The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread

[rookzie 2772]

On 1/15/2020 at 10:32 AM, volsfanwill said:

Sigh. 

The Tennessean apparently couldn't read a simple map. 

1. They say the only current stop in Tennessee is in Memphis. This is not true. There is one in Newbern. 

2. They say "establish new service from Memphis to Chicago". The only current Amtrak service in Tennessee is from New Orleans to Chicago via Memphis and Newbern. This proposal seems to indicate additional service from Memphis to Chicago. 

There is also a station in Fulton KY that is only about 2 miles north of the state line on the same route. 

I caught that as well.  During the last couple of years or so, city officials in Memphis had suggested that a second train be instated to provide additional service between Memphis and Chicago, to offset the inconvenient schedules at Memphis of both current once-daily north- and southbound runs (Nº58 Nº59 respectively) of the Chicago-NOLA "City of New Orleans" trains.  I have ridden that train several times ─ both originating or terminating at Memphis and passing through Memphis.  A second train pair would run only between Chicago and Memphis.  Memphis has had Amtrak service since Amtrak's inception in May 1971.   It never lost service as did Nashville in 1979, although the Newbern stop replaced the one formerly at Dyersburg.  The "City" always was swarmed with passengers at the Memphis station, every time I rode it, and with a good deal of parking space at Central Station, along with a police precinct occupying a portion of that building at platform level, I always have felt secure there.

CSX can be bought, as long as it can gain from the deal to handle its own congestion.  This was done by the legislature in Florida just over a decade ago, for use primarily with the SunRail commuter rail system.   A couple of weeks ago, it was announced that the State of Virginia and CSX had agreed to a $$$$ deal to acquire several key assets of the CSX.  The deal will add an entirely new 2B$ bridge over the Potomac River to carry Amtrak and VRE (Virginia Railway Express commuter rail) from DC to Virginia.  This new bridge will transfer passenger trains from the old CSX-owned bridge, which CSX will renovate for its own freight traffic.  The state also will purchase 225 miles of north-south track and 350 miles of north-south railroad right of way from CSX for $525 million, including half the right of way between Washington and Richmond.   Virginia also will acquire from CSX nearly 200 miles of east-west track, between Doswell and Clifton Forge.   What this plan does is to vastly increase the capacity for passenger trains statewide, allows for a new connection passenger route lost during the 1970s, and assists CSX by creating increasing mainline capacity to allow freight alongside dedicated passenger track, in the Mid-Atlantic region already bursting at the seams for additional capacity.  Virginia is a primary gateway for much freight and for all passenger service south of DC.

The VRE Fredericksburg commuter line, which runs 8 round-trip trains each weekday, will add 5 new round-trip trains during the weekday rush hour and introduce 3 round trips on weekends.   Amtrak already runs 5 trains to Richmond, and it anticipates 6 additional daily round trips to Richmond and two extended trains to the Hampton Roads area (1 added to each route ─ to Newport News  and to Norfolk).  This 10-year vision would not be feasible were it not for this deal, which really is "on the cheap", considering the vast potential it affords for the state.

Back to Nashville, a Nashville - ATL twice-daily service also could connect at Chattanooga with Bristol-Roanoke, Charlottesville, DC, with a connection at Charlottesville to Richmond and Hampton Roads (via Virginia's purchase of the east-west branch).  This Chattanooga connection would be provisional, based on a proposal also in long talks to extend Amtrak service west of Roanoke (DC-Roanoke), service to which began just over 2 years ago.  That east-west service proposal actually would extend service from Roanoke to Memphis, connecting Memphis and Chattanooga directly to DC, since the cancellation of such passenger service in 1968.

Edited January 24, 2020 by rookzie

[markhollin 94007]

Rep. Jason Powell (D-Nashville) has filed a bill that would trigger a study of the feasibility of returning passenger rail service to and from Nashville.

The line would include stops in Chattanooga, Tullahoma and Murfreesboro and could eventually be extended to Memphis.

Powell admitted that the discussions are “still very much in the preliminary stages.”

The proposed study would be conducted by the Tennessee Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations.

