Jump to content

The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread


TopTenn

Recommended Posts

I don't want to derail this discussion too far into the political realm (as we all know how that ends up), but mayoral candidate David Fox has made well-known his stance that our mass transit initiatives should again be privatized [Nashville Scene]:

 

 

On the surface, such a thing sounds great considering how poorly the city has managed our current system. However, I'm simply not sure how feasible or likely it would be around here since our local population already makes any transit initiative an uphill battle. I wonder if any private companies would even think attempting to build a private system is worth the trouble...

 

Still, intriguing nonetheless. 

There was an East Nashvillian (an Eastwood neighbor on Porter) who was working on an idea of a private transit bus company, I think to be called Nymbus, that would get folks up/down the Eastland/Porter/Riverside corridor to support the commerical nodes as well as the residents living in the interior neighborhoods who will not directly benefit from the Gallatin BRT or even the AMP, had that come to fruition.  Even though I think that Nymbus is not moving forward, there would seem to be an opportunity there for another private company to work out a similar arrangement to serve the interior East Nashville passageways. 

Edited by bwithers1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


I don't want to derail this discussion too far into the political realm (as we all know how that ends up), but mayoral candidate David Fox has made well-known his stance that our mass transit initiatives should again be privatized [Nashville Scene]:

 

 

On the surface, such a thing sounds great considering how poorly the city has managed our current system. However, I'm simply not sure how feasible or likely it would be around here since our local population already makes any transit initiative an uphill battle. I wonder if any private companies would even think attempting to build a private system is worth the trouble...

 

Still, intriguing nonetheless. 

 

W/r/t rail in general, China, with those snout-nose "worms" known as bullet trains (intercity). has financed with a combination of bonds, state-owned bank lending, and provencial/local govt. funding.  China also happens to have had state-run brokerage to raise capital by initial public offerings.  In any event, direct funding from grants and taxes has become a far less palpable solution for financing any kind of major, ultra-costly transportation facility, be it for local or regional use.

 

AN_China_zpsenn9vb8j.jpg

 

There have been flavors of proposals for financing from all kinds of sources.  Here's yet another, which mentions expounding on the Interstate RoW and a revival/revision of the 19th-century land-grant provisions that spawned the existence of the current passenger-turned-freight companies that exist today.  At least some of it might be meritable.

 

http://www.progressivefix.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/2010_Reutter_Smart-Way-to-Finance-HSR.pdf

 

-==-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was an East Nashvillian (an Eastwood neighbor on Porter) who was working on an idea of a private transit bus company, I think to be called Nymbus, that would get folks up/down the Eastland/Porter/Riverside corridor to support the commerical nodes as well as the residents living in the interior neighborhoods who will not directly benefit from the Gallatin BRT or even the AMP, had that come to fruition.  Even though I think that Nymbus is not moving forward, there would seem to be an opportunity there for another private company to work out a similar arrangement to serve the interior East Nashville passageways. 

 

I recall that as well, now that you mention it.

 

I'm honestly not surprised that it never took off. It seemed very haphazard and intended to appeal to a very niche market--kind of like rolling down the street in a bus painted inside and out to look like a Mellow Mushroom pizza place. It's hard to see an average businessperson rolling down the street in a bus that looks like a crash pad for stoners. Not to mention the fact that their funding platform was an IndieGoGo page.

 

As we all know, mass transit needs...wait for it...mass appeal to actually get off the ground. The idea itself I think had much more merit, but failed in its execution. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Give Google a few years!

Funny you should mention that. Google already has a "transit" system in the Bay Area for its employees. This has been met by great controversy in San Francisco. The problem is, Mountain View is about 25 miles down the heavily congested 101 freeway. The logical thing for Google employees is to live in/around Mountain View. But many of the young/hip crowd want to live in the city. So, Google started running private coaches to SF. Result, rents increase. So, other residents have a decision to make. Deal with the hassle and cost of the 101/Caltrain/Bart commute to live in SF. Or live outside of the city. But Google employees get the best of both worlds. I'm not taking a stance, just laying out the argument.

