The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread

[nashvillwill]

Rookzie. Im trying to decypher the info you just posted, but maybe you could summarize for me. Based upon the current infrastructure and traffic along the MCS line, what are the current problems with the follow two situations?

1. Adding an extra train during peak times.

You said they are currently running 3 trains at once. Is it possible to run 4, or are they currently maxed out at 3 with the tracks in place? 5? 6?

2. Adding non-peak trains. Lets say that they decide to expand the timetable to include non-peak trains. And lets say that they are only running one train set at a time (well within the infrastructure limits) back and forth. Is this possible along this line, or is there freight traffic that has right-of-way during these times? I'm not sure if the MCS has some agreement to only run within a certain window of time, or if freight along this line is so sparse, that the MCS basically has free reign on the tracks.

Thanks for the great posts.

[timmay143]

No apologies! Great post!!!

[timmay143]

I think I learned more from that post than I could ever hoped to imagine! Very well written!

My vote for best post of the year!

[rookzie]

OK guys, I've attempted to answer your questions to the best of my capability, so have your coffee mugs full.

 

 

Answer to: Unincorporated Area - Posted Today, 05:45 AM

Informative post, thanks! My recollection is that most of the old TC r/w west of Murfreesboro Rd was taken for the 440 footprint.

 

   --- --- --- ---

Yes, and that had been planned and partially implemented as early as 1968, during my senior year in high school, as I recollect.  The Tennessee Central Railway (TC) then was in bad shape financially, and the highway planners knew it.  The sizable rock outcropping, along the northeast facing of the hill on which stands the WTVZ Fox Channel 17 TV tower, forms the curvature of the interchange from I-40 east onto I-440 East (at its western terminus).  Although more rock was removed during the last 15 years to add a second lane on the interchange, that basic rock cut-out existed back in the late ’68, and at that time seemed to go to nowhere.  When the TC did go belly-up 31-Aug of ’68 officially, the state pounced on it  That portion of the ex-TC had been referred to as the Beltline – extending from the NERR (N&E) main west of Fessler, (the start of Southern Junction), across the L&N (CSX) at the location where the Junction now joins the CSX (Melrose area - Berry Road near Franklin Road), to west Nashville where a little-used stub track crosses Charlotte Ave. at around 31^st/32nd Ave N. (former site of National Linen).  The highway planners evidently seemed already to have had their sights on a dying TC as the rock cut-out logically only could have been deemed an excavation leading only the then yet-to-be-abandoned TC Beltline.

 

During mid-1980, a carbon-arc torch was used to remove the steel through-type girder TC bridge over the L&N Bruceton Division (where I-440 now passes over the CSX in West Nashville, just west of Metro Parks and Recreation).  This had been the start of a succession of procedures to completely dismantle what remained of the abandoned segment of the TC Beltline and to commence construction of I-440.  Even when observed from a mile away at the Charlotte Ave. L&N overpass at 25^th Ave. the torch arc would blind you in broad daylight.   The remains of what is left of the Beltline (after I-440) actually are now owned by the Nashville & Eastern, where it is named the Nashville and Western (NWRR).  This remnant includes Clifton yard (28^th and Charlotte to Clifton and 24^th), Jefferson Yard (near Scovel St. north to Heiman St.) and the remainder of the extant route across Ed Temple Blvd., across that ancient rusty swing bridge to Bordeaux (past the tank “farms”) and parallel to SR 12 on to Ashland City.

 

Past A.O. Smith (State Water Heater) in Ashland City, the segment of the TC to Henrietta and Clarksville has all but been dismantled, except for a few trails.  The U.S. Army owns and maintains the segment from Fort Campbell owns to “Hoptown” Ky., where the TC officially ended.   A number of the old Warren-type truss bridges and bridge piers remain intact (as monuments of the past) near the Cumberland Riverfront in Clarksville, but the earthen berms are all gone.

 

_____

 

Answer to:  Burg - Posted Today, 08:27 AM

1. Adding an extra train during peak times.

You said they are currently running 3 trains at once. Is it possible to run 4, or are they currently maxed out at 3 with the tracks in place? 5? 6?