More behind the Nashville Post paywall here:

https://www.nashvillepost.com/politics/state-government/article/21111490/lawmaker-wants-to-study-nashville-train-route

[markhollin 94007]

The NYC based advocacy group Transit Center has released a report with insights as to why the city's 2018 transit-funding referendum failed.  Its findings are based off more than 40 interviews with a variety of stakeholders, from campaign staffers and Transit for Nashville coalition members to Mayor Megan Barry's planning team.

Some of the key takeaways:

- The planning team focused too heavily on going big

- The Barry administration alienated African American voters

- The campaign's ties to the Nashville Area Chamber of Commerce made voters uneasy

- Barry's resignation allowed opposition to build support

The full report is here:

https://transitcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/nashville_report_8x10_RGB_interactive.pdf

More at NBJ here:

https://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2020/01/22/report-details-demise-of-nashvilles-5-4-billion.html?iana=hpmvp_nsh_news_headline

[PaulChinetti 6014]

So going small doesn't work (AMP), going big doesn't work (See the 2018 referendum), so what's next the medium approach?

 

[nashvylle 6717]

I think if Barry administration's referendum was for lightrail just  in east Nashville connecting to downtown (with an outline for future lines via future referendums if this was is successful) AND Barry did not have the sex scandal, it would have passed. 

[grilled_cheese 1826]

1 hour ago, PaulChinetti said:

So going small doesn't work (AMP), going big doesn't work (See the 2018 referendum), so what's next the medium approach?

 

Calm down.

 

We're getting another study!

[PaulChinetti 6014]

I demand a study of why we have so many studies!

[AronG 2098]

When I drive down West End these days, with all the density turning it into a canyon, it is so blatantly obvious that we should have dedicated bus lanes with buses going both directions every 5 minutes to distribute people along all the 3 or so miles of mid/high-rise residential, hotel, office, and retail developments from the river to at least Centennial. There are so many destinations within a few blocks of that route... People need a chance to use regular, predictable transit in Nashville that doesn't get stuck in traffic, and doesn't require you to look up a schedule to see what time to show up.

And the kicker is, it wouldn't even cost much. The politics tho...

[BnaBreaker 9223]

5 hours ago, AronG said:

When I drive down West End these days, with all the density turning it into a canyon, it is so blatantly obvious that we should have dedicated bus lanes with buses going both directions every 5 minutes to distribute people along all the 3 or so miles of mid/high-rise residential, hotel, office, and retail developments from the river to at least Centennial. There are so many destinations within a few blocks of that route... People need a chance to use regular, predictable transit in Nashville that doesn't get stuck in traffic, and doesn't require you to look up a schedule to see what time to show up.

And the kicker is, it wouldn't even cost much. The politics tho...

But it would bring on armageddon if West End Avenue is reduced from six hundred and sixty seven lanes in each direction to six hundred and sixty six lanes!  

[nashvylle 6717]

I do think if BRT was put along charlottte avenue first (I know that west end was chosen because of available federal funds only for west end), it would have been successful and we'd now be in the discussion of where to put other lines... 

[GregH 236]

Charlotte would be easier but it's substantially less dense than the West End corridor. I think if we had built out a BRT on Charlotte at the time the AMP was proposed we'd be talking about disappointing ridership now.

[Rockatansky 731]

On 1/20/2020 at 2:13 PM, PaulChinetti said:

massive re-timing of traffic lights for the rush hours. 

I think I read somewhere that this is being planned for this year or next.

On 1/22/2020 at 8:32 AM, markhollin said:

The planning team focused too heavily on going big

The kinda had too given that when they tried to go small a few year earlier with The Amp, it got shut down at the State level.

[rookzie 2772]

On 1/17/2020 at 9:44 AM, nashvylle said:

@Bos2Nash so amtrak service is DOA?

Did CSX buy the rights to the tracks previously used by Amtrak?

CSX always has owned the tracks. (see below)  Amtrak service is never necessarily DOA, if political will can be mustered.

