods. And not to forget Gallatin BRT lite already exists for communities further up toward Madison. East Nashville is being served, it was the first choice for the BRT lite service. I don't see that the area of town is being left out at all. Five Points isn't exactly just across the river in the Titans parking lot.

 

I'm also well aware that there are some transit supporters who oppose AMP since they don't like the routing or the fact it isn't in the form of rail transport and I outlined this point earlier. Transit isn't a zero sum game and once AMP BRT is completed, the debate can instantly turn to readying the city for a heavier rail form of transport in the future. That debate will take years onto itself and meanwhile Nashville will have a usable, professional grade BRT system to utilize during this phase of the city's growth.

[BrandonTO416]

EDIT: I am researching the funding issue, and as confusing as it is, I can't find any articles indicating that funding wasn't approved this year. All I am coming up with are the typical Jim Tracy and Beth Harwell anti-government, anti-AMP stuff that everyone is aware of. The bargain earlier this year that allowed AMP to proceed, was this not a funding item? Anyone here with more information please post, because I haven't found much information regarding state funding, just a "bargain" that was reached that allows BRT to proceed from back in the early summer. None of the links provide any funding information, however.

Edited October 27, 2014 by BrandonTO416