   --- --- --- ---

 

2. Adding non-peak trains. Lets say that they decide to expand the timetable to include non-peak trains. And lets say that they are only running one train set at a time (well within the infrastructure limits) back and forth. Is this possible along this line, or is there freight traffic that has right-of-way during these times? I'm not sure if the MCS has some agreement to only run within a certain window of time, or if freight along this line is so sparse, that the MCS basically has free reign on the tracks

   --- --- --- ---

 

 

 

In answer to your first question, they are maxed out at only two concurrently running physical trains, and as you read on, you’ll understand, I assure you.  The MCS started out with only 2 cars, but frequently it has had to add a third car.  I haven’t ridden the MCS in over a year, but a number of co-workers who use the MCS as their daily commute have told me that 3 cars have become the norm – at least that’s what I’ve been told.   Ridership has increased significantly to the extent that 2-car consists have become “tight”, Positive indication of this can be observed by commuter “swarms” streaming from a morning MCS Riverfront arrival to the across-the-platform connecting MTA buses (Numbers 25 60, 61, 62, 93).  All MCS station platforms are marked with signs to accommodate at least 4 cars, which generally has been used only on occasions such as Titans game and July-4 specials.  There also is a third trainset, including motive power, always on standby at the Lebanon MCS maintenance facility (shop), and this set protects the other two other sets deployed at any one time.   All equipment is stored at the Lebanon shop facility in Lebanon (off Tennessee Ave. near the county fairgrounds).

 

“Believe you me”, these buses are full during peak, as I often am “trapped” behind one of them at 06:40 hours (Nº 60 - an articulated), poking along northbound along 5^th Ave., stopping for passengers to deboard for the Metro or State office buildings.  (for a number of years now, Vandy and Belmont along with State-, and more recently, Metro-Nashville Govt. have provided free transit swipe cards to their employees [good for one round-trip M-F on any MTA or RTA bus or train]).

 

No trainsets are turned, as the locomotive unit (an ElectroMotive F40PH) and the cars (bi-level “gallery” commuter, with center loading) are configured electrically for push-pull operation.  One of the cars on each train is built as a cab-control car, containing a complete enclosed cabin mounted in the upper level of one end of the car.  The cab-control is distinctive in appearance, with cab windows facing forward and on the side, with a cluster of sealed-beam headlamps located near the top-center; a multi-chime air-horn cluster on the leading edge of the car roof; a steel deflector (referred to as a “pilot”) mounted below the lead coupler; and a pair of low-mounted alternating, flashing sealed-beam lights (referred to as “ditch” lights), intended to attract the attention of motorists and pedestrians.  At the the end of a run, the engineer shuts down the cab controls on the leading end and puts the controls in “trailing” mode.  He or she demounts from the cab (locomotive end or cab-car end), walks to and mounts the cab on the train's opposite end, and sets the controls on that end to “lead” for full forward control, now in the opposite direction.  The locomotive and cars are said to be fully "trainlined" with all the electrical remote throttle and safety appliance controls, PA system, high-voltage power (480 VAC), and automatic air-brake controls.  This allows full control to be replicated at either cab end.

 

 

 

Two-trainset  operation: Lebanon – Martha – Mt. Juliet – Hermitage – Donelson – Riverfront

 

1^st train departs Lebanon shops and stages for call at the Lebanon MCS station Baddour Pkwy (US 70 Bypass near TRW and Bowling Alley east of N. Castle Heights Ave.)  1^st train departs westbound for Riverfront [first Riverfront arrival].

 

2^nd train stages at Lebanon MCS station and departs westbound for Riverfront.   2^nd train pulls into east end of meeting point passing siding at Donelson Bowl (Donelson Pike, south of Lebanon Road). [2^nd train is held entirely east of Donelson Pike crossing to prevent blocking roadway traffic]

 

1^st train departs eastbound for Mt. Juliet, upon departing Donelson station, passes 2^nd train waiting for clear.  2^nd train proceeds out of west end of siding and enters nearby Donelson Station; 2^nd train proceeds to Riverfront [second Riverfront arrival].

 

1^st train has arrived at Mt. Juliet and must return westbound to Donelson siding meet point BEFORE 2^nd train has returned eastbound from Riverfront.  1^st train waits at siding.  2^nd train departs eastbound for Lebanon, upon departing Donelson station, passes 1^st train waiting for clear.  1^st train proceeds out of west end of siding and enters Donelson Station; 1^st train proceeds to Riverfront [third Riverfront arrival].

 

2^nd train returns to Lebanon Shop.  1^st train departs Riverfront eastbound for Lebanon; 1^st train returns to Lebanon Shop.