 

On 1/17/2020 at 11:46 AM, volsfanwill said:

@Rookzie will be able to answer this better. But from memory I believe what happened was this:

By the late 60s nearly every railroad was losing money in passenger service. And they all wanted out of that business. The government had mandated certain routes to be maintained for decades even with declining ridership. So, in what was supposed to be the final hurah for intercity passenger services in the US, congress created Amtrak.  Supposedly even the sponsors of the bill thought it would be dead in a decade. The railroads turned over their passenger cars and gave Amtrak permission to use their rails. In exchange, they could concentrate on freight,and freight would get priority. I believe there was even a clause that new routs could not be created, only routes that existed at the creation of Amtrak could be used. Amtrak currently only owns their own tracks in a few areas, mostly in the extremely popular northeast corridor. 

 

 

On 1/17/2020 at 12:39 PM, MLBrumby said:

That's interesting because I believe Amtrak had a route from Chicago through Nashville to Atlanta when it was created. So would that route or portions of it be grandfathered to permit a restart of the service? Depends on what (if anything) Amtrak agreed to give up when it ceased that route. 

Volsfanwill said it.  I really can't confirm the clause about no new routes being created, but that definitely was and would have been a moot point in any event back in those days when non-Amtrak-joining railroads had to run all their existing passenger trains for 5 years.  Several Amtrak trains nationwide were discontinued during the period 1971-1979, and additional trains eventually were cancelled during the '80s and even into the late 1990s.

Intercity passenger service in the U.S. had been on a steady decline following the end of WW-II.  Actually the peak of such travel occurred during the 1920s (prior to the Great Depression), and many routes and scheduled runs existing before the Depression were never restored.  The establishment of the Federal Highway network during the late 1920s helped to diminish that service, as roads became paved and connected throughout the states.  That's how highways such as US-70, -31, -41, and the famous US-66 were formed.  World War II created a great demand and therefore a resurgence in passenger travel.

That too began to decline following WW-II and the Korean War, although many routes were still popular and profitable during most of the 1950s.  Toward the end of that decade, passenger train travel had declined at a more accelerated rate, as airline travel and the Interstate highway system construction had taken a stronghold following the Federal Highway Act of 1956.  Automobile manufacturers, particular General Motors, had successfully orchestrated a master business model, and, in conjunction with related industries and the Federal Govt., private ownership and driving of and automobile had become much easier than ever.

All passenger train equipment and service was privately owned and operated by the  railroads themselves.  From the 1950s and even into the late 1960s, some railroads even had city ticket agencies in some cities, along with advertisements for their then-luxury trains.  Most of that practice had been left over from the days when passengers had choices among more than one rail carrier to a destination (e.g. from Washington DC to Cincinnati, via the Baltimore & Ohio or the Chesapeake and Ohio; or from Chicago to St.L. via the Illinois Central or the Gulf Mobile and Ohio or the Wabash).  Back when I was a child and teenager, many choices still existed.  By the early-mid-1960s, domestic passenger train travel was still mainstream, but it had  taken a dramatic plunge, as the expressways access continued to forge on, and airlines began to offer special discounts previously unheard of ─ rates which overnight made ground travel a less attractive option even for single travelers, who otherwise would have taken a train or a bus for distances of 200 miles or greater.   Before the U.S. escalated its efforts in the Vietnam conflict in 1964, railroads had regularly petitioned the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) to allow discontinuance of a passenger train, since the ICC regulated all train cancellations at that time.

Most of the U.S. mail had been transported by rail throughout first half of the 20th century.   The Post Office Department (reorganized to become the U.S. Postal Service in 1971) had contracts nationwide making mail handling and transport on special head-end cars of passenger trains rather lucrative for the railroads, all private carriers in the U.S.  The handling of mail was so lucrative for the railroads that it often offset the operating-cost losses that had become the norm among scheduled train runs, as passenger losses continued to mount.  Passenger train operation took a precipitous turn for the worse, as the Post Office Dept. almost abruptly cancelled contracts with the railroads during late summer 1967.  At that point, most mail handling cars (except for certain types of containerized mail) had been removed from existing trains.  Operating costs soared, and train-off petitions also skyrocketed.  Railroads, which by then had long begun to expand technology and to establish high profit margins with enhanced freight service, contributed to the vicious circle of poor reliability and on-time performance of passenger trains.  Many mainline routes which previously had been double-track, were reduced to single-track  with passing sidings, as railroads instituted Centralized Traffic Control to more efficiently remotely manage the operation of trains and reduce the perceived need for double track.  In turn, passenger trains often were downgraded in priority deferred to freight trains.  Service amenities were eliminated, such as dining cars and sleeping cars, and schedules were reduced to the point of rendering passenger trains no longer desirable by patrons as a means of transport, almost overnight.  Equipment had become shabby and often in disrepair.  The private railroads simply could not afford to or justify maintaining the existing remaining passenger trains.   By mid-1968 the ICC recognized this and began to give in almost generously, up to a point where service had diminished to a skeletal remnant of what it had been even the previous year.  I can tell you some stories of some rides from back in those days ─ accounts which would discourage anyone from ever considering a train.

