The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread

[Vrtigo]

The more time I spend in this thread, the more I am leaning away from my original PRO-AMP status. Maybe Nashvillians really are just opposed to the whole idea of a bus, based on Rookzie's excellent post above.

 

I would love for a complete, feasible, adequate rail equivalent to be quickly proposed and rendered to the extent that the AMP has been, so we can then at least see the variance in public opinion. I 100% believe that rail would be worth the cost, regardless of the final numbers, but I just don't think Nashville taxpayers have the stomach for it. If nothing else, knowing the alternative might galvanize support to at least get something done.

[MidTenn1]

It seems like once the designated lanes are in place, it would be a small leap to come back and add light rail someday. Maybe others can elaborate on this.

[Vrtigo]

I had considered that. I fear that with the enormous opposition to doing anything at all in Nashville, that such an effort would face just as many, if not more delays than this one.

 

Edit: Fundamentally, I'm just a fan of doing it right the first time. If it's rail we need, then we should do rail. Baby steps likely make more sense here, though.

Edited July 9, 2014 by Vrtigo

[grilled_cheese]

I've been going back and forth on what to do.

 

Do something anything now so something gets in place so we can move forward.

 

Do it right, which takes more money, time and construction.

 

Scrap the whole idea now and start from scratch but if you go this route it just makes the next time you try to do it that much harder.

[nashvillwill]

Well, I'll chime in here with a late night, 2 beer, thought. If anyone feels like adding on to, or debunking my theory, please feel free.

 

So what if we go rail.

 

And what if we forgo the whole "time savings, traffic savings" theory that many don't believe and may have valid reason. What if we build a light rail system IN MIXED TRAFFIC. It works in some places. Let's forget the whole notion that it will "save the city", and just build something that will work and be pleasant to use for those whom chose to use it. Sure, you can build in the time savings by adding dedicated lanes or subterranean tunnels in high density traffic areas, but most places in Nashville don't really need that.

 

Let's talk about "pleasure of use", "long term affordability", "functionality" and "permanance".

 

Maybe it's the discussion we should actually be debating, or maybe I'm crazy. Maybe that's why I'm not a politician.

[rookzie]

It seems like once the designated lanes are in place, it would be a small leap to come back and add light rail someday. Maybe others can elaborate on this.

 

This may be feasible, if LRT or SC planning and phasing is incorporated into the initial planning and construction.  Urban (street) rail requires specific long-range planning for any future rail migration, because of different mechanical constraints and operating logistics for single or articulated buses compared to single or articulated and/or multiple-coupled rail vehicles along a given path in roadway space.

 

You've got entirely different turning kinematics for rail vehicles, since on rail, every wheel-to-rail contact point follows the same geometric path for each wheel on either end of each axle pair (although front, intermediate, and rear axle mountings create slightly skewed paths of alignment (in relation to the track gauge - an imaginary line forming the distance between and perpendicular to each rail).

 

You also don't have to build in as much lateral clearance for rail lanes on dedicated pathways, as is required for busways, especially on turns, since buses ─ especially articulateds ─ require an adequate amount of easement to allow drivers a latitude of error in negotiating turns, especially when opposing buses are passing each other (compounded with the need to allow for the tracking of these vehicles on such turns).  And for rail, the need for "spiral curves" (mathematically a portion of cubic parabolic curve adjoining both ends of a fixed-radius curve) needed for negotiating a turn is more stringent, than for tire-bound traffic, even for BRT lanes.  This type of curve is required for tracked vehicles moving through turns, to minimize the effect of lateral stresses and wear on wheel flanges and on the outer rail of the curve.  Also referred to as a "transition curve", generally the only use of this type curve for tire-bound vehicles is to foster stability and comfort (and safety) along highways and freeways.  In this usage, the effect of the transition curve is realized and undergone as the driver turns the steering wheel increasingly, as the vehicle enters the curve.  The "transition" ends, when the driver holds that steering wheel position steady in a "turned" position throughout most of the remainder of the curve.  A second transition complements the return to the tangent (straight roadway), as the driver then starts to gently return the steering-wheel position to center.   A spiral curve allows a vehicle to "ease" into a curve, rather than get "snatched" into a curve (abrupt change in velocity from straight line into a curve, as if a driver suddenly and sharply steered a fast moving car in a unanticipated effort to avoid missing an exit ramp).