 

The "logistics" as an operation strategy provides:

  2 full-distance runs (Lebn-Rvrfrnt)

  1 partial-distance run (Rvrfrnt-Mt.Juliet

  1 partial-distance run (Mt.Juliet-Rvrfrnt)

  2 full-distance runs (Rvrfrnt-Lebn)

 

So actually RTA is “squeezing” 3 runs (qualified) from 2 trainsets, such that three trains appear as virtual to the commuter 9for most of the MCS route.  The overwhelming majority of ridership can be bound at the Mt. Juliet and Hermitage stations (not surprising)

Basically, if you commute from Lebanon or Martha for Riverfront, you have two runs available, but if you board in Mt. Juliet, you have three runs from which to choose.  The two trains layover during mid-day non-peak, at the shop and return mid-afternoon for same operational sequence.  You just better make sure that you don’t miss the 2^nd inbound train from Lebanon westbound, or you’ll be sorry.  If you get on the eastbound train for Lebanon and you forget and get instead on the eastbound ending at Mt. Juliet, the conductor would generally bring this to your attention according to the destination color-code of your ticket.  You then simply would deboard at Mt. Juliet (where that train would head back to Riverfront), and would wait for the next eastbound run (which then would follow and proceed to Lebanon).

 

In answer to your second question, I do know that freight operations along the N&E must share the main with the MCS, between Stanley Street Nashville and Tennessee Ave. Lebanon.  Most of these daily operations are industrial switching, along the main; along the Old Hickory branch (Stones River RR bridge, across Central Pike and Jarez  and across that awkward Old Hickory Blvd, Lebanon Pike intersection); and along the Southern Junction for freight interchange to the CSX (past the state fairgrounds).  However, some heavier freight movements are handled (sand hoppers) between LoJack Materials at Central Pike and east of Lebanon to Gordonsville (other operations are handled mostly entirely east of Lebanon, beyond the MCS yard limit).

 

I am not yet at liberty to know about any agreement between the NERR and the RTA, at least I have not delved into finding that out.  I doubt that some accord is would not be in place, as the NERR has been quite cooperative in working with the RTA, as both the RTA and the NERR have gained immensely from the upgrade funding .  To the best of my knowledge, based on what I have observed during the previous 7 years,  most switching is performed after the last evening run of the MCS and before the initial weekday run; and during a mid-day off peak period on week days, the latter being done primarily without having to foul the main.  I am almost certain that the issue of operating an off-peak MCS is indeed on the horizon, even if that horizon is distant, with no current sense of urgency at this time to address the expansion to off-peak.   Current infrastructure probably is marginal at best to be capable of supporting off-peak, but I do perceive this as tenable, contingent on the freight ops being performed with customers.  Some obstacles to expansion are the existing  bridges spanning Brown’s Creek, Mill Creek and the Stones River, as well as the Omohundro  water treatment plant.  These are current constraints having single-track in a single-capacity through-truss (with the latter 2 bridges), or limited wayside easement for parallel track expansion (at the water plant)..

 

 

Hope this illustrates some of the "culture" of heavy-rail commuting in Davidson and Wilson counties.(the RTA "eastern branch")

Edited August 29, 2013 by rookzie

[volsfanwill]

rookzie

another great and informative post. please keep it up. 

[nashvillwill]

Holy smokes! You answered all of my questions and then some. Thank you.

[UTgrad09]

OK guys, I've attempted to answer your questions to the best of my capability, so have your coffee mugs full.

 

 

Answer to: Unincorporated Area - Posted Today, 05:45 AM

Informative post, thanks! My recollection is that most of the old TC r/w west of Murfreesboro Rd was taken for the 440 footprint.

 

   --- --- --- ---

Yes, and that had been planned and partially implemented as early as 1968, during my senior year in high school, as I recollect.  The Tennessee Central Railway (TC) then was in bad shape financially, and the highway planners knew it.  The sizable rock outcropping, along the northeast facing of the hill on which stands the WTVZ Fox Channel 17 TV tower, forms the curvature of the interchange from I-40 east onto I-440 East (at its western terminus).  Although more rock was remove during the last 15 years to add a second lane on the interchange, that basic rock cut-out existed back in the late ’60, and at that time seemed to go to nowhere.  When the TC did go belly up 31-Aug of ’68 officially, the state pounced on it and soon that portion of the TC (referred to as the TC Beltline – extending from where the NERR (N&E) Southern Junction now joins the CSX (Melrose area - Berry Road near Franklin Road) to west Nashville where a little-used stub track crosses Charlotte Ave. at around 31^st/32nd Ave N. (former site of National Linen).  The highway planners evidently seemed already to have had their sites on a dying TC as the rock cut-out logically only could have been deemed an excavation leading only the then yet-to-be-abandoned TC Beltline.

