The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread

[Vrtigo]

I keep saying it. That route is unbalanced and favors the west side. Extend it to Trinity Lane!

 

Even worse, the west is the side that doesn't even want it!   

[nashvillwill]

I keep saying it. That route is unbalanced and favors the west side. Extend it to Trinity Lane!

Sounds like the perfect solution to me. Stop it on the west side at 440. You please the Nimby's who don't want it and don't need it. Continue on the east side to Trinity or Briley Pkwy where people want it and will use it. Besides, Gallatin Rd is in desperate need of a street scape.

[rookzie]

UTgrad09, on 25 Jun 2014 - 3:29 PM, said:

I keep saying it. That route is unbalanced and favors the west side. Extend it to Trinity Lane!

 

 

Sounds like the perfect solution to me. Stop it on the west side at 440. You please the Nimby's who don't want it and don't need it. Continue on the east side to Trinity or Briley Pkwy where people want it and will use it. Besides, Gallatin Rd is in desperate need of a street scape.

 

 

I think that a sizable number of Amp proponents would agree that the initial Amp design should extend at least to the northern extreme of South Inglewood (Trinity Ln), as I, TnNative, and most likely others had suggested last January.  I also recall that a few others here and I have observed high ridership along Gallatin Road in general, even with the significantly shortened headway for route the Nº56 Ltd Stop coaches and the local Nº26 throughout the business day, apparently with sufficient numbers of passengers for high occupancy for each the artics (articulated) and the standard coaches.  I know that, whenever I have ridden the 56 from MCC to the turnaround at the Wal-Mart in North Madison during different times of the weekday, those things have passengers boarding or leaving at nearly every (if not all) the BRT-lite stops on that entire route.

 

This would be the perfect opportunity to attract civic support for that project, I would think.

 

"...Although much smaller in distance and in scale, the East Nashville segment is much needed for a connector.  I plan to post a later opinion on the east end, but I'll say now that the east is in dire need of it and indeed should get it.  One reason that I decided not to buy on the east side and ended up instead on the south side was that the east is so disconnected from the rest by physical barriers. It really should have been extended out Gallatin Pike at least to South Inglewood, to REALLY allow the east some access.

 

Agreed. I would have liked to see the first leg go to at least to Douglas/Cahal or even Litton/Trinity Lane in East Nashville (For what it's worth, the East Nashville YMCA is near this location). Of' course there's no corporate booster/cheerleader like St Thomas on the east side sitting on the turnaround in this area but I think it would really help boost the initial ridership.

 

 

____________

 

As an aside, I suspect that a number of us may already have been aware that the AMP project planners, with the Advisory Commitee, have all but concluded that the downtown portion of the project would be changed, such that the route would avoid the grade down Broadway east of Rosa Parks / 8th Ave. by diverting onto 8th instead of traveling up from 5th and B'way.  Some of this discussion was televised on Nashv'l local Govt Access Prog - Comcast Channel 3, and I gathered that engineers seem to have arrived at such a conclusion, because the grade along the B'way stretch at Bridgestone Arena, so restrictive that the cost of thoroughfare modifications to accommodate ADA-compliant passenger loading facilities would be cost-prohibitive.  They now seem to plan on routing it eastbound from B'way at 8th, east on Commerce, then north on 5th  to MCCentral (terminal); then right on Gay, right on Jas. Robertson, and right on 3rd, left on Union to the Woodland St. Bridge. (The westbound would be simialr, except that it would travel from 3rd and Union to 3rd and Gay; then left on Jas. Robertson to MCCentral; and proceed south on 4th and west on Commerce and travel via reverse route to the West End of the city.

 

IMO, this further puts a wallop on the viability of the project, as it had been originally designed, and I would think that a detailed alternatives analysis, from the very start, would have incorporated this type of challenging constraint prior to its release.   Diverting the AMP that far up Broadway, not only takes the RT away from the center of the tourist district, but it also makes it that much more "dis-integrated" from the MCS at Riverfront Station.  I believe that more options for a downtown route exist and still put that thing along the Woodland Street Bridge, without foregoing Riverfront, and without the "squeeze-play" along now 2-way 5th Ave.