There have been tons of protesters physically blocking the Google bus into their neighborhoods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Google could just pull a Facebook and build a modern-day, white-collar variant of a company town: http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-anton-menlo-housing-complex-2013-10

 

I'm quite frankly a little surprised that some of these companies haven't yet built housing within their own corporate campuses, especially considering the number of hours their employees work.

 

Heck, even the highly-compensated employees of Google are struggling to keep up with rising housing costs: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2014/09/10/silicon-valley-rent-too-high-google-workers-lived.html?page=all

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Google could just pull a Facebook and build a modern-day, white-collar variant of a company town: http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-anton-menlo-housing-complex-2013-10

 

I'm quite frankly a little surprised that some of these companies haven't yet built housing within their own corporate campuses, especially considering the number of hours their employees work.

 

Heck, even the highly-compensated employees of Google are struggling to keep up with rising housing costs: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2014/09/10/silicon-valley-rent-too-high-google-workers-lived.html?page=all

 

 

 

 

 

Google is trying to build a company town, but the locals are pretty conflicted about it.  The last 3 paragraphs of this article outline the big concern.  Google wants to build 5,000 housing units and only 12,000 voted in the last election, so Google could basically take over the city.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/26/technology/google-plans-new-headquarters-and-a-city-fears-being-overrun.html?_r=0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many hospitals in New York City provide housing for nurses and even doctors. Usually in a highrise tower next door to the hospital. A huge help to staffing requirements and a great perk for families. It is easy to understand Google's motivation

On the farm, we keep a mobile home for the migrant workers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
I hope the next mayor understands the importance of multimodal transportation to the future of the city as well as Dean does.   While none of the candidates is very specific at this point, I have high confidence that Megan Barry has a real understanding of the issues and has demonstrated familiarity with the data from other cities as far as what works for transportation efficiency and economic impact.  Transit is important but will be expensive and politically difficult to tackle.  Adding bike lanes is a slam dunk huge bang for the buck component of transportation infrastructure that should be given high priority.

 

  The Complete Business Case for Converting Street Parking Into Bike Lanes

An annotated, chart-filled review of 12 studies from around the world.

 

http://www.citylab.com/cityfixer/2015/03/the-complete-business-case-for-converting-street-parking-into-bike-lanes/387595/

 

 

 

 

New York City's Protected Bike Lanes Have Actually Sped Up Its Car Traffic

http://www.fastcoexist.com/3035580/new-york-citys-protected-bike-lanes-have-actually-sped-up-its-car-traffic

 

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/2014-09-03-bicycle-path-data-analysis.pdf

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even so ─ even with bike lanes in the alleys and byways ─ you still need to be on guard, 37206dude, the way these people drive 'round here.  But then I'm sure you don't need to be reminded of that, do you.  Too bad most of Nashv'ls roadways are too narrow to provide separate bikeways, without subtracting from the "car-ways".

That's one thing that some 55 years ago and as recently as 12 years ago,  I miss about Urbana-Champaign, IL.  The towns themselves didn't have them throughout, but the University (Uof I) had totally separated bike lanes throughout the entire huge campus, even way back then.  For all practical purpuses, these bike lanes were little streets, and in some cases these little bike streets or "avenues" were actually miniature "boulevards" with a single lane in each direction separated by distance of a foot or two.  They even have bike streets crossing each other and merging/diverging, such that the bike streets appear like miniature "tracks".

Unfortunately, it seems that a new university campus bike plan details replacing off-road bike lanes with on-street lanes, according to recommendations based on bicycle safety research.  This research concludes that on-street bike lanes are deemed safer than separated lanes.  Needless to be said, this just seems to be logically hard to swallow, for me anyway.  I can see perhaps an issue where existing separated bike lanes intersect roadways at paved and striped crossings, as opposed to having cyclists comply with standard safety protocol for all traffic at normal intersections.  Maybe cyclists (the number of which has burst at the seams, so to speak since the lanes were built during the  ‘50s) at that campus have become presumptuously “entitled” at the many roadway crossings there.  I also recognize that there has always been a problem there where bike traffic has been in conflict with pedestrian traffic where the respective paved way cross each other, especially away from the roadways and deep within the campus.  This I know first-hand, between class periods, when I was in grad school there during the early 2000s.  It might appear to be more of a safety issue between bikes and pedestrians, than between bikes and motor-vehicles.
 