 

During mid 1980, a carbon-arc torch was used to remove the steel through-type girder TC bridge over the L&N Bruceton Division (where I-440 now passes over the CSX in West Nashville, just west of Metro Parks and Recreation).  This had been the start of a succession of procedures to completely dismantle what remained of the abandoned segment of the TC Beltline and to commence construction of I-440.  Even when observed from a mile away at the Charlotte Ave. L&N overpass at 25^th Ave. the torch arc would blind you in broad daylight.   The remains of what is left of the Beltline (after I-440) actually are now owned by the Nashville & Eastern, where it is named the Nashville and Western (NWRR).  This remnant includes Clifton yard (28^th and Charlotte to Clifton and 24^th), Jefferson Yard (near Scovel St. north to Heiman St.) and the remainder of the extant route across Ed Temple Blvd., across that ancient rusty swing bridge to Bordeaux (past the tank “farms”) and parallel to SR 12 on to Ashland City.

 

Past A.O. Smith (State Water Heater) in Ashland City, the segment of the TC to Henrietta and Clarksville has all but been dismantled, except for a few trails.  The Us Army owns and maintains the segment from Fort Campbell owns to “Hoptown” Ky., where the TC officially ended.   A number of the old Warren-type truss bridges and bridge piers remain intact (as monuments of the past) near the Cumberland Riverfront in Clarksville, but the earthen berms are all gone.

 

Wow. Wonderful information, and very interesting. After reading this, I checked out historicaerials.com and found what you were talking about. You can't see the entire stretch, but you can see the line all the way from 8th Ave/Franklin Rd to 21st/Hillsboro Rd. I had no idea that used to be a railway! Now I understand why they picked that particular route for 440 (and why it is so close to the city relative to a lot of urban freeway bypasses). I can see where some of the remnants of the line continues from around the Coca Cola bottling plant around near the Fairgrounds. I knew that line was old (there's a rickety old railroad overpass at Seminole Ave for those familiar with that area)...I had no idea it used to continue all the way across the west side of town.

 

Also -- I noticed you said you graduated in 1968. That makes you the same age as my parents. What high school did you attend (if you don't mind me asking)? My mom went to Donelson ('68) and my dad went to Madison ('69).

[FromParkAveToTN]

Whatever happened to the other plans for the Music City Star? I think the M'boro to Nashville MCS is much needed. Any plans to continue the line to M'boro?

[rookzie]

Whatever happened to the other plans for the Music City Star? I think the M'boro to Nashville MCS is much needed. Any plans to continue the line to M'boro?

 

That's just part of a long-term "global" vision for middle Tennessee; there is no sustainable funding source for such an enormous undertaking.  As I have indicated, and as others have stated in previous posts, CSX is a private business - a huge Class-III railroad, whose goal is to maximize profits for its shareholders.  The CSX Chattanooga Subdivision (through M'boro and points southeast to Ga.) is one of the most congested lines of the firm, and given the operations into and out of Nissan, on a single-track main (reduced from double many years ago due to CTC [centralized traffic control] consolidation, before that line became so congested), no MCS extension on that line could even be considered before some major capital, wholesale improvements could be made on that line to M'boro.

 

Unlike with the NERR and NWRR shortlines out of Nashville, which are small and are more amenable to less pricey upgrades to heavy-rail commuter (or even light-rail is done in accordance with the FRA rules), that CSX line cannot accommodate any increase in rail traffic operations, especially during peak periods.  Although funding sources are determined in part by the project itself (and would include Metro Davidson, Rutherford Co., and the cities of LaVergne, Smyrna, and M'boro), the shear magnitude in projected costs for upgrades to that segment of the Chatta. Subdivision would lead me to believe that some serious political "rock fracting" would be required before any compelling need becomes transformed into motivation and real action.  Currently the waters appear too calm for that to be happening with notice.

 

 

Wow. Wonderful information, and very interesting. After reading this, I checked out historicaerials.com and found what you were talking about. You can't see the entire stretch, but you can see the line all the way from 8th Ave/Franklin Rd to 21st/Hillsboro Rd. I had no idea that used to be a railway! Now I understand why they picked that particular route for 440 (and why it is so close to the city relative to a lot of urban freeway bypasses). I can see where some of the remnants of the line continues from around the Coca Cola bottling plant around near the Fairgrounds. I knew that line was old (there's a rickety old railroad overpass at Seminole Ave for those familiar with that area)...I had no idea it used to continue all the way across the west side of town.