 

www.tennessean.com/story/news/local/2014/06/25/amp-route-changes-proposed-downtown/11378631/

 

So it appears that the project is headed toward becoming an abstraction of "band-aide"-and-gauze quilt-work patching, before it gets on the ground.

 

-=rr=-

Edited June 26, 2014 by rookzie

[Rockatansky]

"Tina Banks, a committee member who lives and works in East Nashville, said the ride showed her how convenient the Amp would make travel for her, but she wishes it would extend farther east."

I wonder if she meant further east, for example along Eastland, or further north along Gallatin? 

I think that a sizable number of Amp proponents would agree that the initial Amp design should extend at least to the northern extreme of South Inglewood (Trinity Ln), as I, TnNative, and most likely others had suggested last January.

 

Its South Inglewood only on the east side of Gallatin. On the west side its East Hill.

[franktown]

Yikes that's a pretty huge change to emerge at this stage in the game.  I'm sure the tourism promoters aren't particularly thrilled about it since that removes a stop for MCC, Bridgestone, and Lower Broad. Really disappointed they couldn't at least get one part of the route down to Broad or at least Demonbreun. 

[nashvylle]

Tourists, Music City Star Commuters, and Predators fans can walk a few blocks to the new station location. Every city that has excellent mass transit, the people still walk a lot.

 

This change isn't a big deal in my opinion, especially if it lowers costs.

[Hey_Hey]

I don't like them moving it away from the MCC. While it is still walkable from the MCC, the reality is that there will be fewer people take the AMP if they have to walk another block. I wish they would run it down Demonbreun which would make it adjacent to the Gulch, MCC, Bridgestone, and Sobro before turning on 5th to enter the CBD.

[franktown]

Tourists, Music City Star Commuters, and Predators fans can walk a few blocks to the new station location. Every city that has excellent mass transit, the people still walk a lot.

 

This change isn't a big deal in my opinion, especially if it lowers costs.

 

In an ideal world, of course you're right, but 5th and Demonbreun and 5th and Broad are our most important intersections -- Commerce is a very steep block away and no longer visible from down there.

 

I feel like I remember one of the original routes they considered was Demonbreun, but don't know if it would have the same grade issues

[rookzie]

Tourists, Music City Star Commuters, and Predators fans can walk a few blocks to the new station location. Every city that has excellent mass transit, the people still walk a lot.

This change isn't a big deal in my opinion, especially if it lowers costs.

Actually, that had occurred to me as well, just after I “hung up” from pushing the last posting. In fact, it’s not uncommon to “second-guess”, as it were, the rationale of a conclusion, however logical it may appear. It’s not uncommon for much larger and “time-weathered” RT systems built a century ago to be accessible within a third-to-half mile or a bit farther in walking distance from the “hotspots”.

In some notable and rare exceptions, two or more RT routes within blocks of each other actually provide redundancy in direction, for a relatively short distance at least. Take the NYC Transit Authority, for example. For a distance of over 3 miles, the Manhattan Sixth-Ave-, the Seventh-Ave-, and the Eighth-Ave subways run parallel to each other under their respective streets, and that’s one of several examples there (even more existed prior to the state-founded MTA takeover of NYCTA during the late ‘60s. Again, these are not the norm, except for a city like New York. To an extent this is not unlike Nashville’s small-scale bus routes to mid-town along Broadway and along Church, which follow the central grid.

My point is that even a start-up “Romper-Room” RT (compared to a big HRT) can be effective without necessarily having to pass right under one’s nose. I just find it disappointing that planners hadn’t really dealt with these exceptions sometime between the FTA grant application and the announcement publically of the preferred alternative – not to say that any such funded venture anyway else has been without at least some kind of alignment change once or more during the planning. But those agencies and contractors whose job is to evaluate all such matters as ADA compliance and costs should have considered these things without having to recall them. Certainly a lay person like me can’t come up with these kinds of questions and considerations, so that’s what they’re paid to know and to do.