 

2014 Campus Bike Plan (UIUC)
http://icap.sustainability.illinois.edu/project/2014-campus-bike-plan
"...The benefits of a bicycle friendly campus are many. As a mode of transportation, bicycles provide solutions in the areas of safety, sustainability, cost savings, mobility, health and wellbeing. The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign was one of the first campuses in the nation to adopt a bikeway network when the first bike paths were constructed here in the 1950s.  Since that time, funding cutbacks have led to degraded and disconnected pathways, outdated and insufficient bicycle parking, and limited support for bicycle services and programs. Despite these setbacks, bicycle ridership has grown at the University of Illinois in the last decade, and is expected to continue to grow in the future, creating a great need for reemphasis on engineering, education, enforcement, encouragement, and evaluation for bicycle-friendly improvements.

The primary focus of this plan is on infrastructure improvements to the University’s network of bikeways. Wherever possible, this plan recommends removing existing off-road side paths for bicycles and replacing them with on-street bicycle lanes or routes. These recommendations are based on the best available research on bicycle safety, which have shown significant safety improvements through on-street facilities compared to separated facilities. As ongoing research in the field continues to evaluate best practices, all future infrastructure plans and improvements on campus should continue to reflect the best available research at the time..."

 

 

In any event, another but separate issue I have with pedestrians and bike lanes, at least in Nashv’l, is that on some bike lanes pedestrians have taken the attitude that they are entitled to the use of the lanes for jogging.  Correct me if I am mistaken, but I don’t believe that designated bike lanes are required to accommodate joggers, even if bikers are not present and even if jogging in the opposing direction of traffic to maximize visibility against oncoming cyclists.  Many a dark-night morning, these city buses have had to swerve to avoid making a trio of joggers running abreast (frequently with no “nite-ize” body lights or light-colored clothing) go “flap-flap!” in the dark.  Some even push 3-wheel bouncin' babies and dogs alongside. clearly an unintended purpose of the bike lanes.  I just think that the exclusive use of bike lanes should be enforceable, for the safety of all (except of course where cars are permitted to be parked at curb).

 

Whatever "best practices" might be for bike lanes, I think that as a project they should have to be treated as any other transportation infrastructure improvement, and not just ram-rodded down the people's throats, without shared discussion on how it should be implemented and tied in with "competing" uses.   I have observed cases in this here town where some bike lanes were basically worthless and dangerously put in place, because they were far too narrow and provided little if any margin of error on behalf of motorists or cyclists (e.g. along 18th Ave N. [DBTodd Blvd] between Jo Johnston and Jefferson; along Belmont Blvd,between Woodmont Blvd and Shackfleford Ave.).  Fortunately, the city came to its senses (or some kind of sense) and removed the markings to revert the path to full roadway use.  I hope in time, though, that the city will work with the districts for determining levels of interest and for effecting best practices for the available RoW.  I don't want it to turn into another set of disjointed and "broke-off" paths to nowhere, as the sidewalks have become (if at all).
-==-

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even so ─ even with bike lanes in the alleys and byways ─ you still need to be on guard, 37206dude, the way these people drive 'round here.  But then I'm sure you don't need to be reminded of that, do you.  Too bad most of Nashv'ls roadways are too narrow to provide separate bikeways, without subtracting from the "car-ways".

