The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread

[nashvylle]

I believe The Amp has to be approved by The General Assembly. If 1 cent of state funding for The Amp gets approved in the state budget, then it is automatically approved by The General Assembly. If no funds for The Amp are in the state budget, and Dean / Metro come with a proposal for funding from the state on The Amp, The General Assemly then can vote on it. 

[UTgrad09]

^^^In regards to East Nashville, the Five Points location can serve as an end station and transfer point where standard buses can drop passengers off to transfer after they are collected in the lower density single family home neighborhoods. And not to forget Gallatin BRT lite already exists for communities further up toward Madison. East Nashville is being served, it was the first choice for the BRT lite service. I don't see that the area of town is being left out at all. Five Points isn't exactly just across the river in the Titans parking lot.

 

I'm also well aware that there are some transit supporters who oppose AMP since they don't like the routing or the fact it isn't in the form of rail transport and I outlined this point earlier. Transit isn't a zero sum game and once AMP BRT is completed, the debate can instantly turn to readying the city for a heavier rail form of transport in the future. That debate will take years onto itself and meanwhile Nashville will have a usable, professional grade BRT system to utilize during this phase of the city's growth.

 

Why can't somewhere on West End near Vanderbilt serve as the end point for BRT? It seems the only reason that the Amp extends past 440 is because the CEO of St. Thomas supports it. While I like that, it seems the rest of the neighborhood isn't so thrilled by the idea. So why not reward the side of town that might actually use the transit (therefore making it successful and attractive to EXPAND the network)? 

 

Yes, BRT lite extends up Gallatin Pk. So what? This creates the opportunity for the last 3.5 miles of the BRT lite service to share the protected lane with the Amp and quicken the trip to and from downtown (of course you would need to use buses with both right and left opening doors).

 

On top of this -- one of the side benefits of BRT (or any other rapid transit system) is the opportunity for redevelopment. The West End corridor (beyond 440) doesn't need any changes at all. On the flip side, Gallatin Pk and Main St could use quite a bit of boost, especially in terms of commercial development and mixed use. To get to the point -- the city will likely see a much greater property tax benefit from extending the East side than they would from continuing the West side. 

[BrandonTO416]

I'm all for the development of East Nashville into a more urban environment. In regards to this transit plan, I don't have the answers you're looking for on why its not further than Five Points. But the density of East Nashville is relatively low because its mostly single family homes beyond Five Points. I would guess - and its just a personal opinion - that the Main and Woodland St corridor down to Five Points is likely to develop the dense, multi-family residential needed to support and foster transit usage. Beyond that hasn't been seen as capable to do that as you'd have to tear down historic bungalows that no one really is interested in tearing down.

 

Plus, Federal funding for transit projects many times does have density or projected density requirements. Maybe they couldn't get federal funding if it went deep into the single family homes of East Nashville? I have no idea.

[UTgrad09]

I'm all for the development of East Nashville into a more urban environment. In regards to this transit plan, I don't have the answers you're looking for on why its not further than Five Points. But the density of East Nashville is relatively low because its mostly single family homes beyond Five Points. I would guess - and its just a personal opinion - that the Main and Woodland St corridor down to Five Points is likely to develop the dense, multi-family residential needed to support and foster transit usage. Beyond that hasn't been seen as capable to do that as you'd have to tear down historic bungalows that no one really is interested in tearing down.

 

Plus, Federal funding for transit projects many times does have density or projected density requirements. Maybe they couldn't get federal funding if it went deep into the single family homes of East Nashville? I have no idea.

 

The density of East Nashville in the Census Tracts between 5 Points and Trinity Lane are actually higher than those from I-440 to White Bridge Rd. 

[BrandonTO416]

White Bridge Rd/West End is an employment hub with the hospital, other offices, as well as a handful of condos and apartments. Maybe it was chosen for this reason in terms of jobs density? I don't see that East Nashville has been slighted on transit. The BRT lite service initiated on Gallatin Pike and is already in operation, the AMP goes to Five Points which is the heart of the east side. I don't agree with the assessment that East Nashville is somehow slighted on transit. You're free to have other opinions on it. I also think the Woodland/Main St corridor has the most potential to advance with high density development so it makes sense to focus on this corridor.

 

As I said before, if they lump off the route from 440 to White Bridge Road, I wouldn't cry any tears. That's where the bulk of the opposition has come from.

