The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread

[Nashtitans]

7 minutes ago, fieldmarshaldj said:

Haslam is as much a "Republican" as Pharoah Phil Bredesen was. Heads are going to roll over this vote for the so-called "Conservatives" who jack up taxes when there's $2 billion in a surplus that should've been used first.

Yes, we could a paradise like California if it weren't for all those bible-thumping ooobers.

I rather live in a uber liberal blue state then a uber conservative red state.  The democrat party ain't perfect but it sure is alot better than the cesspool of the GOP/republican party. I feel like the government is not only holding this city back, but this state back. For example, our red governer just signed a bill to retract the recent marijuana laws in Memphis and Nashville. Such a dumb decision. If we had foward thinking, progressive, democrat politicians running this state, I don't think this transit issue would be taking so long.

[BnaBreaker]

39 minutes ago, fieldmarshaldj said:

Yes, we could a paradise like California if it weren't for all those bible-thumping ooobers.

I don't get the conservative hatred of California.  Sure, it has it's problems no doubt, so I'm not saying it's paradise.  But I mean, 6th largest economy in the world, multiple world class cities, incredible cultural diversity, stunningly beautiful and diverse topography, some of the best beaches on earth, a hotbed for innovation... I mean, I know it leans blue but why would that prevent one from appreciating all it has to offer?  Just curious!  Also, what's an ooober?  

[fieldmarshaldj]

38 minutes ago, Nashtitans said:

I rather live in a uber liberal blue state then a uber conservative red state.  The democrat party ain't perfect but it sure is alot better than the cesspool of the GOP/republican party. I feel like the government is not only holding this city back, but this state back. For example, our red governer just signed a bill to retract the recent marijuana laws in Memphis and Nashville. Such a dumb decision. If we had foward thinking, progressive, democrat politicians running this state, I don't think this transit issue would be taking so long.

The reason why people are moving to Tennessee is precisely why we have the elected officials that we do, not engaged in fiscally and socially reckless policies. And please, for the love of pete, stop using those Meshuggah color schemes to describe politics. It is ass-backwards and Orwellian.

[fieldmarshaldj]

9 minutes ago, BnaBreaker said:

I don't get the conservative hatred of California.  Sure, it has it's problems no doubt, so I'm not saying it's paradise.  But I mean, 6th largest economy in the world, multiple world class cities, incredible cultural diversity, stunningly beautiful and diverse topography, some of the best beaches on earth, a hotbed for innovation... I mean, I know it leans blue but why would that prevent one from appreciating all it has to offer?  Just curious!  Also, what's an ooober?  

California had "problems" in the 1990s. It has gone so far past the pale that it has gone to plaid. There's far too much to discuss where California is concerned to remotely keep it related to this thread and would only be deleted. I was voicing my disgust in the thread for tax-happy politicians in Tennessee that lie to their constituents. An "ooober" ? Y'know, those loons who actually believe in the Bible and the Constitution, low taxes & spending and small gubmint, that sort of thing. AKA "Deplorables."

[Dale]

50 minutes ago, BnaBreaker said:

I don't get the conservative hatred of California.  Sure, it has it's problems no doubt, so I'm not saying it's paradise.  But I mean, 6th largest economy in the world, multiple world class cities, incredible cultural diversity, stunningly beautiful and diverse topography, some of the best beaches on earth, a hotbed for innovation... I mean, I know it leans blue but why would that prevent one from appreciating all it has to offer?  Just curious!  Also, what's an ooober?  

Sure, but you have to live in your car. And yes, that does have a lot to do with its politics.

[BnaBreaker]

26 minutes ago, Dale said:

Sure, but you have to live in your car. And yes, that does have a lot to do with its politics.

That makes absolutely no sense to me.  How can people be so black and white in their thinking?  I mean I'm pretty liberal but it would never keep me from embracing all there is to love about the so-called "red" states...just got back from a couple weeks in Utah, actually!  Stunningly beautiful state...I loved so much about it (aside from the liquor laws...ha).  

re: living in your car, In suburban LA you do, but even there, it's no more car dependent than most places in the country.  