That's one thing that some 55 years ago and as recently as 12 years ago,  I miss about Urbana-Champaign, IL.  The towns themselves didn't have them throughout, but the University (Uof I) had totally separated bike lanes throughout the entire huge campus, even way back then.  For all practical purpuses, these bike lanes were little streets, and in some cases these little bike streets or "avenues" were actually miniature "boulevards" with a single lane in each direction separated by distance of a foot or two.  They even have bike streets crossing each other and merging/diverging, such that the bike streets appear like miniature "tracks".

Unfortunately, it seems that a new university campus bike plan details replacing off-road bike lanes with on-street lanes, according to recommendations based on bicycle safety research.  This research concludes that on-street bike lanes are deemed safer than separated lanes.  Needless to be said, this just seems to be logically hard to swallow, for me anyway.  I can see perhaps an issue where existing separated bike lanes intersect roadways at paved and striped crossings, as opposed to having cyclists comply with standard safety protocol for all traffic at normal intersections.  Maybe cyclists (the number of which has burst at the seams, so to speak since the lanes were built during the  ‘50s) at that campus have become presumptuously “entitled” at the many roadway crossings there.  I also recognize that there has always been a problem there where bike traffic has been in conflict with pedestrian traffic where the respective paved way cross each other, especially away from the roadways and deep within the campus.  This I know first-hand, between class periods, when I was in grad school there during the early 2000s.  It might appear to be more of a safety issue between bikes and pedestrians, than between bikes and motor-vehicles.

 

 

2014 Campus Bike Plan (UIUC)

http://icap.sustainability.illinois.edu/project/2014-campus-bike-plan

"...The benefits of a bicycle friendly campus are many. As a mode of transportation, bicycles provide solutions in the areas of safety, sustainability, cost savings, mobility, health and wellbeing. The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign was one of the first campuses in the nation to adopt a bikeway network when the first bike paths were constructed here in the 1950s.  Since that time, funding cutbacks have led to degraded and disconnected pathways, outdated and insufficient bicycle parking, and limited support for bicycle services and programs. Despite these setbacks, bicycle ridership has grown at the University of Illinois in the last decade, and is expected to continue to grow in the future, creating a great need for reemphasis on engineering, education, enforcement, encouragement, and evaluation for bicycle-friendly improvements.

The primary focus of this plan is on infrastructure improvements to the University’s network of bikeways. Wherever possible, this plan recommends removing existing off-road side paths for bicycles and replacing them with on-street bicycle lanes or routes. These recommendations are based on the best available research on bicycle safety, which have shown significant safety improvements through on-street facilities compared to separated facilities. As ongoing research in the field continues to evaluate best practices, all future infrastructure plans and improvements on campus should continue to reflect the best available research at the time..."

 

 

In any event, another but separate issue I have with pedestrians and bike lanes, at least in Nashv’l, is that on some bike lanes pedestrians have taken the attitude that they are entitled to the use of the lanes for jogging.  Correct me if I am mistaken, but I don’t believe that designated bike lanes are required to accommodate joggers, even if bikers are not present and even if jogging in the opposing direction of traffic to maximize visibility against oncoming cyclists.  Many a dark-night morning, these city buses have had to swerve to avoid making a trio of joggers running abreast (frequently with no “nite-ize” body lights or light-colored clothing) go “flap-flap!” in the dark.  Some even push 3-wheel bouncin' babies and dogs alongside. clearly an unintended purpose of the bike lanes.  I just think that the exclusive use of bike lanes should be enforceable, for the safety of all (except of course where cars are permitted to be parked at curb).

 

Whatever "best practices" might be for bike lanes, I think that as a project they should have to be treated as any other transportation infrastructure improvement, and not just ram-rodded down the people's throats, without shared discussion on how it should be implemented and tied in with "competing" uses.   I have observed cases in this here town where some bike lanes were basically worthless and dangerously put in place, because they were far too narrow and provided little if any margin of error on behalf of motorists or cyclists (e.g. along 18th Ave N. [DBTodd Blvd] between Jo Johnston and Jefferson; along Belmont Blvd,between Woodmont Blvd and Shackfleford Ave.).  Fortunately, the city came to its senses (or some kind of sense) and removed the markings to revert the path to full roadway use.  I hope in time, though, that the city will work with the districts for determining levels of interest and for effecting best practices for the available RoW.  I don't want it to turn into another set of disjointed and "broke-off" paths to nowhere, as the sidewalks have become (if at all).