 

Also -- I noticed you said you graduated in 1968. That makes you the same age as my parents. What high school did you attend (if you don't mind me asking)? My mom went to Donelson ('68) and my dad went to Madison ('69).

 

 

Well, you got me.  Reckon this man behind the curtain can’t stay masked forever, eh?  I knew that I’d set myself wide open, with recalling some of my experiences of the (not-so-recent) past.  Make no mistake about it – I’m no spring chicken, you found out!  As for your parents, I graduated in your father’s class year ‘69, as I was an upcoming senior during ’68 (when TC went bankrupt in Aug. ’68) at what used to be Peabody Demonstration School (PDS).  It had been a part of the former Geo. Peabody College for Teachers, which became a part of Vandy in 1979.  PDS had been a prep school of the college, and it closed in 1974, later to be bought and turned into what now is USN (Univ. School of Nash.).

 

While I’m not totally ancient (not yet anyway), I am blessed to have undergone a rather storied, tortuous path of an upbringing (perhaps in part as result of some personal decisions), during the ‘50s and ‘60s (and even up into the early 70’s).  Being “tilted” as a steel ball in a pinball machine, during those decades – that is, living here and there – is to an extent what lead to my being placed in position to ride so many trolleys, buses, and passenger trains of the past – back when railroads still their own travel agencies in downtowns throughout - back when one could observe all kinds of strange exterior color schemes as the signatures of these still private companies – back when Nashville Transit Company (NTC) was the privately own city-bus system in Nashville.

 

In high school , when I wanted to go visit a buddy whose family lived at Seward Air Force Base in Smyrna (Tenn.) I had to go to the Greyhound station at 6^th and Commerce downtown (razed in the mid ‘70s, replaced w/ what is now the "old Convention Center), catch a “dog” up US 41, and get dumped off at a Gulf filling station (with a metal Greyhound sign flopping from a pole).  It seemed to be a rather dramatic deal (especially with jerky standard transmission buses) just to get to neighboring Smyrna, compared to the way it is now.  Back then, with Trailways and Greyhound locals to everywhere, you felt as if you really were going somewhere out of town (since it DID seem to take forever before the Interstates were set up).  Back in ’64, L&N still had a handful of system locals in the area, and one still could ride from Union Station to Columbia, Mt. Pleasant, Sandy Hook, and Lawrenceburg (some trackage of which now is part of the Tennessee Southern).

 

Family “dynamics” led me to spend time in Nashville (my birth place but I almost had been born in Dover, Del.); DC/Silver Spring, Md., Champaign-Urbana, Ill.; Cambridge-, Medford-, Lynn, Ma.; Roanoke- Va. Beach- Norfolk, Va., and Greensboro- Thomasville, NC, (and a little time in the East Bay area of Oakland, Ca.), during my nearly 62 years.  One can imagine that in travels among all these places, I probably “crawled” a lot of ground, so to speak (back when they still had “Pullmans”), and when trolley tracks still squealed in DC and in Watertown, Ma.   I guess I have a handful of years remaining anyway.

 

In reference to the discussion of the TC Beltline and I-440, TC’s Beltline basically connected the TC’s Nashville Riverfront – Harriman, Tenn. line to its North Nashville – Hopkinsville, Ky. line.  You follow your maps (and in your car follow the streets), and you will see that at the Clifton Yard of the old TC (now NWRR), the tracks diverge (near Clifton Ave. at 25^{th Ave.}N) – one leading northward to the Bordeaux-Ashland City line, the other leading eastward.  This easterly meandering line still serves a few “dots” of local industries in the “near North” from 19^th Ave to its abrupt (and unromantic) end at 9^th Ave. N.  A small office and engine facility is still used at what is (and historically has been) referred to as the Herman Street yard.

 

You mention that rickety timber underpass at Seminole near Craighead.  That NWRR track ending at 9^th Ave N used to extend to the Cumberland by passing over 8^th Ave (Rosa Parks Blvd.) with a “scarey” timber trestle approach and steel deck girder, into the areas now occupied by the State Govt for parking and for the State Mall.  This “Sulphur Dell” area housed the Sulphur Dell Minor-League park, the Nashville Stock Yard, and the floating storage tank of the Nashville Gas Company.  Tracks criss-crossed this area “every which way”, in some cases leads and spurs sharing the path with roadways.  It was a common sight to be riding the Herman Street bus along Harrison Street with a TC Alco switcher trailing behind (back in ’67). Much more can be said about the TC trackage along the riverfront (west bank,  downtown northward) and about the former NC&St.L trackage (merged with L&N in 1957), which serves the Cockrill Bend Industrial area in extreme west-northwest Nashville proper (the orig. incorporated area prior to the 1963 Metro consolidation).