Thing was, for all domestic rail carriers which still had passenger trains held in place on the timetables during the formulation of the National Rail Passenger Act in 1970, the ICC basically withheld granting any additional passenger train cancellations, in anticipation the creation of the National Rail Passenger Corp., in May 1971.  All the U.S. railroads which did still had passenger trains on the timetables were given the choice of enjoining or not enjoining this agreement.  By agreeing,  a specific carrier would turn over all its passenger operations to the NRPC (rebranded as AmTrak), and contribute some amount of existing passenger train equipment.  Those rail carriers who opted to not join would be required to maintain operation of all their then-existing passenger service for a period of 5 years from the date of official inception of Amtrak (May 01, 1971), a period after which they could discontinue those trains or join Amtrak.  All but 3  carriers elected to join Amtrak.  The only rail carrier with passenger trains then operating in middle Tenn. at the time was the L&N (Louisville and Nashville RR).  It joined Amtrak, which in turn decided to drop 4 of the 5 then-remaining passenger trains systemwide on the L&N (only three passed through Nashville ─ Cincinnati - New Orleans; Chicago- Florida [via Indianapolis, Louisville, Montgomery and Dothan, but NOT via Atlanta]; and St. Louis - Atlanta [via Belleville IL, Evansville, Hopkinsville, Murfreesboro, Tullahoma, and Chattanooga]).  The only train that was retained throughout Nashville's service by Amtrak was the Chicago - Florida route.  No service ever was retained or had been restored between Nashville and Atlanta.  The ICC was terminated in 1995 and replaced with the U.S. Surface Transportation Board (STB).
____________________________________________________________________

With that background on U.S. passenger train travel and its timeline from the 1920s, I'll be more brief on the Amtrak service through Nashville.  Almost from the start, the "South Wind", later renamed the "Floridian", was doomed.   For one, the train had to traverse the rails of up to 4 separate companies; it had to travel an unreasonably circuitous route between Chicago and Jacksonville, where the train was split into two sections to run to Miami and to St. Petersburg, respectively.  Second, poor conditions of trackage existed indefinitely on the portion of the run between Louisville and Chicago; the train underwent at least four periods of separate and indefinitely detours, in most cases losing some of its valuable ridership market (Indianapolis).  A number of very costly derailments also occurred during the train's 8-1/2 year troubled existence.   The "Floridian" became one of Amtrak's biggest money-losers, operating at a yearly deficit of $11 million, on-schedule roughly 6 days in 10.   The Floridian was one of the trains which had been targeted For cancellation at least three times since 1971, therefore Nashville Amtrak service ended in October 1979 in part because President Jimmy Carter had been unmerciful with typically money-losing long distance passenger service.

As mergers transpired, the L&N became a part of the Seaboard System, which merged with the Chessie System to become CSXT.  The tracks through Nashville and extending to Chattanooga and to Atlanta, as well as to Memphis, Birmingham, Evansville, Chicago (via Evansville, Vincennes, Terre Haute), and Cincinnati (via Bowling Green and Louisville), always have been owned by CSX Transportation or by its predecessors, all private enterprise.   Amtrak never had a route from Nashville to Atlanta, and the route which had been served by L&N trains No. 3 and 4 (The "Georgian"), was cancelled immediately before the official start of Amtrak.  The trains, discontinued on April 30, 1971 were allowed to reach their destinations in St. Louis and Atlanta on the morning of May 01.   Also, Amtrak initial agreements do not include the mandate  of "grandfathering".  Theoretically any route can be proposed and implemented, if the stakeholders can agree on terms (the hosting state, the hosting carrier railroad, and Amtrak).