Anyway, I'm getting off topic now.  Sorry.  

1 hour ago, fieldmarshaldj said:

California had "problems" in the 1990s. It has gone so far past the pale that it has gone to plaid. There's far too much to discuss where California is concerned to remotely keep it related to this thread and would only be deleted. I was voicing my disgust in the thread for tax-happy politicians in Tennessee that lie to their constituents. An "ooober" ? Y'know, those loons who actually believe in the Bible and the Constitution, low taxes & spending and small gubmint, that sort of thing. AKA "Deplorables."

I'll just leave that there and say, thank you for answering my question.  lol 

Edited April 20, 2017 by BnaBreaker

[fieldmarshaldj]

22 minutes ago, BnaBreaker said:

That makes absolutely no sense to me.  How can people be so black and white in their thinking?  I mean I'm pretty liberal but it would never keep me from embracing all there is to love about the so-called "red" states...just got back from a couple weeks in Utah, actually!  Stunningly beautiful state...I loved so much about it (aside from the liquor laws...ha).  

re: living in your car, In suburban LA you do, but even there, it's no more car dependent than most places in the country.  

Anyway, I'm getting off topic now.  Sorry.  

I'll just leave that there and say, thank you for answering my question.  lol 

We can have a discussion on these issues, but it will likely have to be in private or off the board. Anytime anything gets political... well, you know. G'night.

[jmtunafish]

Getting back to the topic of transportation in Nashville...

Does anyone here have a subscription to the NBJ who can share what's in this article?

http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2017/04/19/exclusive-new-metro-study-gives-preview-of-what.html

[smeagolsfree]

The NBJ article is just saying that bus traffic would be on 4th, 5th , Charlotte and Broadway, in the downtown area. Talk about making 5th a one way again. I think that was a Dean misstep by making 5th a two way. It simply does not work.

 

One way streets are the key to making traffic move more efficiently. Every street downtown with the exception of Broadway, KVB, James Robertson and Demonbreun needs to be a one way. I'm may be forgetting a couple.  Each street should alternate in direction as you move from the main East West route and from the river all the way to 8th.

But it will never happen because 2nd and 4th are so entrenched with the direction they have been for a long time.

The map below shows where routes would lie on the modified Blue H, as outlined in a January presentation to the mayor's office:

While discussions are flexible and ongoing, the objective for downtown transit is three-fold:

1. To consolidate existing bus lines into a more user-friendly system.
2. To establish exclusive transit lanes to increase speed and reliability of the city’s bus system.
3. To create a mass-transit system that would highlight the city’s plans for other mobility solutions, such as bike paths and sidewalks.

[VSRJ]

I know it would be a massive undertaking, but I wish they would at least consider a trolley/light rail system... (if they haven't already)

[Dale]

7 hours ago, BnaBreaker said:

That makes absolutely no sense to me.  How can people be so black and white in their thinking?  I mean I'm pretty liberal but it would never keep me from embracing all there is to love about the so-called "red" states...just got back from a couple weeks in Utah, actually!  Stunningly beautiful state...I loved so much about it (aside from the liquor laws...ha).  

re: living in your car, In suburban LA you do, but even there, it's no more car dependent than most places in the country.  

Anyway, I'm getting off topic now.  Sorry.  

I'll just leave that there and say, thank you for answering my question.  lol 

Can't let that slide. perusing the last several posts, mine is a summary response to the notion that Blue States are somehow more idyllic. To that: Ha!

FYI: I moved to LA, briefly, and found it exhilarating. BUT, I quickly realized that its COL, taxes, fees and endless regulations would have made life miserable.

I moved the Charlotte -- not ostensibly because I wanted to live in a Red State -- and found a city that was greener, had better transportation (much shorter commutes) and the biggie -- much better bang-for-buck. And nothing, NOTHING is hipper than affordability. And the job I got in Charlotte paid better than the one in LA. In fact, much better.