But I can give credit for the fact that the AMP has so far remained in its planning stage (however long that seems to have taken), during all this change, rather increase the likelihood of unforeseen but avoidable stop orders and significant changes in alignment and engineering after the construction has commenced. Perhaps this oversight concerning the percent grade along Broadway is just another indirect manifestation of the epic public controversy of the recent past, although concerning other segments entirely. I’ll admit though that in some cases, not everything can be avoided and foreseen. If the preferred alternative had been some form of rail, then yet even more detailed scrutiny and “gotchas” likely would be encountered, because of the need to relocate underground utilities (frequently not without complication), issues often exacerbated by the absence of current and accurate infrastructure mappings from Public Works and the state of deterioration of elements yet uncovered. I would almost wager that most big cost overruns (not associated with the vehicles themselves) result from unforeseen "demons" (challenges) waiting to be discovered below the street surface (as well as matters of historic preservation) during construction. (tracks require that underground utilities be properly isolated from the "beefy" electrical grounding needed for street rail systems) This is a major cause of the biggest cost overruns. So if the math is done reasonably accurately on the “surface”, then in this respect, building a “non-lite” BRT is not nearly as likely to “stray” as far in overruns, as is an LRT or a streetcar, in terms of construction costs (but not necessarily in operating costs).

It’s far better for all these hurdles to come out now, I suppose, so the Broadway grade matter is a good thing, but I do believe that the routing within the entire “downtown” service area could be better examined and discussed – not so much for the sake of proximity to activity spots, as for the purpose of allowing predictable operational and passage to help ensure more reliability of periodic movements (for maintaining headway) through that stop-and-go district. “Floods” and constant streams of pedestrians, crossing the paths of the AMP busways during events and just ordinary “touring” and cruising by foot can significantly interpose constraints on movements passing through those congestions of “swarms”. With the project diverted away from lower Broad, that may not be such an issue, as it could be, but I just don’t see how effectively pedestrian management to improve bus movement can maintained along certain streets. So in consideration of the big picture, and an operational vantage, it might be better to separate the AMP from the direct snarls of lower Broadway. But with the same line of reasoning, there just might be better ways of conveying the thing through downtown without the trappings of the narrow rat-holes of the CBT, while still hitting the Woodland Street Bridge.

One thing that I do feel is a mistake is to force the thing to pass Music City Central (Charlotte-Gay; Fourth and Fifth Avenues). I just don’t believe that the AMP has to pass MCCentral, just because it’s a bus terminal (given its location and current design with narrow 2-way Fifth Ave. and narrow Fourth Ave. If one just observes the conflicting movements of buses, cars, and pedestrians just outside and especially inside the bus terminal (MCCentral), he would see that all buses must yield to pedestrians within the eight separate crosswalks within the terminal. When people are running frantically from one bus to catch a connecting bus located in another part of the structure, buses entering or leaving their bays frequently are held up at 1 and up to all 4 interior crosswalks (on each of the 2 levels), where darting people and J-walking is almost the norm (inside that terminal). Then to complicate matters even worse, the AMPis likely to become ensnared in the torrent of movements of local and express buses (both MTAand RTA coaches), turning into and out from the terminal along 5th, 2 ways at that! All too often, 2 or more buses get stuck in tandem in a turning position while waiting for pedestrians to clear the crosswalks inside the terminal. Whether or not the AMP will pass through or pass by the terminal, I think that its route should be separated from such direct proximity of the terminal, while still negotiating a well-chosen path through downtown..

-=rr=-

Edited June 27, 2014 by rookzie

[nashvillwill]

Here's what our competition is doing;

http://m.bizjournals.com/nashville/blog/2014/06/as-nashville-debates-amp-austin-plans-1b-rail-road.html

[mirydi]

Nashville is getting left so far behind it's not even funny. It's pretty sad that we can't even get a watered down cheap BRT system going in this city. Truly pathetic...

 

As Nashville debates Amp, Austin plans $1B rail, road project

http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/blog/2014/06/as-nashville-debates-amp-austin-plans-1b-rail-road.html

 

A rendering from one of the articles in the ABJ

Edited June 27, 2014 by mirydi

[BnaBreaker]

Well, we will have the last laugh because clearly they will endure paralyzing traffic jams as a result!  And imagine all the impoverished criminals that will be riding the train around all willy nilly stabbing and stealing from everyone!  I mean we all know from watching Robo Cop that trains equal crime!  And look at that picture!  Objects other than cars using streets!?  Ridiculous!  This is 1978 for cryin' out loud!  That'll never work!  What is this, Moscow??

