The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread

[nashvylle]

Wouldn't it be easiest if Nashville had dozens of buses leave downtown Nashville between 5 and 7pm and go directly to certain areas (no-stops along the way), and drop people off and then have discounted fares with uber/lyft/etc?

For example, from 5pm-7pm, everyone downtown loaded certain buses that would go directly to Vanderbilt, 5 points East Nashville, Opryland, BNA, Bellevue, TSU, etc. The buses would not stop 50 times along the way (like they do now), and use traffic technology to keep the lights green until their destination. Once the bus got to the stop, people would be have the incentive to use the discounted uber pool etc. to get them to their homes. 

Same could be done in reverse on the way to downtown (or other areas of Nashville). 

Throughout the day, the buses could stop every few blocks or so throughout the city. 

Edited July 10, 2017 by nashvylle

[PruneTracy]

21 hours ago, nashvylle said:

Wouldn't it be easiest if Nashville had dozens of buses leave downtown Nashville between 5 and 7pm and go directly to certain areas (no-stops along the way), and drop people off and then have discounted fares with uber/lyft/etc?

One thing that jumps out to me about this proposal is the distribution of ride-sharing services. Uber and Lyft are most efficient where users need rides in the same area that people already drive (full-time drivers notwithstanding). In other words there are a boatload of drivers downtown but not as many in the 'burbs. And many riders in one spot + few drivers in the same spot = surge pricing.

It's also worth noting that MTA already has express service (though not with TSP) out to many of these areas.

[nashvylle]

1 hour ago, PruneTracy said:

One thing that jumps out to me about this proposal is the distribution of ride-sharing services. Uber and Lyft are most efficient where users need rides in the same area that people already drive (full-time drivers notwithstanding). In other words there are a boatload of drivers downtown but not as many in the 'burbs. And many riders in one spot + few drivers in the same spot = surge pricing.

It's also worth noting that MTA already has express service (though not with TSP) out to many of these areas.

My reasoning is that MTA partnering with the ridesharing services would get more drivers out there / prevent surge pricing.

How "express" is the express service now? I doubt it is non-stop (but I could be wrong), and as you stated, I would want TSP. 

[PruneTracy]

13 minutes ago, nashvylle said:

My reasoning is that MTA partnering with the ridesharing services would get more drivers out there / prevent surge pricing.

I guess my point was that ride-sharing drivers would need an incentive to congregate at satellite hubs to take bus passengers from the hubs to their ultimate destinations. Keep in mind that these services were originally marketed, ulterior motives aside, more as a carpool service than a taxi service; the pitch to drivers was that they could pick up a rider on the way to their own destination, and not necessarily go out of their way. Obviously the service has evolved since then but either way, as I noted, the lower population density of the suburbs would imply fewer drivers, so the drivers would then have to commute themselves to get to the satellite hubs, which (aside from the implications on the supposed traffic congestion benefits of transit) means either passengers are paying more or drivers are making less.

Some transit agencies, particularly the small- to mid-sized ones that don't see ride-sharing as competition, are chomping at the bit to partner with Uber, Lyft, et al. to supplement their service. But in this sense the partnership incentive would have to be paying drivers to go out of their way to pick up transit customers, right? And as the transit agencies aren't really making money whether ride-sharing exists or not, as we discussed on the previous page, it follows that those payments would just be the same government subsidies they are receiving for the rest of their services.

So it seems like the transit agency in this scenario is just the middleman, transferring a subsidy for acceptable service from one entity to another. The $64,000 (or a lot more) question is, wouldn't it be easier to just contract Uber or Lyft or whoever to provide public transit to an acceptable standard for an entire city?

13 minutes ago, nashvylle said:

How "express" is the express service now? I doubt it is non-stop (but I could be wrong), and as you stated, I would want TSP. 

MTA has sixteen express routes currently; they terminate as close as Nipper's Corner (-ish; see below) and as far away as Spring Hill. Most of these go from Music City Central onto the Interstate system then off at their destination exit. (I know this isn't strictly what you had in mind but it functionally works the same, can't stop on the Interstate... or can you?)

The problem, if you look at the maps, is that many of these routes don't simply go between point A and point B. They cut down local roads, etc. and act as local service during that time. To use Bellevue as an example, Route 24X includes two transfer points to Route 5 (the local service) at two well-located park-and-ride lots, but then mirrors Route 5 anyway along Todd Preis. So maybe your scheme would obviate the desire to have local stops on the express routes, I don't know.

As far as TSP goes, bids for the Murfreesboro Pike corridor just came in June 20th for fall/winter construction. Will be a good test platform for MTA to work out the kinks.

[markhollin]

Nashville transit plan a boon for real estate market, pros say...

http://www.tennessean.com/story/money/homes/2017/07/14/nashville-transit-plan-boon-real-estate-market-pros-say/470222001/

[FromParkAveToTN]

Don't increase my property taxes for something I never plan to use. I have two very nice vehicles to get me around. 

[grilled_cheese]

2 hours ago, FromParkAveToTN said:

Don't increase my property taxes for something I never plan to use.