-==-

 

 

 

OK, there's a lot here and you make some very important points.

 

"I think that as a project they should have to be treated as any other transportation infrastructure improvement"

"I have observed cases in this here town where some bike lanes were basically worthless and dangerously put in place"

 

Correct, these are two important and related issues.  The current best practices for TN are outlined here:

http://www.tdot.state.tn.us/bikeped/CompleteStreets.pdf

 

As you correctly observed many bike lanes in Nashville are no safer than having no bike lane and therefore many cyclists ride in the shared traffic lane anyway.  Bike lanes should be at least 4 ft wide not including a gutter.  There are many places in Nashville where they are less than 2 feet wide and consist almost entirely of what is for practical purposes a gutter.  Almost without exception bike lanes are placed on the edge of the road where there is the most debris and uneven surface.

 

I'm not sure why you think separated bike lanes are less safe.  This is the opposite of true.  Bike lanes with any physical separation from traffic are much safer and have much more frequent use, but only if they exist where people need to go.

 

But I take exception to the idea that bike lanes are ram-rodded down anyone's throats.  People should have the right to travel walking or biking without fearing for their lives.  It's a public safety and quality of life issue as well as a transportation issue.  This isn't about a political ideology but is a practical economic consideration in that walk/bike access is a factor in recruiting young talent to work in cities. Walk/bike infrastructure has been proven time and time again to benefit local businesses who often fight when parking is taken away but end up benefiting in the end.  If you think bike lanes are ram-rodded down anyone's throat think about the converse.  Let's say you want to ride a bike somewhere but the government has spent 99.9% of transportation infrastructure money and space on automobile travel.  A fellow citizen who wants to ride a bike instead of drive a car is decreasing air pollution and taking up a much smaller portion of the road space so there should be a collective incentive for you to encourage this behavior.

 

 Bike lanes represent such a minutely small portion of road space and cost almost nothing to build.  There are ways to improve street safety and efficiency while incorporating bike lanes and pedestrian infrastructure.  Many lanes are 12 ft wide (or more).  Reducing lanes to 11 or even 10 ft has been found to be dramatically safer for cars as well as pedestrians with only very modest if any reductions in traffic throughput.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope the next mayor understands the importance of multimodal transportation to the future of the city as well as Dean does.

 

 

Considering the charlie foxtrot that was the AMP planning (and publicization), I'm not so sure Dean's administration understands multimodal transit well at all...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion on increasing car, pedestrian, and bike safety above.

 

Not much more to add, other than one point: if you want to help the safety of drivers, bikers, and pedestrians, then improve driver training and rule enforcement (for all of the above). The level of ineptitude of the vast majority of drivers all across this country is astonishing. And the extreme fixation of enforcement purely on speeding doesn't do anything to help it. Stiffen fines for people parking in bike lanes or not yielding to pedestrians, enforce passing and lane usage rules, and make drivers go through much more rigorous testing and training. Perhaps more people failing drivers tests will be incentive to build more walkable cities, even.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is somewhat of an aside, but does anyone know if MTA has any plans to revamp their branding and logo? It just screams 80s era public transit service...not exactly a time period that was kind to the sector...in addition to looking like something someone tossed together on Photoshop without any real forethought or design idea.

 

I mean, this is what we have:

 

220px-Nashville_mta_logo.png

 

Compared to Philly, New York, DC, and Boston, respectively:

 

220px-SEPTA_text.svg.png

 

50px-MTA_NYC_logo.svg.png

 

100px-WMATA_Metro_Logo.svg.png

 

150px-MBTA.svg.png

Edited by Nathan_in_DC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion on increasing car, pedestrian, and bike safety above.