 

Then there's the need to consider what I had discussed in a recent previous post concerning electrical "isolation" of the rails (grounding) from all utilities, including gas, water, communication, and any other buried wares nearby, as well as the challenges encountered with the need to excavate and relocate such lines when installing track.  BTW, track rails can be laid as built-up as structural framework in place or as "panel-track", in railroad jargon (pre-fab sections with built-in pave-over accommodation) ─ referred to as "slab track" in transit terminology.  Slab track generally does not require as deep an excavation as does built-in-place track, but all track requires precision in underlayment preparation and securement, to ensure smooth, planar movement with minimal wear on the track and the wheels.  Think of slab track as "life-size" interlocking sections of prefabricated track that are laid end to end, just as if it were "toy" track.  As far as special trackwork is concerned (left- and right turnout switches, angle crossings,...), these would have to be be built in place.  Precision alignment is something seldom done (or truly in need of strict adherence to) for dedicated busways of poured concrete.

 

Another "thorn" for street railway construction is the frequent need to beef up existing bridges or overpasses on which rail may pass.  In Memphis, back in the early 2000's when MATA extended it's vintage streetcar to run from Main Street east along Madison Ave. they ended up creating a dedicated bridge (east- and westbound separate spans) for the streetcar to pass over Danny Thomas Blvd. (US-51), either due to the load constraints of the roadway structure and/or it's vehicular flow capacity.  Farther out, the bridge over the I-240 loop is shared with traffic.

 

[MATA Madison Avenue bridge DannyThomas Blvd] 

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.142552,-90.042309,3a,48.8y,297.2h,80.89t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1szYFLNG-DZycz3GAj-Awo3w!2e0

 

[MATA Madison Avenue bridge I-240]

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.139719,-90.024857,3a,75y,311.14h,87.84t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sJWxjV4Rt8_azzvmcBEHQvA!2e0

 

[MATA Madison Avenue bridge DannyThomas Blvd, at eastbound approach] 

 

[MATA Madison Avenue bridge DannyThomas Blvd, ascending eastbound approach] 

 

 

So, if you cordon off dedicated pathways for BRTs (which of course is the operationally optimal way to go), then converting these to rail is not necessarily without complications (as LA and Toronto know too well).

 

Please don't get me wrong; I'm not intending to sound nit-picky or anything, but it can be as expensive to accurately plan new-start BRT with transition to SC or LRT, as it would be to start off with the upgrade.  I'm just saying primarily that whichever way it goes, it pays to do it right the first time, as you get what you pay for, whether it's rail or it's a well-implemented BRT.  Nearly every US city with existing rail (new or old) also has a BRT of some sort.  Bear in mind that even Austin, with its recent announcement of a phat $1B road-rail plan (even though it's not a sure thing yet), has had scuffles with its existing BRT.  The Nashv'l planners and the MTA could learn a lot from Austin's mistakes, particularly in reference to the downgrading of existing local service along segments of the proposed route (either elimination or lengthened headways).  Some of the same types of contentious issues facing Nashv'l already had "surfaced" in Austin, so that's the reason that I even bring this up.

 

We could discuss much about Austin and it's stumbles, and in the future, I just might even have to make a few references and recalls to what I've "uncovered" in its local circles about transit.  But I do want to leave with this post a link to one of the editorial briefings in "Austin Rail Now", just to illustrate the parallels in political issues regarding new-starts and expansions.

 

http://austinrailnow.com/2014/06/06/austin-business-journal-guru-slams-highland-riverside-urban-rail-proposal-as-a-very-small-plan-benefiting-a-limited-group-of-people/

 

-=rr=-

Edited July 11, 2014 by rookzie

[Rockatansky]

Is almost impossible to justify the cost difference between The AMP ($175m) and a LRT equivalent ($400m+) when the LOS & ridership would be virtually identical.