 

Get in your car and go to Ed Temple Blvd. at Buchanan Street (you probably already had done so years ago) and you can observe that massive timber-trestle approach to the Bordeaux swing bridge over the Cumberland.  You also can follow that same line back south toward Jefferson and to Herman Street (although there is no straight path by car), and you will see something  that “time forgot”: a timber abutment and underpass at Meharry Blvd. (west of 21^st Ave) and timber “squeeze-unders” at Albion Street and at Alameda Street.  The one at Alameda is so narrow that only one car can “squirm” through at a time (and you had better be inching along, at that).   Other timber vestiges can be found along the TC (NWRR) to Ashland City, some of which one would see only if sought, as many of them are in rather obscure locations.

 

Much of the maze of industrial lead trackage, long abandoned and removed during the previous 45 years, could have been some basis for an urban transit  connections for light rail.  With San Diego’s MTS, MTA-Baltimore, “The Tide” of Hampton Roads Transit (Norfolk, Va.), planners took advantage of existing little used or abandoned rights-of-way for their upstarts.  Others include Charlotte’s LYNX, and Boston’s MBTA (referred to as “the T”,  its Green line Riverside extension [not and upstart] utilized trackage of the former Boston and Albany [New York Central]), and its Red Line Ashmont-Mattapan line being from the former "New Haven" (New York, New Haven and Hartford RR).  This latter (called the "Mattapan High-Speed Line") is only a short 2^½ -mile urban run, but nevertheless is highly utilized. 

 

Perhaps I’ll “piggy-back” on some future discussions from others’ references and proposals.  Indeed, you guys have slammed out some beefy ones and illustrations on transit concepts.  I know I’ve tended to get too much in detail on the things that I’ve dredged up, relating to these transportation topics.

Edited August 29, 2013 by rookzie

[MidTenn1]

I think the best opportunity to provide transit between Nashville and Murfreesboro would be to construct diamond lanes or restricted HOV lanes in the median of I-24 for Bus Rapid Transit vehicles. Some accommodations, in the form of progressive traffic signal pre-emption would have to be made on City streets as you approach downtown Nashville, however. It wouldn't be cheap either.

[rookzie]

Just wanted to show some outside opinion and perception (perhaps less subjective than mine) of the region's mass transit as a whole.  Only the final statement is relevant to this topic, but I included the entire article to illustrate the context of the dialog.  It could be construed as being too opinionated and and misinformed, but from an entrepreneurial vantage, it just might deserve some merit.

___ ___ ___

 

Recent article in free local community newspaper:

 

[Daniel, Ben, ed. "Planner Says Locations Matter Most for Nashville." Green Hill News 25.33 (2013): http://www.gcanews.com/thisWeek.html,  August 29, 2013]

 

The Nashville Next Speaker Series Monday, Aug. 26, had Joe Minicozzi, founding member of the Asheville Design Center and principal of Urban3 LLC, to explain why and how location matters when developing communities in Nashville.

 

He asked the audience to look at Nashville as if it were a business. We are all investors and shareholders in the $66 billion

commodity known as Davidson County, and he explained that we need to make decisions about revenue and cost as if we were making decisions inside our portfolio.

 

He went on to say that we don’t judge the efficiency of our cars by miles per tank, because if we did we would all go out and buy an F-150. He said we buy cars based on miles per gallon of gasoline, which in comparison to building our city in the best interest of its citizens for Davidson County we should look at revenue as the value per acre not value per project.

 

He used Walmart as a comparison to his neighborhood in Asheville, N.C., to explain that a 34-acre Walmart at $6,500 per acre is not as beneficial to a city as a neighborhood of houses on .13 acres at $19,500 per acre.  He said to think about it as if you were a farmer: You are going to produce as many crops as possible in a single field to produce the most money. Minicozzi went on to show a series of charts and maps comparing areas of Davidson County and the amount of revenue per acre. He explained that compact development generates more tax revenue.

 

“As shareholders you are all investing in infrastructure in this area,” he said. “You should have expectations of return and redevelopments, this is why it behooves you to push for not having surface parking spots downtown. You get a bigger bang for your buck if you build your communities low.”