[rookzie]

I strongly feel in part (and I have stated this at least twice during the past 14 months), that much of the element of discord from electing to jump-start BRT along the currently proposed corridor is that to some the Mayor was perceived to have reneged on MTA’s initial announcement to establish a phased implementation of BRT along Gallatin Road beginning in 2009-2010.  As part of the Nashville Strategic Transit Master Plan Final Report, back in 2009, just before the MTA began receiving its order of NABI 60-ft articulated coaches from Anniston Ala., the mayor and then MTA CEO Paul Ballard actually had announced to the press that BRT along Gallatin Road was a priority, and he specifically mentioned an incremental implementation of a BRT service, initially with the currently employed BRT-lite and prospectively, with the acquisition of R.o.W., for an advanced stage of BRT by utilizing either or a combination of dedicated lanes and “queue jump” lanes.  The two even casually mentioned the concept of the Gallatin Road corridor as being a prime candidate for light-rail, although, many likely would have opted at least to forego LRT for the much less costly alternative of advanced BRT, during the few years following the start-up.

Queue jump lanes, as you likely are aware, are segments of what appear to be right-turn lanes at intersections.  Queue jump lanes provide the opportunity for buses to move in front of other traffic after stopping for red lights at intersections.   During the study MTA had identified six such intersections along the Gallatin Pike corridor, and which it had suggested could be considered for construction of queue jump lanes.  Yes, the MTA still probably would end up having to acquire R.o.W., even for queue jumps, and especially within the narrower stretch of Gallatin Road south of Eastland Ave (no center neutral lane).  In all, though, after all this had been hashed out, the MTA had elected to defer implementation of queue jump lanes to a later (if not a next) phase of BRT implementation along Gallatin.

And during that same study some 5 years ago, preliminary consideration had been given to the potential for extending that Gallatin Pike BRT route beyond its downtown terminus to the W-E / Vandy area, but via a path along Church, and 21st Ave, as the then preferred alignment.

So in part at least, the 2010 formal application for and awarding Federal (FTA)funding toward the current “Amp” has left the perception that the plans for Gallatin Road, which had been presented as a promising introduction to RT by the mayor and the MTA, instead have been all but abandoned beyond the current phase as simply BRT-lite, in favor of the separate more ambitious initiative ─ the Amp.  Whether you feel that East Nashv’l is adequately served or not, the fact is for certain that a staged implementation of BRT beyond limited stops and traffic-signal priority (the word “phase” construed as implicit or directly stated contextually in the master plan, as being in advance of what currently has been applied), not only had been conceived for Gallatin Road, but also once had been the primary focus on the augmentation of transit service extending northward through east Nashv’l.

And although I have no direct reference to a news press officially announcing this, I definitely recall having read quoted statements during 2009-2010, within the now defunct Nashv’l City Paper (CP), driven toward R.o.W. acquisition along the current Gallatin Road alignment.  The CP articles currently found online are limited to certain content only, so I have not found it possible to locate much of what had once been observed in printed material, before CP announced that it would cease print distribution (and ultimately the online publication).  Only a few archives readily are available online.

I say this also because, following the incipient East-side BRT-lite and the hype surrounding its fledgling operation, indeed the Gallatin Road BRT-lite had appeared as a good start, although in the eyes of quite a few of its proponents (some of whom as common folks had actually participated actively in detailed discussions) the Gallatin Road BRT, stuck in its phase-one development (advancement beyond which appears stillborn), has been less that fulfilling of most expectations.

Also I am not saying all this to counter or discount the efforts and planning up to now on the proposed Amp, but I do feel, however, that without a long-ago arrangement for pre-empting dedicated funding for squirrelling to projected future transit needs, a tendency often exists to maximize a Federal grant funding award of a transit project.  The often does not provide an optimized service route for those who likely would use it and for those who are transit dependent (not by choice).  That being said, an advancement of the Gallatin Pike BRT-lite to a higher level of performance might not have effected the highest return of an FTA grant award, although the Amp proposal in its submitted form likely qualified as a high valued-added new-start instead of a small-start (as most BRT-lites in Nashv’l likely would qualify as).

 

Edited October 28, 2014 by rookzie

[dmillsphoto]

And I'm sure everyone has seen this... Dean passing along AMP to his successor. 

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/blog/2014/10/dean-slams-brakes-on-the-amp.html

[nashvylle]

terrible news.

 

None of the mayors are going to embrace this project, unless Bone is elected, or if Bill Freeman (who hasn't announced a run) is elected. 

[Nashville Cliff]

Yes, disappointing, but with all of the politically induced delays there was no way it was now going to get through the NEPA process, etc. in time to break ground during his administration.  I expect most of the candidates to remain noncommittal during the election, but the reality is they are going to have to do something to improve mass transit once they take office.  Easier to start with a project already along in the process and tweak it than to start from ground zero.

[nashvylle]

yeah but the StopAmp people are going to cry to lee beaman and harwell for any mass transit project that is proposed. 

 

Harwell running for govenor makes me want to puke. 