 

 

[bigeasy]

Didn't we used to have a trolley system downtown? So have we been going backwards over time when it comes to public transit? I still don't see more buses, or rapid bus ever being a fix or solution for any transit problems here. Maybe I just live in an area with low usage, but whenever I drive by buses on Nolensville road they seem to be at maybe 10% capacity.

Buses just aren't "sexy" enough for people. Maybe in the future it would be a viable option, but I don't see someone dropping their commute by car to go by bus. However, I could see someone switching for a train/subway.

[VSRJ]

^ There's still too much of a stigma around them in smaller cities. In Chicago, buses are widely used as an integral part of an amazing mass transit network. I never think twice about using a bus to connect with an L line. It's a way of life. It may not be perfect, but it works.

[bigeasy]

^I def agree with that, and my opinion was based on just the perception that I think Nashville has of buses. My cousins live in Chicago, so whenever I visit them we typically use the buses, especially to connect with the train. Very good system, esp the live updates as to when they arrive at the stops. It makes it very easy to time when we should leave their house and walk to the stop.

With that being said, I couldn't see myself just depending on the bus from their place to downtown as that would take forever due to all the stops. That is where I think a train/subway becomes more useful. With so many people commuting 15+ miles into town I don't think more or faster buses is the solution. I think they need to find a way to get the people into town. I know nothing though, as I would rather just ride my bicycle.

[thenorthchannel]

2 hours ago, smeagolsfree said:

The NBJ article is just saying that bus traffic would be on 4th, 5th , Charlotte and Broadway, in the downtown area. Talk about making 5th a one way again. I think that was a Dean misstep by making 5th a two way. It simply does not work.

 

One way streets are the key to making traffic move more efficiently. Every street downtown with the exception of Broadway, KVB, James Robertson and Demonbreun needs to be a one way. I'm may be forgetting a couple.  Each street should alternate in direction as you move from the main East West route and from the river all the way to 8th.

But it will never happen because 2nd and 4th are so entrenched with the direction they have been for a long time.

The map below shows where routes would lie on the modified Blue H, as outlined in a January presentation to the mayor's office:

While discussions are flexible and ongoing, the objective for downtown transit is three-fold:

1. To consolidate existing bus lines into a more user-friendly system.
2. To establish exclusive transit lanes to increase speed and reliability of the city’s bus system.
3. To create a mass-transit system that would highlight the city’s plans for other mobility solutions, such as bike paths and sidewalks.

Recent lurker. First time poster.

I would add, the NBJ article makes the point that by creating bus specific lanes with greater speed and schedule reliability, this change is hoped to be a tipping point which results in more people downtown using public transit options.  Once that happens it makes the funneling of regional mass transit options into the downtown area more feasible.

In other words, what good is a light rail system that drops you off downtown if you then have to take an Uber to your destination?

[markhollin]

Welcome aboard, thenorthchannel!  Look forward to more comments and contributions from you.  : )

[RonCamp]

On 4/19/2017 at 10:08 AM, PruneTracy said:

That depends. It would be possible for Metro to enforce restrictions on roadside infrastructure that developers build or replace. For example, they might require as a condition of zoning or permitting that developers:

• Deed sufficient right-of-way to accommodate sidewalks;
• Not locate utility mains, vaults, poles, and other common structures within a certain distance from the curb line, either inside or outside the roadway;
• Do locate utility meters and valves serving individual parcels at the right-of-way line; and/or
• Grade the roadside to a certain slope to the right-of-way line.

The biggest issue with sidewalk construction at the moment is utility and stormwater relocation. In more urban areas, or where curb and gutter does not currently exist, the projects are more becoming a drainage improvement and utility relocation with some ancillary sidewalk construction. This adds significant time and money to a sidewalk installation, especially as utility providers typically use their own contractors or forces to relocate their respective infrastructure and must be coordinated with the sidewalk construction.