 

Minicozzi said that an East Nashville neighborhood, Greenwood, that is more dense costing $800,000 per acre is worth about four times more in tax revenue than Belle Meade, valued at $250,000 per acre.

 

On a side note, he pointed out that it was very surprising to find that Green Hills Mall is worth $8 million per acre while other successful malls in Nashville are only worth about $2 million, because it is such a dense mall that it pops out near a value of a downtown building.

 

He went on to show that half of an acre of a downtown building’s value is equal to the 52 acres of 100 Oaks, and inside The Gulch there is value in places between $9 million and $65 million but as soon as you cross the street is drops between $1 million and $3 million.

 

“Your downtown zip code is about .3 percent of your counties total area,” he said. “It’s just a little speck, yet it is producing 20 percent of your county’s total retail taxes. That’s impressive.”

 

He compared this with Opryland, which takes up 9 percent of Davidson County land area but it only producing 8 percent of the retail revenue.  The bottom line of his presentation was that as a city we have to build with a plan and compact developments generates more tax revenue.

 

He ended after a question and answer session saying that what surprised him the most was that Nashville is still on the bus system and not already using a newer more efficient version of mass transit.

 

 

This final statement appears to be a "reservation" of thoughts, if not a direct misgiving.  I felt this worthy of sharing with the forum.

 

[Hey_Hey]

Is there any way Opryland makes up 9% of land area? That would make it 47 square miles. I think those numbers are off. Maybe they meant 0.9% and 0.8% instead.

[MLBrumby]

I wondered the same thing... 9% of 500 square miles!?!?!? That doesn't compute. 

[bwithers1]

I agree.  That may be a typo or something.  Opryland is part of greater Donelson, and I don't even think that Donelson is 9% of Davidson County's land area!

 

BTW, great to hear stats about an up-and-coming East Nashville neighborhood, Greenwood.

[UTgrad09]

Pennington Bend is ~5 square miles, and Opryland only takes up a fraction of it. Opryland isn't even 9% of Donelson.

[Guest]

Anecdotal I  know, but I have gotten an ear-full of opposition to the AMP from most of my lefty friends in the Richland, Whitland, Cherokee Park neighborhoods. Here is a recent FB discussion ... mind-you all of these are far-left voters... these are four posts from four different liberal Nashvillians...


"We are concerned about the impact this project will have on our historic neighborhood (which is right off of West EndAve). Increased traffic on West End Ave (Nashvillians love their cars--I seriously doubt drivers here will take to mass transit. My feeling is that the people who now ride the bus, will be the riders of The Amp.), losing green spaces to create parking. People in & out of the area throughout the day. Not to mention the increase in our taxes. I've yet to read anything that leads me to believe that enough people will use The Amp to make it worth all of the costs (financial & otherwise). Some of our neighbors were able to change the way 440 was built (and in the process saved our historic homes). I'm hopeful that we can alter the current plans for The Amp (stopping it entirely probably isn't realistic) so that we can all feel "good enough" about the project."

" Look around the country none of these make enough money to cover operating cost, let alone the capital investment. Find out who will get rich, someone is, follow the money."

 

"Needs to be rail plain and simple. Commuters will use rail because they can "see" where it goes. Businesses will be around a rail line as well, but not around a bus route that is easily rerouted. Go rail."

 

" I agree. On visit to San Francisco, we rode the streetcar often but didn't think once about getting on a bus. I've generally liked Mayor Dean but I think the has become his trophy so he can say he built something when he runs for next office. Unfortunately, he couldn't afford a streetcar so we are getting a bus whether we want it or not."

 

[producer2]

Anecdotal I  know, but I have gotten an ear-full of opposition to the AMP from most of my lefty friends in the Richland, Whitland, Cherokee Park neighborhoods. Here is a recent FB discussion ... mind-you all of these are far-left voters... these are four posts from four different liberal Nashvillians...

"We are concerned about the impact this project will have on our historic neighborhood (which is right off of West EndAve). Increased traffic on West End Ave (Nashvillians love their cars--I seriously doubt drivers here will take to mass transit. My feeling is that the people who now ride the bus, will be the riders of The Amp.), losing green spaces to create parking. People in & out of the area throughout the day. Not to mention the increase in our taxes. I've yet to read anything that leads me to believe that enough people will use The Amp to make it worth all of the costs (financial & otherwise). Some of our neighbors were able to change the way 440 was built (and in the process saved our historic homes). I'm hopeful that we can alter the current plans for The Amp (stopping it entirely probably isn't realistic) so that we can all feel "good enough" about the project."