[rookzie]

Is almost impossible to justify the cost difference between The AMP ($175m) and a LRT equivalent ($400m+) when the LOS & ridership would be virtually identical.

 

I don't know what makes you think that $175m is the cap for the BRT proposal, as you imply above, with no cap on the alternative.  That's just the start.  As as far as the "LOS" is concerned, that matter is subjective at best.

 

Remember, it was your mayor and the "closed ranks" who concluded the choice of alignment and mode as the preferred alternative, not to say that much a choice, to start, was really left for such a decision, given the intent on the route chosen.and the basis on which it was determined.─ not exactly objective, according to the succession of events which lead to the most recent contention ultimately involving some unlikely players on the state level.

 

Even the projected LOS admittedly (according to planning participants) was far from being stellar, mainly based on the proposed alignment.and the effects of derated existing LOS for the two western local service routes slated to be displaced (in part or fully).

Edited July 11, 2014 by rookzie

[Vrtigo]

Another thought that has come to mind: Maybe it makes sense to do BRT through the heart of the city since it is more nimble and flexible to the needs of a downtown area. Then, once it's a massive success, move forward with a light rail system on the "downtown loop" that has been oft mentioned in this thread?

[farm_boy]

I will never understand why the "mayor" proposed the AMP BRT. I thought mass transit would be proposed by RTA as part if a comprehensive regional plan....

Using logic in politics is not logical

[Hey_Hey]

I will never understand why the "mayor" proposed the AMP BRT. I thought mass transit would be proposed by RTA as part if a comprehensive regional plan....

Using logic in politics is not logical

In hindsight I wish they would have publicized the entire regional plan, with this being the second major step (the first being the Music City Star). One of the knocks on the BRT plan is that not even all Davidson County residents will use it, so why should they have to contribute to it. That can be said even more forcefully for surrounding counties. That criticism can be countered pretty well by laying out a legitimate regional plan so that every county involved could pay toward the construction of a regional transit system.

We need a funding structure in place that will provide for the construction of the transit system, and the reality is that nashville-Davidson county is not going to be able to pay for it by itself. At the same time I dont think it is reasonable to expect people to pay for something if they aren't able to use it.

One idea for a funding stream I had was to charge the local sales tax on the full amount of the purchase price of a car. Right now the state charges the full 7% on vehicle purchases but the local portion (usually 2.25%) phases out after the first $1600. If the full amount of sales tax could be levied for the entire region then a legitimate funding source might emerge. If that were passed then around $45 million yearly could be raised to fund transit expansion (assumes a total of 125,000 new and used cars sold in the metro area at an average cost of $17,500). There would obviously be some pushback with this, but there will be to any type of dedicated funding measure.

[grilled_cheese]

If someone's response is "I'm not going to use it, why should I pay for it" then they should literally be left out of the discussion.  That excuse can be rebuked quite easily.

[arkitekte]

Is almost impossible to justify the cost difference between The AMP ($175m) and a LRT equivalent ($400m+) when the LOS & ridership would be virtually identical.

 

This has been mentioned before, but socially that's not true. People are much more favorable to trolleys and light rail than they are buses, especially in the south. No matter how well BRT is done many people will still view riding that as riding the bus. 

[bwithers1]

I know that Mr. Beamon would love the idea of increased sales tax on auto sales in Davidson County:)

[UTgrad09]

How about just a tax increase on cars sold on Broadway.

[rookzie]

If someone's response is "I'm not going to use it, why should I pay for it" then they should literally be left out of the discussion.  That excuse can be rebuked quite easily.

 

I would tend to agree with you unconditionally, but we would have to consider them as equal voices attending the discussions.  If indeed they really cared that they wouldn't use it (if you can follow this reasoning), then they likely either have some hidden agenda withheld during debate, or, as you say, their argument (excuse) could be easily rebuked, while most likely their hidden truth would be revealed in some form or fashion.

