The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread

[BnaBreaker]

37 minutes ago, Bos2Nash said:

The $12 per RIDE comment is a tough one to even approach. As unfortunate as this may sound, public transit IS NOT PROFITABLE. Cities do not build transit systems to make a profit or break even. If anything they are money holes because of the constant investment and maintenance that is required for them. They are an essential system for a top tier, highly dense city which is where Nashville is heading. 

That's true, but I've never really understood the argument that they should be profitable given the fact that mass transit systems fall into the category of municipal infrastructure.  I mean, nobody would ever expect cities to make money off of public schools or fire departments or sewer systems, so why the expectation for mass transit?  Are they assuming that because there is a small fee to use it that the intent is for it to operate like a business?  It just makes no sense to me.  

[grilled_cheese]

BOONDOGGLEBOONDOGGLEBOONDOGGLEBOONDOGGLEBOONDOGGLEBOONDOGGLEBOONDOGGLEBOONDOGGLEBOONDOGGLEBOONDOGGLEBOONDOGGLEBOONDOGGLEBOONDOGGLE

 

But seriously, I attended Mayor Briley's town hall meeting last night and he brought transit into almost every answer he gave.  I didn't realize he was such a proponent of this transit plan.  No one seemed vehemently against and I thought some of my Nextdoor neighbors would show up and go off but even if people were critical it still felt positive.

[Bos2Nash]

1 hour ago, BnaBreaker said:

That's true, but I've never really understood the argument that they should be profitable given the fact that mass transit systems fall into the category of municipal infrastructure.  I mean, nobody would ever expect cities to make money off of public schools or fire departments or sewer systems, so why the expectation for mass transit?  Are they assuming that because there is a small fee to use it that the intent is for it to operate like a business?  It just makes no sense to me.  

Nobody should expect transit to make money. Unfortunately people use the fact that tax payer dollars are going to it and they feel the tax payers should see a return (which they do.. its called public transportation).

Everyone says to use uber and lyft as a mass transit system. Well those are FOR PROFIT companies, that the government will have to subsidize and GASP tax payer dollars going to it. People who dont want the transit plan will use any excuse possible. its really quite sad in my book

[PruneTracy]

I can think of worse words to hear repeatedly. Like moist. Or perhaps fondle.

1 hour ago, BnaBreaker said:

That's true, but I've never really understood the argument that they should be profitable given the fact that mass transit systems fall into the category of municipal infrastructure.  I mean, nobody would ever expect cities to make money off of public schools or fire departments or sewer systems, so why the expectation for mass transit?  Are they assuming that because there is a small fee to use it that the intent is for it to operate like a business?  It just makes no sense to me.  

The difference is that police/fire protection, for example, is assumed to be distributed over the entire city. If you live outside Joelton, for example, even though you are in the most rural parts of the county you can still expect to have the police or fire department respond to an emergency. Same with schools, no matter where you live in the county you have access to public schools (whether you have school-age children notwithstanding).

That's not the case with transit; it's not really reasonable to expect any transit coverage outside of relatively urban areas, much less modes like light rail. Covering the entire county with anything more robust than paratransit (which is still not open to everyone to use) is a practical impossibility. So if you live in the sticks, you're not getting that coverage that you would with other services (aside from the marginal benefits like supposedly less traffic), but if it's funded like other services you're still paying for it just like any other resident of the county.

(Sewers actually do more or less break even when they are coupled with water service. Metro Water Services, for example, charges a percentage of water usage for sewer service and a flat fee for stormwater infrastructure.)

Of course you could rig up a system that only charges people who live in areas served by transit, similar to Metro's Urban Services District. For example, a district for each light rail line that consists of the residences and businesses within walking distance of that line. But I expect that many people would be less supportive of a plan that charged them more directly for transit services as opposed to one that spread the costs out over a larger population.

But having worked with many transit agencies, they would be better off if they were funded by ridership instead of grants, taxes, and the general fund. Note, this doesn't necessarily mean they have to be funded by fare collection; it could be accomplished with transit vouchers, for example. But as it is there is very little incentive for agencies to build and operate systems that put riders on the vehicles. Their plans, including Let's Move Nashville, reflect that. They are based around what sounds and looks good (to voters and to the feds) rather than what are cost-effective means to get people from point A to point B.

