The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread

[BrandonTO416]

Can you explain how BRT is cheaper to run (up to a certain peak in ridership)? I was always under the impression that LRT (while more expensive upfront) was cheaper in operating costs. In the simplest form, it makes sense that it should be. Less fuel costs, less maintenance, fewer drivers. Even if more empty equipment is being run on a low demand route, I just don't see how it could be more expensive to operate.

I'm not saying your wrong, I'm just trying to wrap my head around it.

Edit; I guess I can disqualify one of my own criteria. On a theoretically empty line, it wouldn't be less drivers. In order to keep the same headway, it would still need to be X number of vehicles per hour, which means the same number of drivers. I guess the driver count would only be reduced on a heavy demand line where LRT can carry more passengers per vehicle.

 

Think of it like a math equation. Both statements are technically true. BRT is cheaper to operate under circumstance A, LRT is cheaper to operate under circumstance B. This is why the partisan nature of this "debate" is an utter joke.

 

I have a friend who is a professional transit planner who can better describe the details, what I can provide to you is my personal experience using multiple modes of transit in multiple transit systems nationwide combined with experience from professionals who advise me.

 

If you have ridership that isn't particularly high - such as 15k or 25k riders per day (like projections for the AMP will be) - the BRT form of transit is cheaper because articulated BRT vehicles can carry 40-80 passengers on average (some can handle 100 standing/packed), it is cheaper to install and run these buses, and you can run two buses for the price of sending just one light rail vehicle out in some circumstances. Again, each transit agency is different, and LRV's have different operational costs, but light rail as individual trains are more expensive to run.

 

HOWEVER, LRT can be cheaper to operate if you have higher demand. For example, if your BRT system has 50,000 riders or more a day, and your buses are packed where revenue paying passengers can't board during certain hours and have to wait for a second bus... It would be cheaper at this demand level to have LRT vehicles that can handle the passengers. The reason why is basically to have the same capacity you'd have to run a bus every 2-3 minutes to match a LRV running every 5 or 6 minutes. These are theoretical numbers, but if you can wrap your head around the math (and listen to a professional explain) it makes more sense.

 

This is what drives me nuts with BRT vs LRT debates. Both modes of transport are appropriate based on different circumstances. And Nashville gains something by implementing AMP in the long run. AMP is an in-street local transit solution, it isn't a city-wide commuter rail or heavy rail service. BUT, neither would be AMP if it were LRT. Even if they opted to spend hundreds of millions of more dollars and install rail vehicles with steel in the ground, AMP would be designed around stopping at intersections. Even with priority lighting it slows things down...

 

Nashville can get LRT quality BRT today with AMP, with the affordability to run more frequent buses. THEN if ridership warrants it, the demand can demonstrate a need to do something that cities investing in light rail in-street solutions today won't have the money for in the future: HEAVY RAIL.

 

Wouldn't you rather see how successful AMP will be as a BRT then maybe in the future start planning a Skytrain type service to replace it, if demand is there and a need can be demonstrated? Otherwise Nashville is going to get stuck with an in-street, slower LRT system as its only main public transport method for decades to come.

 

We don't live in the 1960's or 70's when heavy rail investments could be more easily made, like what Atlanta got, or DC METRO, or San Francisco's BART system. We live in an era where light rail is the fad, and its a slower form of transit that costs an awful lot of money.

 

AMP could be a transition to a better transport future as opposed to slower light rail in the streets.

[BrandonTO416]

If you want examples of other systems, here are some examples.

 

I lived in Beaverton, Oregon for a year from 2007/2008. I lived in an apartment on a MAX stop at 185th/Willow Creek. You can see the TriMet schedule here:

http://trimet.org/schedules/w/t1100_0.htm

 

I used this line daily when I lived up there, and if you board a train at 8am at the beginning of rush hour, you could get to Pioneer Square in downtown Portland by 8:35am on average (not including any potential delays at street crossings. 185th/Willow Creek is approximately 10 miles of distance, and it takes every bit of 35-40 minutes to go this route.