One separate and notable case was the cancellation of service in Las Vegas just prior to the start of Amtrak and allowed to run to destinations on May 02.  Against the grain of concurrent discontinuances, a new run was started in 1979 named as the Desert Wind, Amtrak trains No. 35 and 36. between Los Angeles and Las Vegas.  That service ended in 1997.    Much more recent brand new service from Norfolk to DC was started in Dec. 2012 and from Roanoke to DC in Oct. 2017 respectively, but neither of these passenger train routes had existed during previous Amtrak years (although Roanoke had been served by two separate previous but short-lived routes between 1975 and 1979).    The current Norfolk and Roanoke service routes have become highly popular and seem to represent the current trend in regional passenger rail.

Last train to Nashville (before the Amtrak takeover), L&N Nº4 the "Georgian", prepares to depart Chattanooga for the final time, 8:45pm, April 30, 1971, after having departed Atlanta Union Station in the early evening.  The train consisted of a single locomotive unit, a baggage car, and a snack-bar coach.  At 11:45pm the train would depart Nashville for Hopkinsville, Evansville, for a mid-morning arrival at St. Louis Union Station.  The station and platforms shown in the photo were razed shortly thereafter, becoming the site of the current main public library.

Edited January 27, 2020 by rookzie

[markhollin 94007]

May I just say, again, that Rookzie's knowledge and passion for railroad travel and history are unparalleled.  Such a great resource for our forum.  Thanks, Rookzie!  : )

[PaulChinetti 6014]

https://www.fastcompany.com/90455739/mathematicians-have-solved-traffic-jams-and-theyre-begging-cities-to-listen
 

Short little article. I think I’ll add this book to my reading list. 
 

Maybe not that’s pricey haha

Edited January 25, 2020 by PaulChinetti

[volsfanwill 1563]

On 1/22/2020 at 10:16 AM, nashvylle said:

I think if Barry administration's referendum was for lightrail just  in east Nashville connecting to downtown (with an outline for future lines via future referendums if this was is successful) AND Barry did not have the sex scandal, it would have passed. 

Line 1:  proof of concept. Trinity lane and Gallatin Pike to Music City Central area via Gallatin Pike, Main St, James Robertson Pky. via easy to swallow referendum.  tax on something that doesnt affect the average resident, like a hotel tax.

Line 1A: constructed simultaneously.   Airport to Sobro via Murfreesboro Pike. I believe last year this may have been secretly in the works with funds from the Airport authority and the convention center. 

Leave them disconnected.  this eliminates the costly tunnel. BUT people will see the need for an eventual tunnel.

1st extension:  from music city central  to 51st Via James Robertson Pkwy and Charlotte Pike.    going around the capital again saves tunnel money. 

from there,  maybe more referendums for more taxes. with west end, murfreesboro pike, nolensville pike, can all be built.  and of course, eventually the downtown tunnel.  too bad we can get federal funding like existed in the 70s.

[12Mouth 529]

On 1/23/2020 at 3:05 PM, Rockatansky said:

The kinda had too given that when they tried to go small a few year earlier with The Amp, it got shut down at the State level.

I think part of the problem is the simple up down vote on a single plan. This is probably not legal right now, but I suspect a ranked choice vote for a referendum on 4 or 5 different plans would have a better outcome.

Everyone wants something to be done on transit and it is much harder to attack 5 plans at the same time. Have a big plan, a small plan, and 3 in between plans.

[PHofKS 8371]

There was some discussion on the Avalon Midtown topic about the possibility the City may be considering some sort of transit line from downtown to Midtown. I have made a few sketches with a suggestion on how to route it to the West End/White Bridge Road area.

First I would  recommend using a 'street car' such as what Atlanta has installed in their downtown...

… rather than a trolley such as what Charlotte is installing....

The trolley resembles a tour bus and may not be readily identifiable as rapid transit in Nashville.