[SoundScan]

1 hour ago, PruneTracy said:

The difference is that police/fire protection, for example, is assumed to be distributed over the entire city. If you live outside Joelton, for example, even though you are in the most rural parts of the county you can still expect to have the police or fire department respond to an emergency. Same with schools, no matter where you live in the county you have access to public schools (whether you have school-age children notwithstanding).

These rural areas don't pay into the tax pool at any level close to approaching the costs of providing these services to them. Especially the roads they drive on. Those costs are subsidized by tax payers living in higher density urban areas. So we can call it a compromise. Rural citizens get the roads, schools, emergency services, water/sewer, etc. that they otherwise couldn't afford to have, and the dense parts of the city get to not waste away stuck in traffic if they so desire.

[Buildtall]

Saw this today on a fence headed into Bordeaux  from metro center.

[LA_TN]

Boondoggle!! 

In today's mail:

[BnaBreaker]

"Paid for by Americans for Prosperity" AKA The Koch Brothers.  

[PaulChinetti]

1 hour ago, LA_TN said:

Boondoggle!! 

In today's mail:

I got a different one of those in the mail everyday this week. I can’t imagine  the money they spent on them. 

[markhollin]

I found this very reasoned plea by Jeff Yarbro on Facebook last night:
 

I’m going to vote FOR the #LetsMoveNashville plan. Wanted to share my reasons and encourage you to early vote between today and next Thursday (Apr. 26) or on Election Day, Tuesday May 1.

Our city is dramatically under-invested in transportation infrastructure right now. Almost no comparable city – that we aspire to emulate – is as far behind on transit as Nashville. The plan’s biggest problem is that it is a decade late – we’ve waited until land prices have gone up and traffic has gotten out of control before taking this step. This is ambitious, but responsible. And when you look at state/city numbers, people living here will continue having lower taxes and public debt burden than people who live in almost any major American city.

My family will have to pay an extra nickel and eventually an extra dime each time we spend $10 on goods/services in Nashville. Lots of people will spend more on parking downtown tonight than they would spend in transit-dedicated sales taxes over a period of months. Many people won’t notice the increase – and for families struggling the most, it’s important to remember that the IMPROVE Act actually lowered the sales tax on food by one cent and the plan’s reduced fares will benefit them the most.

The improvements will be more notable than the costs. It will allow us to dramatically improve service immediately – and in a way that’s not in competition with schools or other priorities. It’s financially irresponsible over the long run to fund transit out of the annual budget instead of w/ dedicated revenue.

The only interesting challenge I’ve heard to the plan is that it doesn’t do enough to address regional transportation. But here’s the problem. If you’re Rutherford or Sumner County, getting your citizens to the county line or to downtown won’t cut it. There has to be a system that lets them get where they need to go once they’re here. If we had enacted this plan a decade ago, we could be addressing that next step-challenge. But better mobility along the big corridors and downtown isn’t an alternative to regional transit – it’s a prerequisite.

Most of the “transit alternatives” you’ve heard about are really “alternatives to transit.” Opponents have talked about express toll lanes, double-decker highways, fleets of autonomous vehicles. First, more cars aren’t the way to solve the problem. Second, all of these so-called alternatives are illegal, technologically unproven or unavailable, and/or prohibitively expensive for Nashville. Third, these ideas weren’t intended to help or they would have been raised at some point in the decade-long discussion we’ve had as a city rather than on the eve of Early Vote.

And that’s the thing. There are unquestionably citizens with skepticism or honest questions and folks who in good faith want to go a different way. But the professional opposition (the ones paying the bills) are the same people that were against the IMPROVE Act last year. They didn’t want Nashville to have the right to hold this referendum. They didn’t even want to invest money in fixing our roads like 440, and they sure as hell don’t want to spend money on transit. They claimed to be against the Amp because it was too small and too focused on buses; they claim to be against this because it’s too big and too focused on trains. And they’ll be against the next referendum too for whatever reason is convenient at the time.

People in Nashville know we have to do something about traffic. The opposition – though disingenuously – even acknowledges that. Is this plan perfect? No. No plan is. Will this plan make the city better? I think the clear answer to that question is yes. Whether it’s old people approaching retirement, young people moving to the city, professionals who don’t want to spend half their day finding parking, a bartender who doesn’t want to spend half their pay on parking, or someone just trying to find a job or a degree; we need to be a city where a high quality of life is not dependent on owning a car. For those of us who will stay in our cars, we need more people out of our way. No one says this will be a panacea for congestion, but congestion will not get better on its own. Waiting until it is more crippling and more expensive is dumb, and we’re not a dumb city.