 

Lets use MARTA as an example for heavy rail with its own right of way, so it doesn't get inhibited by traffic. I'll use the Chamblee-Five Points routing to prove the point. It isn't 10 miles, its about 12 miles - 20% more distance covered - and here's how much quicker it is.

 

http://www.itsmarta.com/Ne-w.aspx

 

That schedule list is a bit cryptic and hard to read, but using the "Gold Line" MARTA train during rush hour at Chamblee station at 8:07am, you'll arrive 12 miles south in Five Points at downtown Atlanta at 8:28am.

 

Lets calculate.. 20% more distance covered, and it takes 21 minutes. That's almost 15 minutes less than a MAX light rail ride that is 20% shorter in distance.

 

Light rail is not fast, it is a second grade form of rail transit. It crosses intersections. Nashville can achieve the service levels of LRT without the expense. LRT simply put is not an improvement over BRT, only heavy rail with exclusive rights of way is.

 

Why does this comparison matter? Because BRT offers the same speed as LRT, potentially more frequency so you wait less for a vehicle to board, and you can have investment money for high quality heavy rail at a later date.

 

How many transit enthusiasts who love Portland and idealize the city realize its light rail system is slow and pokey compared with DC Metro, Atlanta MARTA, or San Francisco BART? Not everything they did in the 1960's and 70's was wrong ya know...  Some planning from that era was far better, such as the focus on speed and quality of heavy rail. Some of America's best transit systems were developed during the modernist era. It wasn't just highways people were building back then.

 

If you are going to spend $500 million or billions of dollars, you might as well do it right. Don't use light rail if you're interested in a fast, efficient form of transport. Save your money, build a good BRT line, then invest into heavy rail in the future. America is in a light rail fad where everyone wants a light rail line without understanding they're not heavy rail when it comes to speed.

Edited October 23, 2014 by BrandonTO416

[mirydi]

I'm amazed by the amount of knowledge some of you guy's have when it comes to mass transit. 

 

I predict Brandon and rookzie become best friends...

[rookzie]

I'm amazed by the amount of knowledge some of you guy's have when it comes to mass transit. 

 

I predict Brandon and rookzie become best friends...

 

you be funny, you know (maybe try-out for the Improv or Zanies...)

 

(i've run my mouth too damn much as it is; sore jaws; mouth spasms)

 

-==-

Edited October 24, 2014 by rookzie

[UTgrad09]

My head hurts.

[mirydi]

This has been touched on a few times by myself and others, but IMO, the real problem with the Amp is simply that it's a bus system. Let's face it, buses have a poor public image. The target audience for the Amp aren't exactly the type of people that are going to park their cars to ride a bus. One has to wonder, would there be this much backlash if it was a rail system proposed instead? From the little research I've done, it seems that LRT has far more voter support than buses. (about 50% support LRT, while only 20% support BRT) I think this whole argument about taking away a few lanes is amplified (pun intended) by the fact that they will be replaced with bus lanes that most of the people in that area have little to no desire to ride. I don't think the issue here is anti-mass transit, or reduction of lanes, I just think it's the wrong mode of transit proposed for the area. BRT would be better served in corridors like Gallatin pike, Nolensville road, Charlotte Ave, Dickerson Pike etc...Your gonna need a transit mode a little more sexy than a bus on West End to get people out their cars. 

[MidTenn1]

This has been touched on a few times by myself and others, but IMO, the real problem with the Amp is simply that it's a bus system. Let's face it, buses have a poor public image. The target audience for the Amp aren't exactly the type of people that are going to park their cars to ride a bus. One has to wonder, would there be this much backlash if it was a rail system proposed instead? From the little research I've done, it seems that LRT has far more voter support than buses. (about 50% support LRT, while only 20% support BRT) I think this whole argument about taking away a few lanes is amplified (pun intended) by the fact that they will be replaced with bus lanes that most of the people in that area have little to no desire to ride. I don't think the issue here is anti-mass transit, or reduction of lanes, I just think it's the wrong mode of transit proposed for the area. BRT would be better served in corridors like Gallatin pike, Nolensville road, Charlotte Ave, Dickerson Pike etc...Your gonna need a transit mode a little more sexy than a bus on West End to get people out their cars. 