Placing these restrictions on developers would in effect provide a clean pad for sidewalk construction that would ideally only require simple excavation, sub-grade backfill, and paving to complete. While the developer would incur some expenses associated with the restrictions, most of them simply involve the placement of lines that must be paid for in any case, and the developer is not paying up-front for sidewalk and possibly curb and gutter (the latter of which is by far the most expensive paving item on a per-foot basis). Neither Metro nor the developer would have to maintain sidewalks until they are needed, cutting down on deterioration of unused infrastructure and expenses associated with programs like ADA consent decrees.

Thank you for a great answer.  If we're being honest, probably easier to pass the bill in its current (recently passed) form than to pass it without the sidewalk mandate but with the mandate for the four items you note above.  

Edited April 20, 2017 by RonCamp
Misspelled "note"

[Rockatansky]

12 hours ago, Nashtitans said:

The democrat party...

The Democratic party, not the Democrat Party.

4 hours ago, smeagolsfree said:

One way streets are the key to making traffic move more efficiently. Every street downtown with the exception of Broadway, KVB, James Robertson and Demonbreun needs to be a one way.

 

I disagree. Those streets which carry transit should probably be one way to assist in the movement of traffic, but the remainder of the streets should be designed to promote walking and biking. Complete streets.

3 hours ago, VSRJ said:

I know it would be a massive undertaking, but I wish they would at least consider a trolley/light rail system... (if they haven't already)

We tried with The AMP. The state legislature blocked it.

Edited April 20, 2017 by Rockatansky

[PruneTracy]

15 minutes ago, Rockatansky said:

I disagree. Those streets which carry transit should probably be one way to assist in the movement of traffic, but the remainder of the streets should be designed to promote walking and biking. Complete streets.

We can have streets with one-way vehicular traffic and two-way bicycle traffic.

[smeagolsfree]

The reason I say most of those streets need to be one way is the fact that there is and will be more traffic flowing out of those parking garages for the office buildings, hotels, and residential towers coming on line and the fact the streets are very narrow and not meant to handle the volume of two way traffic that is now present.

Pedestrians in this town barely look when they are crossing regardless if it is one way or two way. I do agree about the two way bike lanes as I have seen this in other cities.

[fieldmarshaldj]

4 hours ago, Rockatansky said:

We tried with The AMP. The state legislature blocked it.

Thank heavens. A half-baked plan and a total waste of taxpayer money.

[smeagolsfree]

As I have stated before,infrastructure is a responsibility of the government. This is a fair tax as it hits everyone that travels through the state and uses our roads. Yes there is a surplus, but most people have very short memories and don't recall we were dipping into that surplus to run the government because sales tax revenues fell off due to the recession. 

I'll be the first to complain about unfair taxes, but the this is not unfair or that high. If you want high taxes, move somewhere else and you will see our tax burden in this state is not near as bad as other states, red and blue.

We have a 10 billion dollar hole in road improvements with no way to get out of it. There was no pun intended but that will work.

This is a complicated issue and it has  to take level headed thinkers and not extreme right or left lunatics beating their drums trying to drown the other side out. 

Enough of this far right and far left talk as common sense needs to prevail at some point.

[SoundScan]

If you want better infrastructure then you have to pay for it, and no better way to do that than sending the bill to those who actually use said infrastructure. Any so-called "conservatives" who advocate spending general fund surplus dollars (aka, savings) to fix a cash flow problem are either confused by simple economics or simply not true conservatives.

[titanhog]

Can we please stop with the politics?  It's becoming like Facebook up in here.

[fieldmarshaldj]

3 hours ago, SoundScan said:

If you want better infrastructure then you have to pay for it, and no better way to do that than sending the bill to those who actually use said infrastructure. Any so-called "conservatives" who advocate spending general fund surplus dollars (aka, savings) to fix a cash flow problem are either confused by simple economics or simply not true conservatives.

Jacking up taxes when there is a surplus available to use is not "Conservative", sir. Neither are so-called elected officials who lie to their constituents that they'll oppose it and turn around and vote for it.