 

BTW, this is also what our competitors are doing:

Oklahoma City: http://www.mtpokc.com/about.html

 

Raleigh: http://www.gotriangle.org/images/uploads/Triangle_Regional_Transit_Map_v_final_5_09.pdf

 

Charlotte: http://charmeck.org/city/charlotte/cats/planning/ble/Pages/default.aspx

 

Atlanta: http://www.atlantaga.gov/index.aspx?page=159

 

Norfolk/Virginia Beach: http://wavy.com/2014/04/23/va-beach-mayor-agrees-to-state-light-rail-grant/

 

Winston Salem: http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/passenger/light-rail/winston-salem-set-to-ok-streetcar-plan.html

 

Cincinnati: http://www.protransit.com/

 

Tampa: http://www.tampabay.com/specials/2010/reports/tampa-light-rail/rail-plans-map.shtml

 

Kansas City: http://www.kcata.org/light_rail_max

 

Nashville:  Let's buy a couple buses that look kind of like trains, and make them sit in traffic.  That's good enough, right? 

Edited June 27, 2014 by BnaBreaker

[mirydi]

A few more articles and details about the project from the ABJ.

 

One can only dream of a project like this here, it just makes too much sense. No wonder developers like Tony G. can't get a corporation to relocate here to take up a big chunk of space in one of their commercial development proposals. Mass transit is one of the key things most corporations look for when seeking out another city to relocate to, and when these companies look at cities like Austin, Charlotte, Atlanta etc...and then look at what Nashville has to offer and also see that not only do council members not support mass transit, but they try to stop it from ever happening, it's a no brainer on which city they would choose. 

 

Austin City Council endorses $1 billion rail, road plan

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/blog/morning_call/2014/06/austin-city-council-endorses-1-billionrail-road.html

 

Why Austin Chamber backs rail plan: 'Improving traffic congestion is critical' 

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/blog/at-the-watercooler/2014/06/whyaustin-chamber-backs-rail-plan-improving.html

 

 

[donNdonelson2]

I will say that Austin traffic congestion is horrendous!

[SoundScan]

Agreed on Austin's traffic problems. I feel pretty confident that if Nashville's traffic was as bad as Austin's there would not be nearly as much resistance to the idea of expanded mass transit. We are likely going to have to simply learn our own lessons, rather than learn from history. Austin (and Atlanta, LA, etc.) have all tried throwing money at more and larger roadways to fix their problems, but eventually had to face reality.

[mirydi]

 

BTW, this is also what our competitors are doing:

Oklahoma City: http://www.mtpokc.com/about.html

 

Raleigh: http://www.gotriangle.org/images/uploads/Triangle_Regional_Transit_Map_v_final_5_09.pdf

 

Charlotte: http://charmeck.org/city/charlotte/cats/planning/ble/Pages/default.aspx

 

Atlanta: http://www.atlantaga.gov/index.aspx?page=159

 

Norfolk/Virginia Beach: http://wavy.com/2014/04/23/va-beach-mayor-agrees-to-state-light-rail-grant/

 

Winston Salem: http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/passenger/light-rail/winston-salem-set-to-ok-streetcar-plan.html

 

Cincinnati: http://www.protransit.com/

 

Tampa: http://www.tampabay.com/specials/2010/reports/tampa-light-rail/rail-plans-map.shtml

 

Kansas City: http://www.kcata.org/light_rail_max

 

Nashville:  Let's buy a couple buses that look kind of like trains, and make them sit in traffic.  That's good enough, right? 

Well, maybe if the city takes our buses to this level, it will be sufficient. 

 

 

^^^Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the future of Nashville mass transit.^^^

Edited June 28, 2014 by mirydi

[mirydi]

This was in the Oklahoma City street car website. 

 

Why can't we just add more buses Downtown?

There are three key reasons why adding more buses will not work as well as the streetcar for circulation:

1. The number of buses required to equal the capacity of one streetcar makes buses more expensive to operate and maintain.
2. Examples show that streetcars attract new riders (people who otherwise would not ride a bus) because of the convenience, comfort, attractiveness and reliability of the streetcar – thus, the streetcar increases the number of people who will use transit.
3. A streetcar has a fixed route that cannot easily change, demonstrating to riders as well as potential project developers that the streetcar will indeed come by regularly. This stability is particularly reassuring to visitors unfamiliar with our city.