Whatever you do, think about the plan and vote on its merits. Don’t vote Against as a protest vote in opposition to Nashville’s growth. We can’t stop the growth or pretend it’s not happening. Don’t vote Against as a “statement” about whether Nashville’s growth has been equitable enough. It hasn’t been, and that statement won’t change anything. For me, I’m voting For Transit because I think we have to be intentional about the way the city is growing, and I think this makes smart choices rather than just letting the future happen to us. I’m voting For Transit because I think affordable housing over the long term is a pipe dream without it. I’m voting For Transit, because the status quo is unsustainable, and this is a gigantic and long overdue step in the right direction.

I hope you’ll consider a Yes or “For” vote on the transit referendum.

[jmtunafish]

37 minutes ago, markhollin said:

we need to be a city where a high quality of life is not dependent on owning a car.

There are many good points made in Mr. Yarbro's post, but this is my favorite, and this is the one that I wish more of the opposition understood.

[BnaBreaker]

Yes, I wish Mr. Yarbro's words could be spread far and wide.  There is a great deal of wisdom to be found in them.  Sadly, I suspect that a great many Nashvilians would read that and still somehow manage to have the singular thought: 'If it ain't gonna make it easier for me to speed my F350 down the highway, then what the hell good is it?' 

[MagicPotato]

 

 

[e-dub]

18 minutes ago, MagicPotato said:

 

 

this is how the ikea exit will work.

[nashvillwill]

That’s fascinating. Impossible for pedestrians, but I can see how it would be very traffic efficient. 

[KJHburg]

^^^ We have 4 of these diverging diamonds here in the Charlotte area and believe it or not they really work. The speed up traffic and only for a few instances of people driving the wrong way right after they open.  I have not heard any of that happening lately.   They have huge concrete barriers in the middle and sidewalks on the outer edges at least here in NC.  But like I said after you get used to them they are fast moving at busy intersections.  The NC DOT loves these and they are putting them all over the state now.  Atlanta and GADOT did them near Perimeter Mall in Atlanta with much success too.    At your IKEA exit you will need it for sure.  

https://www.ncdot.gov/download/projects/publichearings/Diverging_Diamond.pdf

 

 

 

[MagicPotato]

47 minutes ago, KJHburg said:

^^^ We have 4 of these diverging diamonds here in the Charlotte area and believe it or not they really work. The speed up traffic and only for a few instances of people driving the wrong way right after they open.  I have not heard any of that happening lately.   They have huge concrete barriers in the middle and sidewalks on the outer edges at least here in NC.  But like I said after you get used to them they are fast moving at busy intersections.  The NC DOT loves these and they are putting them all over the state now.  Atlanta and GADOT did them near Perimeter Mall in Atlanta with much success too.    At your IKEA exit you will need it for sure.  

https://www.ncdot.gov/download/projects/publichearings/Diverging_Diamond.pdf

 

 

 

We definitely need it.  I drove through the one near Perimeter Mall in Atlanta, it was a little awkward at first. I was thinking what the heck kind of road is this?  But, from the statistics it looks like it works well.

[MagicPotato]

1 hour ago, nashvillwill said:

That’s fascinating. Impossible for pedestrians, but I can see how it would be very traffic efficient. 

There's suppose to be side walks, but I'm not sure how that would pan out. 

[Buildtall]

I think we need this at metro center exit

[jmtunafish]

In that video, I was particularly jealous of seeing Braum's...

Anyway, TDOT upgraded the Sevierville-Pigeon Forge-Gatlinburg exit on I-40 to a diverging diamond interchange, and it is brilliant.  I hope we'll see more of them all over the country.

Highway designers in the U.S. seem to be stuck in a rut.  We have this obsession for traffic lights and four-way stops.  I wish we had more diverging diamond interchanges and more roundabouts.

[Pdt2f]

Wow, these intersections are pretty awesome. I’d love to have a few of them in some key spots in the metro area. Two thoughts though:

1. If there’s a way to screw up what seems like an idiot-proof intersection, dumbass Nashville drivers will find it. 

2. They really have to make sure they keep the lines clear and painted. I can’t tell you how many intersections in Nashville have lines that are faded to the point where you constantly have people cutting into your lane because they can’t see where their land ends. With a new, unorthodox traffic pattern, and adding in the average lack of common sense of drivers in our city, they need to make the paint pop on the road. 