 

Unless they have additional arguments of valid concerns in support of not using it. and if their reasoning for likely not using it could be legitimized in context with these additional arguments, then they likely would be participants at a discussion, whose points would be (hopefully) aired.  A lot of this type of dialog ensued at the Amp town meetings, and it is fair to assume that much of the opposition voiced some sound concerns, even though on either side of a discussion (or on "any" side, if three or more schools of thought coexist), you have both the truly concerned and then the "lurkers", whose primary concern is only for themselves (yea or nay).  I consider the "lurkers" as those persons who "bother" to attend but whose stance is not in accord with those of the majority, who generally comprise the truly concerned from both or all sides, and who collectively concur that at least some action yet unresolved is in the best interest of the commonweal (rather than no action at all).

 

It's unfortunate, though, that those who say that they would not use it cannot be separated at the polls, from those who would not vote for it, for reasons which could be convincingly and justifiably cited against a proposal as being logistically questionable.  This can occur, when stakeholders perceive an absence of amenability to compromise, particularly if they feel a breach of trust and surreptitious handling of decision-making.  I also feel and have heard of those who say that they might not "likely" ride it, but who might still be open to riding it, they say, as time passes ─ and even of those who probably wouldn't ride it, period ─ but who would be potentially in favor of it by voting for it nevertheless (the "fence straddlers").  That's why it pays for a new-start proposal to be vetted as having a sizable scope, in order to garner a high proportion of public attention for consideration.  This can go far in reducing the public perception of special interest.

 

But for face value, I would have to bow and agree with you, that those who attempt to deny contribution to transit, because they would not ride it, are part of a large but diminishing demographic sector of the region.  These "rebels" frequently can get weeded out by the "greener grasses" of stakeholders who proactively root for a change.  I really think that there exists a larger but silent segment of those who say that they would vote for it, even if they didn't feel that they would likely ride it, primarily because most of these are current drivers or choice riders who have been subjected to the daily routine anguish of crawling along the roads.  These people are open-minded to the extent of wanting at least some change.

 

-=rr=-

Edited July 14, 2014 by rookzie

[jmtunafish]

I apologize if this is a dumb question, but why are existing railroad lines such sacred cows?  I mean, when a government entity wants to build a new road or widen an existing road, it seems they can just come swooping in and grab whatever privately owned land they need through imminent domain.  Why can't they do the same with railroads?  If CSX (or whoever owns the lines) won't let the city or state use their lines for commuter rail between Nashville and Murfreesboro (or Franklin or Clarksville), why can't the city or state do what they do when they want to build a new road and essentially say to heck with them, we need your rails for the public good, and you'll just have to work around it?

 

I am getting so frustrated at seeing other states zoom past us when it comes to viable public transportation options while we in Tennessee see practically zero initiative to do anything of substance.  And no, I don't consider that stupid Murfreesboro monorail thing to be viable or substantive.

[nashvillwill]

^^^ I'm sure rookzie can chime in here with a more thorough answer, but I believe it because of two reasons;

-the railroad ROW dates back to the 1800's when the railroads were granted land from the federal government to build these lines

-the RR freight lobby is quite powerful

[rookzie]

^^^ I'm sure rookzie can chime in here with a more thorough answer, but I believe it because of two reasons;

-the railroad ROW dates back to the 1800's when the railroads were granted land from the federal government to build these lines

-the RR freight lobby is quite powerful

 

You have done much better than I with brevity, and that is concisely and precisely the answer.  Even with acquisitions and mergers, the railroads have maintained that status quo, rarely ever recovering abandoned R.O.W. unless railbanking provisions are legally in effect (also with the Feds).  In most cases of railbanking though, the railroads generally haven't wanted to recover these abandoned branches and spurs, and generally the state, county,and municipalities may have the option of utilizing these abandonments for repurposing.

 

I have defined railbanking in two previous postings during the past 11 months, and more recently some of us were engaged in comparing the assets of Chattanooga to our Metro Davidson County.  Choo has considered and probably is still considering LRT to address its sprawl crawl issues, and it has far more in its favor than does Nashville.