 

Edited June 28, 2014 by mirydi

[MLBrumby]

I think Mayor Dean really fumbled on this one!   First, BRT is not distinctive enough from the buses in town already (or so most people perceive).... then he proposed to add "more buses" to a key route that many influential Nashvillians drive on their daily commute.  This proposal should not have been routed down West End.  I said it years ago, the linear route really would not give the core an extensive transit system. A downtown loop would be viewed as one of (if not the best) the key amenities to living and working downtown: a huge competitive advantage over Williamson County and their office parks.   

[nashvillwill]

Well, maybe if the city takes our buses to this level, it will be sufficient.

^^^Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the future of Nashville mass transit.^^^

Nope. Not gonna work. Too many overhead power lines here. Yet another corner we've backed ourselves into.

[nashvylle]

Agreed on Austin's traffic problems. I feel pretty confident that if Nashville's traffic was as bad as Austin's there would not be nearly as much resistance to the idea of expanded mass transit. We are likely going to have to simply learn our own lessons, rather than learn from history. Austin (and Atlanta, LA, etc.) have all tried throwing money at more and larger roadways to fix their problems, but eventually had to face reality.

We are ranked 33rd worst for traffic... In the Western Hemisphere. I think our current issues, and even the issues from a decade ago, warrant a serious mass transit solution.

We have a lot of people in this city that think mass transit is a "boondoggle", and is a waste of money, yet they never say a word when we spending billions upon billions in this state alone just on roads. I wish we could just drop the dedicated lanes from 440 to st. Thomas and just be done with it for now, and expand it each 5 years or so.

Edited June 29, 2014 by nashvylle

[jmtunafish]

^^Agreed.  I'm a very fiscally conservative guy.  But I also believe firmly in the value of public transportation.  Yes, it's expensive.  But so is building highways and widening roads, not to mention the royal hassle we have to endure every time a road has to be repaved, or--heaven forbid--there's an accident during rush hour.

 

There's very little freedom in being forced to use cars.  Having a viable alternative to taking the car is very liberating and is also very attractive when trying to lure businesses and workers to town.

 

A good public transportation network will also encourage more high-density development just like the way it used to.  Those old enough to remember streetcar lines will recall all of the commercial and multi-family developments that clustered around streetcar stops.  We're starting to see that along the Music City Star line in Wilson County.  Imagine similar developments around the metro area if we had multiple commuter rail and light rail (or BRT) lines.

Edited June 29, 2014 by jmtunafish

[rookzie]

^^Agreed.  I'm a very fiscally conservative guy.  But I also believe firmly in the value of public transportation.  Yes, it's expensive.  But so is building highways and widening roads, not to mention the royal hassle we have to endure every time a road has to be repaved, or--heaven forbid--there's an accident during rush hour.

 

There's very little freedom in being forced to use cars.  Having a viable alternative to taking the car is very liberating and is also very attractive when trying to lure businesses and workers to town.

 

A good public transportation network will also encourage more high-density development just like the way it used to.  Those old enough to remember streetcar lines will recall all of the commercial and multi-family developments that clustered around streetcar stops.  We're starting to see that along the Music City Star line in Wilson County.  Imagine similar developments around the metro area if we had multiple commuter rail and light rail (or BRT) lines.

 

IMHO, this is the “gospel” of having a rapid-transit network, period.  One can elaborate, illustrate, and promulgate all he wants, but the “executive summary” always condenses down to this pithy reasoning.  Nothing beyond what jmtunafish has posted can state this any better.

 

Along with what BnaBreaker posted on 0627-2014, in reference to the content from the OK City link (and as pointed out by mirydi [above]):

 Oklahoma City: http://www.mtpokc.com/about.html

there have been cited a number of publishings on the long-term justification of urban rail ─ any kind of such rail.  Yes, funding fro such an ambitious undertaking is another story consisting of "several volumes", but the song 'n' dance generally consists of the same theme.