[Vrtigo]

 

Not quite the conclusion I was expecting. :sigh:

[BnaBreaker]

Well...the anti-transit crowd wins again.  Great job on your "victory." When our growth begins to stagnate in ten years because of crushing traffic jams while our rival/peer cities progress into the future with complex and efficient light rail systems, I WILL blame you and your ignorant short-sightedness. 

[rookzie]

Yes, disappointing, but with all of the politically induced delays there was no way it was now going to get through the NEPA process, etc. in time to break ground during his administration.  I expect most of the candidates to remain noncommittal during the election, but the reality is they are going to have to do something to improve mass transit once they take office.  Easier to start with a project already along in the process and tweak it than to start from ground zero.

 

Well...

 

it looks as if Steve Bland is left without "bus driver", so to speak.  I don't mean this literally, as tacky as it may sound.  It just stands to reason to at least partly question the efficacy of the new MTA CEO's role in managing current plans, which now apparently seem to be at risk of becoming "stale" (or even "spoiled") during the next 10 months of administration.  There's no reason to doubt his qualification for the post (with his CV), but now he very likely may be dealt a trump of a different suit from a mostly (if not entirely) new deck of cards, come the 2015 election.

 

Dean's resolve to make this announcement now may be for one of political assuagement for his successor, particularly if Dean himself has long-term aspirations.

 

-==-

[Vrtigo]

Well, this follow-up article from the NBJ paints things in a slightly more positive light. It appears that several important individuals went out of their way to point out that this project is still very much a possibility, so maybe there is hope after all.

 

I just hope something happens before I give up and move to a city that fits more with my desire for what my home city should be.

[Guest]

Harwell will be the next Gov. Bank on it.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Guest

[Guest]

The system would not allow me append my previous post .....

I have heard Harwell speak favorable on the AMP proposal once it was modified to stop at I-440.

[BrandonTO416]

Well...the anti-transit crowd wins again.  Great job on your "victory." When our growth begins to stagnate in ten years because of crushing traffic jams while our rival/peer cities progress into the future with complex and efficient light rail systems, I WILL blame you and your ignorant short-sightedness. 

 

I find it a bit whimsical that this announcement was made as I've been discussing transit at length here on the forum. Not that there is a connection since the council meeting on this was pre-scheduled... Regardless, it is a sad day for Nashville. Dean is basically throwing in the towel on the AMP despite any PR language around how he wants the city to proceed after he's out of office. Any future mayor will have a blank slate to do as they wish.

 

I have zero power and only one voice on these issues, but if I could get anything through to anyone in Nashville who has power on these issues it is to impress upon everyone that you need to focus on what delivers maximum frequency (it has to be better than every 20-30 minutes during off peak hours) AND it needs to be speedy if you're going to invest hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars.

 

This is at the core of what I've been trying to say all along in this discussion so far. Ensure high frequency and make sure if you spend more money on rail, that has its own right of way so the train service can travel quickly. If you're going to invest into an in-street option, use less money and do a uni-directional Streetcar or a BRT system so its cost effective and matches the speed, because a system that is slow will be limited in ridership potential. It becomes less competitive and has less utility.

 

Whoever takes up transit seriously again needs to keep some of these principles in mind. Oh, and while its important to take citizen input seriously, you can't let NIMBY attitudes runaway and control the debate.

[gannman]

I find it a bit whimsical that this announcement was made as I've been discussing transit at length here on the forum. Not that there is a connection since the council meeting on this was pre-scheduled... Regardless, it is a sad day for Nashville. Dean is basically throwing in the towel on the AMP despite any PR language around how he wants the city to proceed after he's out of office. Any future mayor will have a blank slate to do as they wish.

 

I have zero power and only one voice on these issues, but if I could get anything through to anyone in Nashville who has power on these issues it is to impress upon everyone that you need to focus on what delivers maximum frequency (it has to be better than every 20-30 minutes during off peak hours) AND it needs to be speedy if you're going to invest hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars.

 

This is at the core of what I've been trying to say all along in this discussion so far. Ensure high frequency and make sure if you spend more money on rail, that has its own right of way so the train service can travel quickly. If you're going to invest into an in-street option, use less money and do a uni-directional Streetcar or a BRT system so its cost effective and matches the speed, because a system that is slow will be limited in ridership potential. It becomes less competitive and has less utility.

 

Whoever takes up transit seriously again needs to keep some of these principles in mind. Oh, and while its important to take citizen input seriously, you can't let NIMBY attitudes runaway and control the debate.

 

I agree that service frequency will make or break any proposal. I've utilized several methods of transit in various cities and 10-15 min is the longest I would want to wait. It should be frequent enough that I can assume the wait time will be minimal without having to utilize a schedule.

[nashvylle]

sad day for transit. 