Uh, I don't think it works that way.

[FromParkAveToTN]

Hey, why don't I just sign my checks over to the city. Glad they are allowing us to vote on it. I will definitely be voting against it. Makes absolutely no sense to me. We pay enough taxes as is.

[smeagolsfree]

Its like the fire Department, you never use it until you need it. If your cars break down or the roads are too icy to drive on and the rail is running, a person could be inclined. Never say Never.

 

To add a little more here, is the fact that some companies may look at transit being a must to locate here, or another company may leave here to go to another city that has a good transit program. Who knows, could be your employer that leaves.

 

If a company gave you an incentive to ride transit and penalized you if you drove your car, would it then behoove you to use it. Penalize as in charge you to park like 30 dollars a day. That time may be coming if companies want to stop paying for parking for their employees by having huge parking lots. It will save them money. There are some places even in downtown employees have to pay high fees to park on a daily basis.

 

There are many scenarios that play out. 

 

[titanhog]

To me, mass transit only works if there is a dedicated infrastructure for mass transit only...and that mode of mass transit is prevalent everywhere in the area (not just one or two routes).  But...I guess we have to start somewhere so that we can eventually have it widespread.  (growing pains)

[grilled_cheese]

Is an elevated train too expensive or would the community not go for that?

[BnaBreaker]

4 hours ago, FromParkAveToTN said:

Hey, why don't I just sign my checks over to the city. Glad they are allowing us to vote on it. I will definitely be voting against it. Makes absolutely no sense to me. We pay enough taxes as is.

I'm not sure living around other people is for you...

[Pdt2f]

I'm ok with paying taxes for transit as long as they're run and administered correctly and effectively (no bloated union, absurd regulations that make it take decades to do repairs, added pork to expansion and repair plans, etc). I don't want a northeast-style transit system costs 10x as much to the taxpayer than it should because of all the palm-greasing and union requirements. I kind of understand when people are upset with having to pay for it, though. If someone lives in Bellevue and works in Brentwood or green hills, transit isn't really doing anything for them so it makes sense that they may resent being charged for something they don't use. 

[fieldmarshaldj]

14 hours ago, Pdt2f said:

I'm ok with paying taxes for transit as long as they're run and administered correctly and effectively (no bloated union, absurd regulations that make it take decades to do repairs, added pork to expansion and repair plans, etc). I don't want a northeast-style transit system costs 10x as much to the taxpayer than it should because of all the palm-greasing and union requirements. I kind of understand when people are upset with having to pay for it, though. If someone lives in Bellevue and works in Brentwood or green hills, transit isn't really doing anything for them so it makes sense that they may resent being charged for something they don't use. 

If it's run by the government, it's a 100% guarantee it will not be run efficiently, effectively and correctly.

[PruneTracy]

21 hours ago, grilled_cheese said:

Is an elevated train too expensive or would the community not go for that?

To use the alternatives analysis for the Amp as a local example, the BRT alternative was estimated to cost $136 million, while the streetcar alternative came in at $275 million and for the light rail alternative, $467 million. An elevated rail / monorail alternative didn't make it to the cost estimation phase but was getting ballparked at nearly one billion. But to answer the second part of your question, it seemed to be a hot topic at the public meetings.

[claya91]

interesting thoughts here..

 

[nashvylle]

Does anyone have the info on this article? Thank you

https://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2017/08/07/vanderbilt-professors-paper-takes-nashvilles-light.html

[Rockatansky]

On 8/7/2017 at 4:47 PM, nashvylle said:

Does anyone have the info on this article? Thank you

https://media.bizj.us/view/img/10564928/better-transit-apdf.pdf

[nashvylle]

17 minutes ago, Rockatansky said:

https://media.bizj.us/view/img/10564928/better-transit-apdf.pdf

Thank you. I skimmed but agree with a lot of his points. 

[Neigeville2]

I skimmed too.  Seems like the same old train-hater stuff.  Buses are cheap.  So what, nobody wants to use them.

[nashvylle]

what's surprising is this same guy was very against The Amp, and now appears to rather have something more similar to the Amp than the current proposal. 

[markhollin]

What light rail will look like on Nashville corridors:

https://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2017/08/11/slideshow-what-light-rail-will-look-like-on.html

Also, Metro details where mass transit will be a challenge (behind paywall):

https://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2017/08/11/exclusive-metro-report-details-where-mass-transit.html

[dmillsphoto]

Ah yes, the Amsterdam proposal ^

[AronG]

Also http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2017/08/11/how-light-rail-nashville-corridors-would-work-and-where-challenges/557905001/.

It's awesome to see more detailed planning for the corridors. Curious to see more detail on downtown though, and West End's looking a little left out.

[Chris Lee]

4 hours ago, markhollin said:

In the Before image I see 2 lanes in each direction with no turning lane. 

The After image has the equivalent of EIGHT traffic lanes, 3 car lanes in each direction and two train lanes. The left side of the image has conveniently lost all of the bike lane, sidewalk, and utility corridor...

What sorcery is this?

Edited August 11, 2017 by Chris Lee