 

Not much more to add, other than one point: if you want to help the safety of drivers, bikers, and pedestrians, then improve driver training and rule enforcement (for all of the above). The level of ineptitude of the vast majority of drivers all across this country is astonishing. And the extreme fixation of enforcement purely on speeding doesn't do anything to help it. Stiffen fines for people parking in bike lanes or not yielding to pedestrians, enforce passing and lane usage rules, and make drivers go through much more rigorous testing and training. Perhaps more people failing drivers tests will be incentive to build more walkable cities, even.

 

I agree we need better rule enforcement for bicycles and cars; I differ as to pedestrians.  Studies show pedestrians are safer where jay walking laws are not enforced.  I often see pedestrians approach a corner that has a crosswalk and walk signal, walk a couple of car lengths away from the corner, jaywalk across the street and then walk back to the intersection and continue along the original street.  They are right to do this, as most pedestrians are hit by turning vehicles; crossing at the corner is dangerous but rules require it because it allows drivers to feel they don't have to pay attention.  I want drivers to be nervous and alert.

 

The most hilariously economical transit investment has to be these little pictures of bicycles painted at certain points on the pavement.  What is that all about?  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, there's a lot here and you make some very important points.

 

"I think that as a project they should have to be treated as any other transportation infrastructure improvement"

"I have observed cases in this here town where some bike lanes were basically worthless and dangerously put in place"

 

Correct, these are two important and related issues.  The current best practices for TN are outlined here:

http://www.tdot.state.tn.us/bikeped/CompleteStreets.pdf

 

As you correctly observed many bike lanes in Nashville are no safer than having no bike lane and therefore many cyclists ride in the shared traffic lane anyway.  Bike lanes should be at least 4 ft wide not including a gutter.  There are many places in Nashville where they are less than 2 feet wide and consist almost entirely of what is for practical purposes a gutter.  Almost without exception bike lanes are placed on the edge of the road where there is the most debris and uneven surface.

 

I'm not sure why you think separated bike lanes are less safe.  This is the opposite of true.  Bike lanes with any physical separation from traffic are much safer and have much more frequent use, but only if they exist where people need to go.

 

But I take exception to the idea that bike lanes are ram-rodded down anyone's throats.  People should have the right to travel walking or biking without fearing for their lives.  It's a public safety and quality of life issue as well as a transportation issue.  This isn't about a political ideology but is a practical economic consideration in that walk/bike access is a factor in recruiting young talent to work in cities. Walk/bike infrastructure has been proven time and time again to benefit local businesses who often fight when parking is taken away but end up benefiting in the end.  If you think bike lanes are ram-rodded down anyone's throat think about the converse.  Let's say you want to ride a bike somewhere but the government has spent 99.9% of transportation infrastructure money and space on automobile travel.  A fellow citizen who wants to ride a bike instead of drive a car is decreasing air pollution and taking up a much smaller portion of the road space so there should be a collective incentive for you to encourage this behavior.

 

 Bike lanes represent such a minutely small portion of road space and cost almost nothing to build.  There are ways to improve street safety and efficiency while incorporating bike lanes and pedestrian infrastructure.  Many lanes are 12 ft wide (or more).  Reducing lanes to 11 or even 10 ft has been found to be dramatically safer for cars as well as pedestrians with only very modest if any reductions in traffic throughput.  

 

It appears that you have misunderstood me on two points in discussion:

1) "...I'm not sure why you think separated bike lanes are less safe...."

2) "...But I take exception to the idea that bike lanes are ram-rodded down anyone's throats...."

First, as far as safety of off-street bike lanes is concerned, it is not I who holds that opinion, but rather it was the Univ. of Illinois who concluded that in-road bike lanes were deemed safer than off-road lanes.  As you clearly would see, or perhaps you simply overlooked it, I took exception to that:

 

"...Unfortunately, it seems that a new university campus bike plan details replacing off-road bike lanes with on-street lanes, according to recommendations based on bicycle safety research.  This research concludes that on-street bike lanes are deemed safer than separated lanes.  Needless to be said, this just seems to be logically hard to swallow, for me anyway..."