A comment was made that a Church Street/Grundy Street/Hayes Street route was under consideration. I would suggest a Commerce Street/Nashville Yards/Grundy Street/ Hayes Street/ Elliston Place/ West End/Murphy Road/ McCabe Golf Course/Nashville State/White Bridge Road (whew!) route as shown below...

A few points about this plan;

1. Church Street is very narrow and I thought Commerce Street would work better with a right-of-way provided through Nashville Yards who I would think would be delighted to have a street car station in the heart of their development. It would look good rolling down the street in front of the AEG/MGM Hotel.
2. Bridges would have to be built across the RR tracks and I-40 to carry the line away from existing over crowded viaducts and bridges. 
3. Hayes Street may have to lose its parking spaces
4. The route would take it down West End to Murphy Road and up to McCabe Golf Course.
5. The route would cross the  City owned McCabe GC which has 27 holes. The construction could be arranged to allow golf to continue on 18 holes. When the route is compete, the course could be rearranged to allow 27 greens with underpasses beneath the tracks for golfers.
6. The route the goes through a section of Nashville State CC to and then down White Bridge Road to St. Thomas Hospital.

Those are the high points, but mainly, it eliminates the portion of West End west of I-440 from controversy and keeps it off Broadway.

It would serve the following attractors;

• Lower Broadway and downtown
• Nashville Yards/Live at Nashville/Amazon
• The booming Broadway/West End split area and pass three blocks from the Music Row Roundabout.
• The Midtown hospital complex and Vanderbilt.
• Centennial Park and the Vanderbilt sports complex.
• The Murphy Road roundabout retail and residential neighborhood
• And finally, the White Bridge Road/Harding Road district with St. Thomas West Hospital.

It's just a suggestion and something I wish the City would consider.

[downtownresident 4591]

6 hours ago, PHofKS said:

There was some discussion on the Avalon Midtown topic about the possibility the City may be considering some sort of transit line from downtown to Midtown. I have made a few sketches with a suggestion on how to route it to the West End/White Bridge Road area.

First I would  recommend using a 'street car' such as what Atlanta has installed in their downtown...

… rather than a trolley such as what Charlotte is installing....

The trolley resembles a tour bus and may not be readily identifiable as rapid transit in Nashville.

A comment was made that a Church Street/Grundy Street/Hayes Street route was under consideration. I would suggest a Commerce Street/Nashville Yards/Grundy Street/ Hayes Street/ Elliston Place/ West End/Murphy Road/ McCabe Golf Course/Nashville State/White Bridge Road (whew!) route as shown below...

A few points about this plan;

1. Church Street is very narrow and I thought Commerce Street would work better with a right-of-way provided through Nashville Yards who I would think would be delighted to have a street car station in the heart of their development. It would look good rolling down the street in front of the AEG/MGM Hotel.
2. Bridges would have to be built across the RR tracks and I-40 to carry the line away from existing over crowded viaducts and bridges. 
3. Hayes Street may have to lose its parking spaces
4. The route would take it down West End to Murphy Road and up to McCabe Golf Course.
5. The route would cross the  City owned McCabe GC which has 27 holes. The construction could be arranged to allow golf to continue on 18 holes. When the route is compete, the course could be rearranged to allow 27 greens with underpasses beneath the tracks for golfers.
6. The route the goes through a section of Nashville State CC to and then down White Bridge Road to St. Thomas Hospital.

Those are the high points, but mainly, it eliminates the portion of West End west of I-440 from controversy and keeps it off Broadway.

It would serve the following attractors;

• Lower Broadway and downtown
• Nashville Yards/Live at Nashville/Amazon
• The booming Broadway/West End split area and pass three blocks from the Music Row Roundabout.
• The Midtown hospital complex and Vanderbilt.
• Centennial Park and the Vanderbilt sports complex.
• The Murphy Road roundabout retail and residential neighborhood
• And finally, the White Bridge Road/Harding Road district with St. Thomas West Hospital.

It's just a suggestion and something I wish the City would consider.

That would be an incredible first route. They could cut up third, and cross the river on the Woodland street bridge and extend it all the way to 10th, and then use 10th to take it up Gallatin. They would likely have to replace the I-24 overpass at Woodland to do it, but it would be worth it. 