 

I was skeptical myself about how buses could pass as rapid transit until I used the Health Line in Cleveland for a few days. It is so close to the light rail experience, that you barely notice. The main difference is rubber tires. It was being used as much as the Twin Cities "Blue Line' light rail. I have no doubt there will be a learning curve, but once people get used to it, it will be very popular.

 

 

 

I am a little concerned that tourist may not recognize it as a rapid transit experience as it will wind its way through downtown away from Broadway without the center median loading platforms. They should have gone up 16th, down Demonbruen, and down KVB and up Second Avenue instead. Center lane loading could have been used more efficiently.

 

 

 

 

By the way, Paris subways all run on rubber tires (except the R-E-R (er-eh-er)). 

Edited October 24, 2014 by PHofKS

[BrandonTO416]

My point of view is centered around a few basic principles:

 

1) LRT is not fast unless you spend tons of $$$ to create it exclusively in its own rights of way for the entire route. And unless you have really high ridership the service is infrequent with trains only coming every 15 or 20 minutes in non-peak periods (and some systems only run two trains an hour). Relative to a car, you can drive halfway through the city in off peak hours in 20 minutes. The way LRT has been implemented in many cities leaves a lot to be desired. BRT can run at higher frequency without as high of ridership needed, so it actually creates a better experience as I don't see ridership on AMP being high enough to run light rail every few minutes.

 

2) If you're going to spend that much money to build LRT correctly, you might as well just go for heavy rail or save some money by constructing BRT. BRT in street is just as fast as LRT in street. Its worth the hundreds of millions in savings.

 

3) Nashville specifically already has a planned system, funded, and ready to be built once the NIMBY opposition gets out of the way. There is little need to reverse course and restart the debate for another 5-10-15 years of inaction.

 

I changed my mind on the viability of mode when I became familiarized with Cleveland's BRT system. When I lived up in Buffalo, I was visiting friends in Cleveland many times throughout the year and we'd use the HealthLine. It is just like a light rail system, except its on rubber wheels.

Edited October 24, 2014 by BrandonTO416

[mirydi]

Again, I just don't think it has much to do with performance or cost, or even reduced lanes or if you can make left turns or not when it comes to mass transit on West End. I'm willing to bet that if the $175M AMP proposal was scrapped today, and replaced with a $1B+ rail system proposal, you would probably have a lot more support, and the majority of people would miraculously be all for it. I just don't think all the arguments currently being made are the real reason people are against the idea of the AMP, and the real reason is because most people tend to view buses as a means of transportation for low-income-folks. Your just not gonna hear people come out and say that because, well, that wouldn't be politically correct now would it? You can preach all day long about how BRT is more viable, cost effective, and what is best for Nashville, but that still won't change the perception that people have of riding buses, and I think that's what the underlying problem is the AMP. BRT is just not the right fit for the West End corridor IMO, regardless if it makes sense or not. 

[BrandonTO416]

I agree rail is "sexier" from the standpoint that its rail. But honestly, do you think Middle Tennessee conservatives will support a billion dollar rail project easier than a $175 million enhanced BRT line? I don't think those country club types on West End really care if its rail or not, they oppose spending taxpayer dollars on a public works project of any kind of project unless its their hypocritical desire to spend of taxpayer dollars to pave more roads to turn their vehicles left on West End Avenue.

 

I'll level with everyone on here about rail. If you're not going to do BRT, why not scrap this entire idea and build viaducts to carry a semi-heavy rail system like Vancouver skytrain. Its automated and doesn't require paying transit operators to drive it (therefore fare revenue can fuel more frequent service), never goes into an intersection, and it'll be an appropriate billion or several billion investment. Middle Tennessee bedrock is too hard to tunnel through and bridges/viaducts are easier to install. If we stall the process to get this built any further, why not do things right? The rail doesn't need to be in the street at all if you're going to invest that much, it needs to be a better solution.