 

I do believe MLBrumby also has it right on what some of us might be hesitant to conclude:  that "...Mayor Dean really fumbled on this one..."  In part by his insistence on forging a particular transit project, wrought with a tidal wave of controversy, and what has constituted a major shift in focus from the transit aspirations of 6 years ago; and, as UTgrad09 has reminded us in the past, the Mayor;s spending on  multiple big-ticket projects as a whole (bearing what many have perceived as a "de-emphasized" budget on a comprehensive transit plan), Nashville's advance into RT appears to be all but stillborn at present.(whether or not I am proven wrong).

 

Here's another definitely subjective opinion from an anonymous contributor to an online publication (no longer extant).  It specifically compares bus to streetcar, but this could just as well allude to LRT or a streetcar-LRT combo.  I repeat that this is a subjective comparison, and not necessarily in total agreement with my own opinion (my added comments bracketed in [bold]).

 

unknown contributor (2009, June 3). 36 Reasons Streetcars Are Better Than Buses. . Retrieved March 10, 2011, from http://www.infrastructurist.com/2009/06/03/36-reasons-that-streetcars-are-better-than-buses/

 

If you want a system that really attracts riders and investment, many transit experts will attest that streetcars are the best dollar-for-dollar investment a city can make.

Of course, there are plenty of situations where old-fashioned bus service or newfangled bus rapid transit (which usually has dedicated lanes) are just the thing. But for cities facing a choice between building a streetcar system or high-end BRT–and the cost difference can be smaller than might think–it’s handy to know that transit riders overwhelming prefer streetcars. Well, overwhelmingly if the comments section from a recent story on this site can be taken as a fair sample. One reader posed the question, “buses or streetcars?” and the responses–from laypeople and transportation experts alike–came fast and furious. In the end, we were left with dozens of reasons why streetcars are superior, ranging from the obvious to the wonderfully creative.

As the comments added up, we became more and more intrigued. So we’ve edited the various reasons into a proper list. Did we miss anything? Do any of these not hold up? Disagree entirely? Let us know in the comments section and we’ll update the story–and the headline–as worthwhile additions come in.

1. New streetcar lines always, always, get more passengers than the bus routes they replace.

2. Buses, are susceptible to every pothole and height irregularity in the pavement (and in Chicago we have plenty). Streetcars ride on smooth, jointless steel rails that rarely develop bumps.

3. Streetcars don’t feel “low status” to transit riders. Buses often do.

4. Mapmakers almost always include streetcar lines on their city maps, and almost never put any bus route in ink. New investment follows the lines on the map.

5. The upfront costs are higher for streetcars than buses–but that is more than made up over time in lower operating and maintenance costs. In transit you get what you pay for.

6. There is a compelling “coolness” and “newness” factor attached to streetcars.

7. Streetcars feel safer from a crime point of view.

8. Steel wheel on steel rail is inherently more efficient than rubber tire on pavement. Electric streetcars can accelerate more quickly than buses [except for trolley buses a.k.a "trackless trolleys", which are electric also].

9. Streetcars don’t smell like diesel. [... and smoke and fumes, mostly due to worn injectors and worn piston rings ─ keep reading]

10. Streetcars accelerate and decelerate smoothly because they’re electrically propelled. Internal-combustion engines acting through a transmission simply cannot surge with the same smoothness.

11. The current length limit for a bus is 60 feet [non-articulated], but streetcars can go longer, since they are locked into the rails and won’t be swinging all around the streets, smashing into cars [although cars often smash into streetcars, as motorists expect tracked vehicles to yield].

12. Streetcars have an air of nostalgia.

13. New streetcar and light rail lines usually come with an upgraded street experience from better stops, landscaping, new roadbeds, and better sidewalks, to name a few. Of course, your federal transit dollar is paying for these modernizations, so why wouldn’t cities try to get them!

14. Perhaps the most over looked and significant difference between street cars and buses is permanence. You’ll notice that development will follow a train station, but rarely a bus stop. Rails don’t pick up and move any time soon. Once a trolley system is in place, business and investors can count on them for decades. Buses come and go.

15. Streetcars are light and potentially 100% green. Potentially they could be powered by 100% solar and/or wind power. Even powered with regular power plant-derived electricity, they are still 95% cleaner than diesel buses. [source? -Ed.]