[grilled_cheese 1826]

You thought the push back against the AMP and last plan was bad?  Just wait until you mess with McCabe golfers ability to play(real or perceived) .  Hell hath no fury'd.

[GregH 236]

I think transit to the airport would be a big mistake for Nashville, aside from normal bus service. It would be largely for the benefit of out-of-towners since the number of locals that would want to go downtown to get a train to the airport would be quite small. Even then, I don't think it would capture a big enough portion of those travelers to be worthwhile. Maybe it would make sense as a tie-in to an existing network, but as a first or even 5th line I don't see the benefit.

[PaulChinetti 6014]

8 minutes ago, GregH said:

I think transit to the airport would be a big mistake for Nashville, aside from normal bus service. It would be largely for the benefit of out-of-towners since the number of locals that would want to go downtown to get a train to the airport would be quite small. Even then, I don't think it would capture a big enough portion of those travelers to be worthwhile. Maybe it would make sense as a tie-in to an existing network, but as a first or even 5th line I don't see the benefit.

It would cut out a fair amount of Airport traffic on the interstate I would think.  

[downtownresident 4591]

22 minutes ago, GregH said:

I think transit to the airport would be a big mistake for Nashville, aside from normal bus service. It would be largely for the benefit of out-of-towners since the number of locals that would want to go downtown to get a train to the airport would be quite small. Even then, I don't think it would capture a big enough portion of those travelers to be worthwhile. Maybe it would make sense as a tie-in to an existing network, but as a first or even 5th line I don't see the benefit.

It would also give Murfreesboro Pike/Lafayette a shot in the arm and spur transit oriented development along it. 

[GregH 236]

15 minutes ago, PaulChinetti said:

It would cut out a fair amount of Airport traffic on the interstate I would think.  

Wouldn't that be an induced demand situation where more local traffic just fills in any vacated space? I don't think "reduces traffic" is a good selling point for transit either since it is secondary to the goal of transit and also might not actually happen or would be hard to quantify.  I don't think the politics are good. The cost and impact would be almost entirely on Nashville taxpayers, but what percentage of Nashvillians fly more than once a year or so? I'd wager that number is pretty small, certainly not a majority. And how many of those would use airport transit? Frequent fliers are also much more likely to be wealthier folks. So we would have a likely huge municipal expenditure primarily for the benefit of people that don't vote here, that also potentially reduces income for taxi and rideshare drivers that do vote here. Is that a fight worth having?

[BnaBreaker 9223]

35 minutes ago, GregH said:

I think transit to the airport would be a big mistake for Nashville, aside from normal bus service. It would be largely for the benefit of out-of-towners since the number of locals that would want to go downtown to get a train to the airport would be quite small. Even then, I don't think it would capture a big enough portion of those travelers to be worthwhile. Maybe it would make sense as a tie-in to an existing network, but as a first or even 5th line I don't see the benefit.

In my opinion, it wouldn't just be a benefit exclusive to tourists given the fact that there are ever increasing numbers of people living in the central core.  Plus, assuming it isn't an express line and has a few stops in between it would be a direct benefit to anyone living anywhere on the line as a way to get to downtown or the airport as well.  Furthermore, If one of the stops closer to the airport had a park and ride option, it would open it up as a cheaper option to the airport for anyone in the surrounding area, whether they live near the line itself or not.  Plus, the line could help spur development on that side of town as well.

There are other major benefits to having a line to the airport for the tourist specifically.  Aside from saving people money from airport parking fees or Uber/taxis to and from the airport, I think, to have regular, speedy, reliable, direct, and affordable service that takes you directly into and out of downtown without ever having to rely on a car, would be of great benefit to someone not familiar with the city.  

I understand and appreciate your concern that it might set a bad precedent if made the initial line.  No doubt, the city needs to get it right directly out of the gate if it wants to convince residents that it is worth the money to invest in future lines.  But I actually think it is the perfect first option for that reason.  It has an obvious and very apparent function and purpose, which kind of eliminates the naysayer's ability to make the 'train to nowhere' argument.