 

(duplicate your browser tab and jump back to my postings and dialog with others, pp 73, 95,100, 113, to get a feel of what we had blown out from the top of our heads).

 

Again, Nashv'l is "hurting", as far as advantages of outside dynamics and potential is concerned.  On this that it does have which most cities still don't have, is a commuter-rail run, which is not a real system, per se, and is a bit tenuous in justification by popularity.  It was the best thing that money on-hand could give us at the time, though.

 

-=rr=-

Edited July 14, 2014 by rookzie

[Rockatansky]

Remember, it was your mayor and the "closed ranks" who concluded the choice of alignment and mode as the preferred alternative

While the route may have been per-determined, the mode was chosen because of the results of the Alternatives Analysis conducted by an outside consulting firm, not MTA or the mayor.

In hindsight I wish they would have publicized the entire regional plan,

The Nashville Area MPO published its 2035 Regional Transportation plan, which included a comprehensive transit plan, in 2010.

This has been mentioned before, but socially that's not true. People are much more favorable to trolleys and light rail than they are buses, especially in the south. No matter how well BRT is done many people will still view riding that as riding the bus. 

The general public's misguided notions about buses are worth paying over $225 million more for a transit project?

Edited July 14, 2014 by Rockatansky

[rookzie]

While the route may have been per-determined, the mode was chosen because of the results of the Alternatives Analysis conducted by an outside consulting firm, not MTA or the mayor.

The Nashville Area MPO published its 2035 Regional Transportation plan, which included a comprehensive transit plan, in 2010.

The general public's misguided notions about buses are worth paying over $225 million more for a transit project?

 

You're the one misguided on the mode chosen.  Parsons-Brinkerhoff only made the evaluation and conclusion on the parametrics provided them.  They were NOT hired to make the final decision of the mode, but were hired to undertake the thorough analysis procedures, which what they as professionals indeed undertook.  The mayor and the administration made the decision based on the evaluation.  The preferred analysis was chosen by the administration based on constraints of criteria, and this particular instance, primarily on the cost.

 

Parsons-B did not make that decision themselves.  They only made the conclusions by comparison, and many districts have utilized their services with various constraints of final decision-making, only to make their own preferred alternative not constrained by costs alone.  It also is NOT a matter of the public being misguided by the cost of a transit project as a whole, but rather you yourself as subjectively imposing an opinion obviously against anything other than rail.  I have stated before, and even before that, that BRT does have it's niche in urban settings, and never did I state that the EW connector was a bad idea, to start.  The thing could have been darn near underway by now, as far as construction is concerned, had the phases of planning been orchestrated different.  I really think that we could have been seeing Komatsu excavators and Bo-Mag pavement rollers start doing their thing by now (or in the very near future), had matters not become so contentious during the past two or three years.  Hell, IMO, that would have been a great thing ─ yes-sir-ree ─ I think that many of us on the forum would be watching with anxiety and hope, and that would have included me.

 

It does appear that you yourself are only "special-interest", whether to the mayor and the MTA or not, by your insistence that anything costing a lot should be simply foregone.  That stance alone is so narrowly focused, that no city ─ Nashville or Denver, Balto or Sacramento ─ would ever get justification to build anything other than BRT, if it were the cost alone for making the final decision.  We're talking about a comprehensive plan ─ the same one to which you yourself seem to be referring ─ but the mayor's approach with the EW connector was not timely according to the comprehensive plan and its projected time-line of implementation over the plan's extended span of time.  The way things are conceived and planned and a level of trust gained has all to do with the end result of commencing the execution of a planned project.  It's not me, it's not you, but rather values and perceptions of the full mix of the people as a whole and the leaders who ultimately will determine what is willing to be financed, whatever the costs are.   The mayor's job is not to make the people's decision for them, any more than it is to make people buy VW's instead of Volvo's.  The people in cities which have elected to go rail, often have done so with BRT service already in place, and the people also commonly have concluded that, in selecting rail in lieu of or in addition to BRT, rail reportedly has been been chosen over buses because it was felt that rail would attract more riders and that in the long term rail would be far more scalable to the extent of reducing op costs, particularly in terms of maintenance, longevity, and serviceability of the inclusive physical plant.