16. Streetcars stop less. Because of the increased infrastructure for stops, transit planners don’t place stops at EVERY BLOCK, like they do with buses (SEPTA in Philly is terrible for this). Instead, blocks are a quarter to a half mile apart, so any point is no more than an eigth to a quarter mile from a stop.

17. People will travel longer distances on streetcars. At one point, in the 1930s, a person could travel to Boston from Washington solely on trolleys [the "interurbans" of the pre-1920s], with only two short gaps in the routes.

18. Buses are noisy. I ride them every day in Chicago, and I am constantly amazed at how loud a diesel bus engine is–even on our latest-model buses [and] the valve chatter is an irritant to the nervous system. By comparison, streetcars are virtually silent. [engine valve chatter, or more commonly referred to as "clatter"; often worn engine connecting-rod bearings and piston wrist-pins & bushings; and piston-slap due to worn rings; radiator-fan scream ─ many Nashv'l buses!!!]

19. Technological advances already make the current generation definitely NOT your grandfather’s streetcar. Low floors are standard, for easy-on easy-off curbside boarding. Wide doors allow passengers to enter or exit quickly. So streetcar stops take less time than buses.

20. Passengers can take comfort from seeing the rails stretching out far ahead of them, while ever fearing that the bus could take a wrong turn at the next corner and divert them off course.

21. Once purchased (albeit at high cost) streetcars are cheaper to maintain and last way the hell longer (case in point, streetcars discarded in the US in the 40’s, snapped up by the Yugoslavs, which are still running).

22. Streetcar tracks are cheaper to maintain than the roadways they displace.

23. People get notably more excited about the proposed extension of the streetcar system and expect revitalization of the neighborhoods around the planned stops.

24. Streetcars create more walkable streets. This is because streetcars, as mentioned above, are more attractive to riders than buses, which in turns prompt to more mass transit usage in general, which in turns prompts to more walking–a virtuous cycle that creates more attractive city streets.

25. Most European cities and countries kept investing in public transit during the decades when America was DISinvesting. Now I look across the pond and see dozens of European cities extending or building new rail transit systems, including many streetcar lines, and conclude: ‘They probably know what they are doing; we should do some of that too.’

26. You know exactly where a streetcar is going – but have you ever tried looking at a bus route map?

27. Streetcars are faster than buses or trackless trolleys (aside from 2 lines in Philly, do any other cities run trackless trolleys, or trolley buses anymore?) [still big time inSeattle, Dayton, SF, Boston-Cambridge, even articulateds in Seattle,SF, Boston] because trams tend to have dedicated lanes. Even if they don’t, if they operate on streets with multiple lanes, people stay out of the tram lane, because it’s harder to drive a car along tram tracks (the wheels [car tires] pull to one side or the other as they fall into the groove [a.k.a "flangeway"; but the ride in your car is smooth ─ just try driving the rr tracks on Herman Street between 10th and 11th Ave N]).

28. In buses you’re still jostled by every pothole and sway at every bus stop. I thought bus rapid transit would be a significant improvement - there’s still a bit of sway and they concrete was not installed as smoothly as line of steel rail. [this is WAY too true!]

29. With buses transit planners are pushed by funding formulas to capture every pocket of riders thus you can get a very wiggly route – something that’s less practical on a fixed rail system

30. Buses lurch unpredictably from side to side as they weave in and out of traffic and as they move from the traffic lane to the curb lane to pick up passengers. In streetcars turns occur at the same location on every trip, so that even standees can more or less relax knowing the car is not going to perform any unpredictable lateral maneuvers.

31. Most streetcar riders don’t consciously think about the differences between a bus ride and a streetcar ride. But their unconscious minds–the spinal cord, the solar plexus, the inner ear and the seat of the pants–quickly tally the differences and deliver an impressionistic conclusion: The streetcar ride is physiologically less stressful.

32. An internal-combustion engine is constantly engaged in hammering itself to death and buses tend to vibrate themselves into a sort of metallurgical dishevelment. Interior fittings–window frames, handrails, floor coverings, seats–tend to work loose and make the interior look frowzy and uncared-for. [rattling from pavement surface and engine rotational harmonics at certain RPMs ─ terribly true!!!] By age 12 the bus is a piece of junk and has to be retired. A streetcar the same age is barely into its adolescence.