 

This state wasn't always controlled by economic conservatives who never believe in appropriate public works projects (actually, on economics, it was among the more liberal states in terms of investments into TVA and other earlier 1900's initiatives), but the Reagan era conservatism still has a wrap around many in the region. This mentality still has a long way to go before dying out. Its hard enough to get AMP BRT built, I have a hard time seeing an appropriate monorail/elevated train service being built right now. Give it 10 or 20 years when a few more Reagan generation conservatives have died out and maybe. Politics is integrated to this entire discussion, Tennessee Democrats back in the day may have been socially conservative on some of the social issues of the day, but they always invested into programs and public works projects. Hell, as recently as the 1990's under McWherter and the Tennessee Democrats they attempted to achieve quasi-universal health care with the TennCare program. These people were very much economically progressive and ahead of the curve. There wasn't a program they didn't believe investing in, they were interested in infrastructure investments of all kinds. Today's political climate in Tennessee is one of conservatism, contraction, doing nothing but sustaining what we have. There is no "lets build it" mentality.

 

This has to change, and it will in time. And as much as the state's current conservative movement thinks it owns everything, this is still the state that gave the nation Al Gore, moderate Republicans like Baker. This state doesn't have a tradition of radical right wing conservatism, its just a present phenomenon that will be gone eventually. Beth Harwell and Marsha Blackburn and all these radical anti-government activists don't represent the state's history or for that matter won't represent its future. They'll be known as the great blocks to progress that everyone eventually ignored.

Edited October 24, 2014 by BrandonTO416

[mirydi]

I agree rail is "sexier" from the standpoint that its rail. But honestly, do you think Middle Tennessee conservatives will support a billion dollar rail project easier than a $175 million enhanced BRT line? I don't think those country club types on West End really care if its rail or not, they oppose spending taxpayer dollars on a public works project of any kind of project to inhibit the spending of taxpayer dollars to pave more roads to turn their vehicles left on West End Avenue.

 

I'll level with everyone on here about rail. If you're not going to do BRT, why not scrap this entire idea and build viaducts to carry a semi-heavy rail system like Vancouver skytrain. Its automated and doesn't require paying transit operators to drive it, never goes into an intersection, and it'll be an appropriate billion or several billion investment. If we stall the process to get this built any further, why not do things right? The rail doesn't need to be in the street at all if you're going to invest that much, it needs to be a better solution.

Honestly, I do. I've seen plenty of poll results that not only show an overwhelming support for mass transit, but they show an overwhelming support to increase their taxes to fund it. When I say overwhelming support, I'm talking like 60%+. 

 

The thing is, it seem's they want it done right. The Amp proposal, especially the watered down version of it now, I don't think fits in that category. 

Edited October 24, 2014 by mirydi

[BrandonTO416]

Light Rail in the street isn't rail done right, either. Take it from me, you'll spend 40 minutes going 10 miles if you do. Minneapolis/St Paul just opened its Green Line LRT system a few months ago this summer, I just rode it and like all other in-street LRT systems it took me 45 minutes to go 10 miles between MPL and STP. It was slower than the experience I had when I lived in Beaverton, OR as the entire Green line is in the middle of University Ave the entire trip. LRT in the street is nothing more than a bus with steel wheels.

 

If we want to restart this debate it needs to be done with a viaduct and either semi-heavy or heavy rail. Vancouver Skytrain is probably the best model, its not a full heavy rail train set, its semi-heavy rail and elevated. Its as cost effective as LRT, but with the speed of heavy rail. Its also automated so that you don't have to pay transit operators to drive the trains and has a 30+ year safety track record to back it up. Vancouver wasn't that big of a city in the mid 1900's, and they made the investment since they didn't know the city would bloom so fast. Nashville is in a similar position today.

 

The Skytrain's Expo line that opened in 1985 now serves 289,000 passengers as day without problem, so even though it isn't true heavy rail, it'll have enough capacity to grow into the future. But if Nashville can only grow to fuel 50,000 riders a day, it won't be a budget disaster.

Edited October 24, 2014 by BrandonTO416

[mirydi]

Light Rail in the street isn't rail done right, either. Take it from me, you'll spend 40 minutes going 10 miles if you do. Minneapolis/St Paul just opened its Green Line LRT system a few months ago this summer, I just rode it and like all other in-street LRT systems it took me 45 minutes to go 10 miles between MPL and STP. It was slower than the experience I had when I lived in Beaverton, OR as the entire Green line is in the middle of University Ave the entire trip. LRT in the street is nothing more than a bus with steel wheels.