 

These are the sentiment that municipalities cite time and time again in their final decision to go rail, but on the same mission these same districts have elected to utilize BRT where it is deemed an optimal choice, in some instances following the completion of a rail project segment, to which BRT often connects.  That's one reason that I have expressed in the recent past a hope for a logistical change in the Amp BRT route to serve Riverfront Station, while still adhering to ADA compliance without becoming cost-prohibitive.  This could help to utilize better what we already have in place in a more complementary, and potentially ridership-attractive operation, than it is believed that the alignment rerouting recently proposed would induce.   Despite yours and my intention, it far likely will not be any result of our discussion or disagreements on which any final resolve will be made, however "democratic" any such process may end up.  No proposal is without controversy, but the more publicly contentious a final decision is, the more likely progress will be protracted far beyond a point of little delay.

Edited July 15, 2014 by rookzie

[volsfanwill]

I will be going to Minneapolis this weekend for a friends wedding, even though I am renting a car, I plan on riding their light rail at lest once. Specifically, I plan on riding their brand new green line from downtown Minneapolis to downtown Saint Paul and back.  It just opened in June.  I will of course take plenty of pictures and share my opinion upon return.  

[rookzie]

I will be going to Minneapolis this weekend for a friends wedding, even though I am renting a car, I plan on riding their light rail at lest once. Specifically, I plan on riding their brand new green line from downtown Minneapolis to downtown Saint Paul and back.  It just opened in June.  I will of course take plenty of pictures and share my opinion upon return.  

 

Last occasion I even spent any decent amount of time in the Twin Cities was for about 4 days to spend time with a friend in Hopkins and his parents in Minnetonka, after his then recent divorce (in sharp contrast to your reason for a visit).  That was way back before Metro opened its Blue Line to the Mall of Mid-America (where I saw my first LEGO store) in the early-mid '90s.   The last time I passed through St. Paul was about 4 months before they started the NorthStar Commuter Rail, with it's attractively blue-and-yellow colored stations along the BNSF RR, as observed from The Empire Builder (Amtrak Nº 7 & 8 - Seattle,Spokane,Milwaukee,Chi) in July 2009.  They've also restored and transformed the grand St. Paul Union Depot, structures of such typically closed and abandoned throughout the 1970s, and reopened less than 2 years ago, as a multi-modal transportation facility (local and intercity bus, intercity train, and Metro LRT), a concept of consolidation now made popular in a number of US districts of all sizes (something we in Nashville seem to have lost out on, this late in the re-development game).

 

The St.P. Union Depot is the eastern terminus of "your" Green Line LRT (whether or not you actually ride it to that point).  Twin Cities provides a great example of BRT and LRT working in concert as a mini-network, with both LRT extensions and BRT expansions in planning.

 

Enjoy...

 

-=rr=-

[etimer13]

I was in Minneapolis/St. Paul last weekend and used the green line to get to the Twins game from our hotel in downtown St. Paul.  It's clean and efficient and what I liked most was that the trains are very frequent (every 10 minutes) during the day on weekends.  This was helpful because the ticket kiosk was out of commission at the 10th st. station where we boarded, so we rode ticketless, but jumped off at the next stop, used that kiosk and waited for the next train. Between the two downtowns the train passes very close to some big-box shopping stores and it looked as if Target had created a pedestrian friendly route from the train stop through their parking lot to make using the train for shopping trips that much easier. The train also has a stop at the University of Minnesota's football stadium. It's hard to feel good about the AMP after using that service, but I recognize that MSP was in a unique situation being able to connect two downtown areas, a university, an NFL stadium (now under construction) and an MLB park. 

[MidTenn1]

Good tip. I'll be in the Twin Cities next week to watch a ballgame. Staying in St. Paul may be the thing to do.