33. Streetcar stops are typically given more attention than most bus routes and the information system is more advanced. In Portland, the shelters even have VMS diplays that tell you the times of the next two streetcar arrivals. This valuable information gives people the option to wait, do something else to pass the time, or walk to their destination.

34. One great advantage of streetcars is that the infrastructure serves as an orienting and wayfinding device. The track alerts folks to the route and leads them to stops. Because they are a permanent feature of the streetscape, the routing is predictable and stable (unlike bus routes). So unlike a bus, a streetcar informs and helps citizens to formulate an image of their city, even if folks don’t ride it. It is a feature of their public realm. Because of this, these streets get greater public attention.

35. When you ride one of the remaining historic cars in Toronto or San Francisco you can tell they’re “old” in the sense of “out of style,” but when you look around the interior everything still seems shipshape, nothing rattles, the windows open and close without binding. The rider experiences a sense of solid quality associated with Grandma’s solid-oak dining table and 1847 Rodgers Brothers silver. And that makes everybody feel good. Unlike, say, an aging bus.

36. For those of you who cannot see the difference between a bus and a streetcar, I suggest riding a streetcar when you get the chance. Then, if you can locate a bus that more or less follows the same route, give that a try. Compare the two experiences.

**********

 

I would guess that decision makers of all US metro areas opting for some form of urban rail as their start-up RT have shared much of the one man's opinion above.

 

 -=ricky-rooX=-

Edited July 4, 2014 by rookzie

[Nathan_in_DC]

Something to add: Due to the expected short lifespans of buses, they're built in an extremely cheap and rather disposable fashion. I rode on a MetroBus here in DC for the first time a few weeks back and was absolutely shocked at just how cheap everything seemed in it...and it was a new bus! Seats were flimsy, the fabric was loose, interior parts had extremely poor fit, there were exposed screws and bolts everywhere, etc., etc., etc.. I would NOT want to be in an accident while riding one of those things.

[nashvylle]

Has anyone ridden in the Cleveland BRT buses?

[MidTenn1]

 

I just got back from Cleveland, Ohio, where I spent a few nights at a hotel on Euclid Avenue where the Health Line BRT runs.

 

 

I made several trips and have a few observations;

 

• Euclid Avenue is maybe the primary artery in Cleveland as it goes from the downtown square at the base of the historic, 55 story Terminal Building, through the wonderful Theater District, past the Cleveland Clinic (the Cities largest hospital complex) all the way out to the Cultural area where prestigious Case-Western Reserve University and the Art, Natural History and performing arts center . It is much like the proposed West End corridor in some respects.
• It was well used at all hours of the day. In fact in the afternoon rush, it was as crowded as a NY or London subway.
• Getting a ticket was easy enough, but it wonder how it is enforced. You buy your ticket at the platform then get on the BRT when it stops. Unless there is something to read the card in your pocket, I don't know how it is enforced. When I got on after the ballgame after 10:00, the driver told us we had to come forward and swipe our pass through the reader next to the front. But I guess there must be an honor system to some extent. I wonder how much money is lost on free rides?
• Inside it has the feel of a subway or light rail. Outside it is a bus, but doesn't register as the typical bus, as it pulls up to the platform and the doors open wide. You can stand with adequate comfort as the starts and stops are well controlled.
• It is hard to tell what the next stop is. You can't see signs like you can in a subway and the PA system announcing the next stop is either not working or not loud and clear. They need a scrolling sign to keep strangers informed as to what is coming up.
• The bus lanes and platforms are a lot more narrow than I thought they would be. Euclid Avenue is barely 5 lanes wide and is throttled down to one through lane in some sections. There are, however, quite a few parallel roads that traffic can use during rush hours.
• They staggered the platforms at some stops (I can't figure out why) so one handles eastbound boarding and the other handles westbound boarding.
• The bus moved along fairly briskly with just a few delays for congestion and poorly time traffic signals. As you can see in the picture, the traffic signals have special indications for the BRT so they won't be confused by vehicle drivers.

 

Overall, I didn't feel like I was riding a bus. It was definitely a rapid transit  experience. 

Edited July 9, 2014 by PHofKS