 

If we want to restart this debate it needs to be done with a viaduct and either semi-heavy or heavy rail. Vancouver Skytrain is probably the best model, its not a full heavy rail train set, its semi-heavy rail and elevated. Its as cost effective as LRT, but with the speed of heavy rail. Its also automated so that you don't have to pay transit operators to drive the trains and has a 30+ year safety track record to back it up. Vancouver wasn't that big of a city in the mid 1900's, and they made the investment since they didn't know the city would bloom so fast. Nashville is in a similar position today.

 

The Skytrain's Expo line that opened in 1985 now serves 289,000 passengers as day without problem, so even though it isn't true heavy rail, it'll have enough capacity to grow into the future. But if Nashville can only grow to fuel 50,000 riders a day, it won't be a budget disaster.

I agree that LRT in the street isn't the answer either, and if done, should have it's own right of way somehow. An elevated rail system might be the only option for that. 

[BrandonTO416]

Lets run for office and take over.

[Hey_Hey]

I recently drove from nashville to clarksville and noticed how wide the median is along the way.  I then looked on Google maps and confirmed that for probably 95% of the route the median is the equivalent of at least 6-8 lanes of traffic.  It's odd because most other interstates around here are fairly narrow. It seems to me that the cost of laying track for heavy rail to Clarksville would be a lot cheaper than most places simply because the state already owns enough real estate in the middle of the interstate to accommodate double track.  I'm sure it would still be expensive to build, but it seems like much of the cost for rail construction is property acquisition costs.  I know a study is ongoing looking at rail service to/from Nashville and Clarksville, so maybe they are considering this as a possibility. 

[rookzie]

By the way, Paris subways all run on rubber tires (except the R-E-R (er-eh-er)). 

 

Yes, but the French (Paris and Montreal) "Metros" are actually fixed guideway trains on "rubbuh", designed much like the airport trams of O-Hare, (Maynard) Jackson, Sea-Tac, and inter-terminal movers with tires, instead of steel wheels.  Theses are laterally restrained on the track by horizontally-mounted (usually) all-steel or rubber-treaded steel idler rollers mounted on the framed wheel-set assemblies (referred to as "trucks" in the Western Hemisphere ─ as "bogies" in Europe).

 

Different engineered designs all basically work the same, with some lateral idlers being inboard, others mounted outboard.  The tracks themselves may be either wide steel beams (of some rigid cross-section type) or of dimensional concrete.(meaning concrete formed very evenly as a planed surface).

 

Heavy-rail (HRT) rubber-tired "truck" or "bogie"

(horizontal guide idler wheels, outboard [magenta] - clasp brakes [yellow])

 

 

HRT rubber-tired detail

(with inboard horizontal guide idler wheels on center guide beam; concrete running rails)

 

 

HRT rubber-tired detail on Montreal Metro

(outboard horizontal guide idler wheels [yellow])

 

 

HRT steel running rail beams for rubber-tired trains [EDITED: corrected image]

 

 

So these rubber-tired railed vehicles are in no way related to the "sub-order" of BRT articulated-buses.

 

-==-

Edited October 24, 2014 by rookzie

[mirydi]

Lets run for office and take over.

Pssh...I wish. You can handle the mass transit, I'll take care of PSC metals...

 

I recently drove from nashville to clarksville and noticed how wide the median is along the way.  I then looked on Google maps and confirmed that for probably 95% of the route the median is the equivalent of at least 6-8 lanes of traffic.  It's odd because most other interstates around here are fairly narrow. It seems to me that the cost of laying track for heavy rail to Clarksville would be a lot cheaper than most places simply because the state already owns enough real estate in the middle of the interstate to accommodate double track.  I'm sure it would still be expensive to build, but it seems like much of the cost for rail construction is property acquisition costs.  I know a study is ongoing looking at rail service to/from Nashville and Clarksville, so maybe they are considering this as a possibility. 

That space will probably end up being used to widen the interstate instead...smh. 