[volsfanwill]

On 4/20/2018 at 3:37 PM, PaulChinetti said:

I did it and I knew I shouldn't have, now it's just a person with a Facebook account that was made in April of this year, being negative all over the Tennesseans comments. I tried to fight the good fight ha. 

me every day, but i do try to click on profiles before i comment back.  mostly though to find out if they actually live here.  Id say less than 50% of negative comments are from people within Davidson county.

On 4/20/2018 at 3:43 PM, Bos2Nash said:

The $12 per RIDE comment is a tough one to even approach. As unfortunate as this may sound, public transit IS NOT PROFITABLE. Cities do not build transit systems to make a profit or break even. If anything they are money holes because of the constant investment and maintenance that is required for them. They are an essential system for a top tier, highly dense city which is where Nashville is heading. 

My go to response to the not profitable argument is "please show me the profit that is produced by I 65, or 12th avenue, or the public library, or public schools, or the police and fire department."   no one every has an answer for that. 

On 4/20/2018 at 5:34 PM, Bos2Nash said:

Nobody should expect transit to make money. Unfortunately people use the fact that tax payer dollars are going to it and they feel the tax payers should see a return (which they do.. its called public transportation).

Everyone says to use uber and lyft as a mass transit system. Well those are FOR PROFIT companies, that the government will have to subsidize and GASP tax payer dollars going to it. People who dont want the transit plan will use any excuse possible. its really quite sad in my book

Uber and Lyft are actually very expensive. we fell like they are cheap, because they are cheaper than taxis.  also, both of them plan to raise prices once traditional taxi companies are out of business.  as it is they are both hemorrhaging money.   I live on 8th ave and to get to a preds game non surge pricing, it is about $9 before tip. (always tip your driver, they make crap wages) but last night I wanted to go to Von Elrods, next to the Sounds Stadium (I Highly Recommend)  the quoted price was $34.   yes, I could have waited  half an hour or more for a bus, but i drove instead,  spent no money on alcohol,  and only had dinner and went back home, instead of going out with friends afterwards.   If we had a robust transit system, I would have spent more money last night, and therefore paid more taxes.

[Buildtall]

Amen.    Pdt2f

Edited April 23, 2018 by Buildtall

[e-dub]

45 minutes ago, volsfanwill said:

me every day, but i do try to click on profiles before i comment back.  mostly though to find out if they actually live here.  Id say less than 50% of negative comments are from people within Davidson county.

My go to response to the not profitable argument is "please show me the profit that is produced by I 65, or 12th avenue, or the public library, or public schools, or the police and fire department."   no one every has an answer for that. 

Uber and Lyft are actually very expensive. we fell like they are cheap, because they are cheaper than taxis.  also, both of them plan to raise prices once traditional taxi companies are out of business.  as it is they are both hemorrhaging money.   I live on 8th ave and to get to a preds game non surge pricing, it is about $9 before tip. (always tip your driver, they make crap wages) but last night I wanted to go to Von Elrods, next to the Sounds Stadium (I Highly Recommend)  the quoted price was $34.   yes, I could have waited  half an hour or more for a bus, but i drove instead,  spent no money on alcohol,  and only had dinner and went back home, instead of going out with friends afterwards.   If we had a robust transit system, I would have spent more money last night, and therefore paid more taxes.

Mind if I "borrow" that second point? LOL

[MidTenn1]

On ‎4‎/‎21‎/‎2018 at 7:54 PM, MagicPotato said:

 

 

Awesome video and well done. But the narrator is correct when he says he is not an engineer and knows nothing about it.

When the first 'diverging diamond' was proposed for Tennessee, I reviewed it and had a couple of reservations about the functionality of it. First, the concept of driving on the 'wrong side of the road' was disconcerting.  I was concerned that this maneuver was too distracting and confusing and would create other conflicts such as rear end collisions. This could be rectified by installing tall barriers between the opposing lanes to help eliminate the distraction, but I doubt that will become a common practice in the design process.  Secondly, it requires someone to look over their right shoulder to merge and that is a difficult skill to master.

I do like the fact that the notoriously inefficient diamond interchange is improved by making it a two signal phase operation. From an operational standpoint it is successful. However...I have to wonder if other upgrades in safety, free flow merge lanes and proper signal placement and markings might have resulted in similar accident reduction numbers.

Maybe there has been a lot more study on this subject since I last looked at it and more data based conclusions have been drawn to support the safety claims. But on the basis of congestion management improvements, it seems to be a solid concept that I would probably have endorsed.