 

It was only as a matter of providing a contrasting point of view, for the sake of argument, that I referenced the university's plan to upgrade its existing 60-year-old bike-street system, which currently includes a mix of on- and off-street bike lanes, to eventually phase out its off-road bike lanes, at least at least the vast majority of them, if not in entirety.  No one delighted in being able to use Illinois' campus off-road bike lanes, any more than I, during the early 1960s, and that sentiment was just as strong during my stint there in grad school some 40 years later.  No one can be any more surprised and disappointed in the university's resolve to eliminate off-road bike lanes than I.  I also tried to weigh the parameters of the university's rationale, without knowing the details ─ perhaps a preponderance of pedestrian-to-bicycle incidents, as that campus has a large array of ped-bike crossings all over the campus.grounds away from the roadways.  This I only have supposed.

 

 

Second, you don't seem to have taken my comment within its intended and included context.  I would think that you would realize as well as I, how certain Metro projects have been moshed through the channels devoid of public input (or at least openness), and that was exactly the point I have been making about bike-lane planning as an infrastructure project.  Those two case examples which I cited very possibly were the result of that very practice within those respective districts, whether or not these ill-conceived implementations of bike lanes were proposed and pushed through approval, even though with these particular examples the "lanes" probably did not entail nearly as must capital funding as those considered adequate and compliant.  When I interjected the term "ram-rodding" I was alluding to the tactic of pressing projects or expenditures related to such projects for transportation infrastructure improvements without early-on public involvement, during which active engagement would be induced with the stakeholders on options and details of engineering in such bike lane proposals, as they would emerge.  This just wasn’t happening with these two cited examples.  I thought that I had clarified with:

 

"...Whatever "best practices" might be for bike lanes, I think that as a project they should have to be treated as any other transportation infrastructure improvement, and not just ram-rodded down the people's throats, without shared discussion on how it should be implemented and tied in with "competing" uses...."

 

 

Please pardon me if I'm incorrect, but I believe we actually end up in concurrence, after all.

-==-

Edited by rookzie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is somewhat of an aside, but does anyone know if MTA has any plans to revamp their branding and logo? It just screams 80s era public transit service...not exactly a time period that was kind to the sector...in addition to looking like something someone tossed together on Photoshop without any real forethought or design idea.

 

I mean, this is what we have:

 

220px-Nashville_mta_logo.png

 

Compared to Philly, New York, DC, and Boston, respectively:

 

220px-SEPTA_text.svg.png

 

50px-MTA_NYC_logo.svg.png

 

100px-WMATA_Metro_Logo.svg.png

 

150px-MBTA.svg.png

 

Thanks for that opinion.  To me it does look tacky and trite for the period in time and the purpose.

 

I've seen "dollar-a-dozen" business cards with better conceived logos than that thing.  I also don't particularly care for the generic white-with-stripe paint scheme either.  Most other transit agencies of "decent"-sized cities (and even lesser) have a more commanding color theme that brands the agency as a "personality", instead of looking like Wiley Coyote's Acme Supply truck.  Capital outlay for transit should not require "pinching" for the sake of being able to buy more buses and less paint.  But then, the MTA has often been seen as a relegated red-headed step child ─ a necessary evil, as it were ─ where shaved corners has not been found uncommon.

-==-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't throw NYC MTA into the "great logo" category. They may have one of the world's best transit systems, but that logo is pretty pathetic if you ask me. It screams "we just figured out this tunnel effect font thing! Isn't it awesome?!?!".

Edited by nashvillwill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't throw NYC MTA into the "great logo" category. They may have one of the world's best transit systems, but that logo is pretty pathetic if you ask me. It screams "we just figured out this tunnel effect font thing! Isn't it awesome?!?!".

 

Agreed!  This is probably just my OCD talking, but that logo has always bugged the crap out of me.  JUST CENTER THE DAMN THING ALREADY!!  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.