 

Yes, but the French (Paris and Montreal) "Metros" are actually fixed guideway trains on "rubbuh", designed much like the airport trams of O-Hare, (Maynard) Jackson, Sea-Tac, and inter-terminal movers with tires, instead of steel wheels.  Theses are laterally restrained on the track by horizontally-mounted (usually) all-steel or rubber-treaded steel idler rollers mounted on the framed wheel-set assemblies (referred to as "trucks" in the Western Hemisphere ─ as "bogies" in Europe).

 

Different engineered designs all basically work the same, with some lateral idlers being inboard, others mounted outboard.  The tracks themselves may be either wide steel beams (of some rigid cross-section type) or of dimensional concrete.(meaning concrete formed very evenly as a planed surface).

 

Heavy-rail (HRT) rubber-tired "truck" or "bogie"

(horizontal guide idler wheels, outboard [magenta] - clasp brakes [yellow])

500px-Bogie-metro-Meteor-p1010692-markup.jpg

 

 

HRT rubber-tired detail

(with inboard horizontal guide idler wheels on center guide beam; concrete running rails)

asian_rubber_tyred_RT_crop-markup.jpg

 

 

HRT rubber-tired detail on Montreal Metro

(outboard horizontal guide idler wheels [yellow])

MontrealMetro7035_cropped_markup.JPG

 

 

HRT steel running rail beams for rubber-tired trains

MontrealMetro7035.JPG

 

 

So these rubber-tired railed vehicles are in no way related to the "sub-order" of BRT articulated-buses.

 

-==-

 

Whoa! Never knew that they use rubber tires for heavy rail...interesting. 

[rookzie]

I agree that LRT in the street isn't the answer either, and if done, should have it's own right of way somehow. An elevated rail system might be the only option for that. 

 

 

Lets run for office and take over.

 

 

seems that you two have become "best friends"  (get it?)

 

[reckon I had my chance, eh?]

 

-==-

[mirydi]

^Haha!..Funny!

[BrandonTO416]

Well I still think proceeding with AMP BRT is the fastest, most prudent path at this time. I don't view it as rushed, its an appropriate system that is already funded.

With that said, I think discussions should begin on an elevated train setup as the city grows, one that may have a slightly different path so that they can compliment each other. For example, since West End residents are causing a fuss, maybe look at Hillsboro Village and Green Hills for elevated train service.

[BrandonTO416]

BTW, I hope more people really study light rail in street, even if its a dedicated lane, because those numbers I have provided are real. 30 or 40 mins travel time for 10 miles is the norm for any system that deals with stoplights, even with priority lights. Dedicated and heavy rail take 15 minutes for the same distance. It's very important to remember this stuff because how long you wait for a train or bus and how long it takes to travel are key to how successful it will be. Just because it's steel does not automatically make it better. I would say you can learn to enjoy rubber, pun NOT intended.

Edited October 24, 2014 by BrandonTO416

[BrandonTO416]

(Removed by Moderator)

 

Anyway, investments need to be made by politicians that want to govern, not anti-govern, and AMP is already funded so I still think it should be built. It isn't a bad system plan and will be just as fast as LRT.

[MLBrumby]

Is AMP an acronym for something?   I didn't know it is already funded too!   So the final sticking point is its route, correct?   That being the case, change the route off of West End.  Would love to see mass transit bypass Beaman's properties completely. 

[UTgrad09]

AMP = Arguing Mindless Politics

[BrandonTO416]

To be fair, every city that has massive infrastructure projects these days seems to have massive arguments over the investment. Its the modern way of doing things... There is some good that comes of it, in that citizen input is valuable to know what people think. What isn't good is when a project is set to go and it gets totally sidelined and nothing happens, which is what I hope doesn't happen here.

 

Make no mistake, there are actors with powerful money behind them that know arguing and inaction is the same as doing nothing, and that's why anti-government forces love to stir crap up, they know if by default nothing happens then they think they've won. Although by not advancing infrastructure developments like this, I think everyone actually loses as a whole. These are the contemporary situations not only Nashville, but many cities find themselves in. So I wouldn't single AMP out with a catchy acronym. LOL

Edited October 25, 2014 by BrandonTO416