Edited October 29, 2014 by nashvylle

[BrandonTO416]

I'm beginning to think that if AMP is to be scrapped, they should see if they can get those federal funds reallocated to a Nashville Streetcar. A uni-directional streetcar going down Broadway and West End to 31st, then back up to downtown on Charlotte in a circulation pattern would be lower cost than bi-directional in-street LRT and frequent. It'd be RAIL so it'd avoid this silly rubber vs steel wheel debate.

 

If you purchased enough LRV's then the service could technically run every 5 minutes all day long, and it wouldn't be illegal to run a single dedicated lane and leave the other lanes for other traffic.

 

An investment into a central Streetcar circulator would also make additional BRT lite corridors and expanded, more frequent STAR commuter rail services more usable. 

Edited October 29, 2014 by BrandonTO416

[CenterHill]

I wouldn't be surprised if Bland, bringing a fresh eye to the AMP proposal and after surveying the political landscape, wasn't the one advising Dean to move on. Essentially telling him you can blame it on the legislature, but this project is going nowhere without the state and regional players marching in step and it needs a reset. I have no insight on that, just reading between the lines.

[UTgrad09]

I do like the idea of a streetcar. This is from my Google Maps creation from a couple years ago:

 

https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=217291243497016881147.0004d6ae15202d7c06d6d&msa=0&ll=36.157697,-86.765556&spn=0.073041,0.1478

 

It is a whole BRT/BRT lite network, with a couple of streetcar loops. Of course this is a fantasy proposal, but it would be cool to see it happen one day (along with integrating this network with commuter rail from the burbs).

[BrandonTO416]

I'm not sure how Bland fits into the equation, but its an interesting thought that he may be behind this idea to not go forward with AMP.

 

That's a fantastic map and concept UTgrad. I actually think I'd alter my conceptual streetcar map from earlier and have it go down Demonbreun instead of Broadway. You can walk from the Gulch up 12th Ave to hop on the service. I'd have it go outbound from downtown on Demonbreun to West End, then inbound to downtown on Charlotte. The length is about 6.5 miles, and at the average cost of construction most cities have experienced this would be about a $300 million project based on the technology. You could have one dedicated lane - on the edge of each street - which bypasses the new state laws that make it illegal to do central street stations.

 

 

And you'd have modern light rail vehicles in use, such as this example for the Portland Streetcar going through various areas. You can even allow a Streetcar to travel through a park if you wanted to do something different such as have it go through Centennial Park around the Parthenon into One City and back.

 

[BrandonTO416]

BTW, that routing can be altered for each neighborhood it services. But it hits a lot of important locations with an easy walking distance: Schemerhorn center, lower broadway, Music City Center, Gulch, Music Row (this route has it going through the traffic circle), the central midtown area where most offices and condos are going up, Vanderbilt, it isn't a long walk from the medical district, Centennial Park, One City, then a quick express route back into downtown on Charlotte passing right through the heart of government in front of the capitol. I have it going down 3rd ave so that its closer to the downtown office buildings. It is a very, very good idea IMO.

 

And since its a circular pattern, it wouldn't take many vehicles (another cost savings) to create frequency of all day having a vehicle pass by every 5 minutes so that its actually a usable system.

 

And if any of you in here have better cost estimates, please opine. The initial Portland Streetcar line was 4.1 miles in length and cost only $57 million to build.

 

Source: http://www.portlandstreetcar.org/pdf/capital_and_operations_detail_20100908.pdf

 

Of course this is from 2001, so inflation would make it more expensive today. It is plausible given how much cheaper streetcars are than bi-directional light rail service you could build my concept with a similar or less $175 estimate AMP would have been.

 

Price is going to have to be discussed by people with more knowledge, because prices are all over the map when you look at example systems. Atlanta's 2.7 mile system is costing about $100 million and it opens in December this year.

 

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_Streetcar

 

$100 million includes some cost overruns they've experienced, at that price it'd be roughly $240 million for a 6.5 mile Nashville streetcar loop if they had similar costs to construct. And since most of Nashville outside the core is so low density, it may be best to focus on transit in the core, while BRT lite and better traditional bus services bring people into the core from lower density areas (including continued and expanded STAR commuter rail).

 

ALSO, since it is focused on the central city, I think it'd be great to build a parking garage along Charlotte and maybe another location along its route to help dedicate those parking funds to Streetcar operation to see if you could make it fare-free. Just hop on and ride without regard to payment if you can get a dedicated funding source, similar to how Chattanooga did its Electric Bus shuttle. It isn't unprecedented. Buffalo's METRO rail and Pittsburgh's T systems both operate free in the downtown portions.

Edited October 29, 2014 by BrandonTO416

[farm_boy]

What is YOUR plan and who is YOUR leader?

 

Exactly, that is what I have been saying all along: this should be a project designed and administered by the RTA - not the mayor, not by you, nor me. None of us here are professional traffic engineers, correct?

 

But I can definitely build you any type of barn!!!