" Look around the country none of these make enough money to cover operating cost, let alone the capital investment. Find out who will get rich, someone is, follow the money."

 

"Needs to be rail plain and simple. Commuters will use rail because they can "see" where it goes. Businesses will be around a rail line as well, but not around a bus route that is easily rerouted. Go rail."

 

" I agree. On visit to San Francisco, we rode the streetcar often but didn't think once about getting on a bus. I've generally liked Mayor Dean but I think the has become his trophy so he can say he built something when he runs for next office. Unfortunately, he couldn't afford a streetcar so we are getting a bus whether we want it or not."

Maybe they are left of you but based upon their reasoning, they are still right of center for sure.

[ruraljuror]

Anecdotal I  know, but I have gotten an ear-full of opposition to the AMP from most of my lefty friends in the Richland, Whitland, Cherokee Park neighborhoods. Here is a recent FB discussion ... mind-you all of these are far-left voters... these are four posts from four different liberal Nashvillians...

"We are concerned about the impact this project will have on our historic neighborhood (which is right off of West EndAve). Increased traffic on West End Ave (Nashvillians love their cars--I seriously doubt drivers here will take to mass transit. My feeling is that the people who now ride the bus, will be the riders of The Amp.), losing green spaces to create parking. People in & out of the area throughout the day. Not to mention the increase in our taxes. I've yet to read anything that leads me to believe that enough people will use The Amp to make it worth all of the costs (financial & otherwise). Some of our neighbors were able to change the way 440 was built (and in the process saved our historic homes). I'm hopeful that we can alter the current plans for The Amp (stopping it entirely probably isn't realistic) so that we can all feel "good enough" about the project."

" Look around the country none of these make enough money to cover operating cost, let alone the capital investment. Find out who will get rich, someone is, follow the money."

 

"Needs to be rail plain and simple. Commuters will use rail because they can "see" where it goes. Businesses will be around a rail line as well, but not around a bus route that is easily rerouted. Go rail."

 

" I agree. On visit to San Francisco, we rode the streetcar often but didn't think once about getting on a bus. I've generally liked Mayor Dean but I think the has become his trophy so he can say he built something when he runs for next office. Unfortunately, he couldn't afford a streetcar so we are getting a bus whether we want it or not."

 

 

I'm a little torn over the BRT.  On one hand, we very much need a revitalized, modern mass transit system.  On the other hand, even fancy buses are still buses and far less exciting/chic than pretty much any other option.

 

Is the fact that buses aren't exciting enough a good reason to oppose the plan?  Maybe.  If these BRT systems almost always operate at a loss, that's certainly worth taking into consideration.  Additionally, if there has been undue influence in the proposal process and the reason we're talking about a BRT is because Dean has some powerful friend's in the bus business, then that's a very good reason to be skeptical of this plan.

 

That said, most of the other concerns noted in these facebook posts don't seem to hold a lot of water.  For example, The phrase "Nashvillians love their cars" seems to get thrown around a lot these days as though it actually means anything whatsoever (other than, 'I love my car').  Also, "People in & out of the area throughout the day" is basically a nicer way of saying that I don't want tourists or the type of poor people who ride buses to be able to come bum around my neighborhood. 

 

"Commuters will use rail because they can "see" where it goes. Businesses will be around a rail line as well, but not around a bus route that is easily rerouted. Go rail." I too prefer rail in a lot of ways, but anyone who's looked at this proposal would know that the route is very clear with the dedicated lanes, and the station/stops with arrival countdowns will do a lot to alleviate the confidence gap.  Also, this post completely ignores the fact that rail was considered and decided against.  Maybe that decision was made for the wrong reason, but if that's the case, then that's what we need to be talking about.  You can't just ignore the feasibility analyses that were done. 

 

I would rather ride a streetcar or a subway or a light rail than a bus given the option in most circumstances, but I've never lived in a city with a BRT.  Maybe it really is the best option.  Maybe it's a hasty decision to line somebody's pockets or to give Dean some legacy/talking points for his next campaign. 

 

If it's a bad idea, however, these posters and groups like StopBrt are going to have to put together a much more compelling argument if they're going to get any support.  So far, I haven't seen anything from them that's nearly as compelling as the Mayor's case in favor.

[BnaBreaker]

I'll be honest.  I was really pulling for light rail.  That being said, however, I've been on real, well-funded BRT before, and you literally cannot tell the difference between it and light rail.  I mean the only real difference is that it runs on tires instead of rail, so the ride feels marginally different, but in terms of physical aesthetics you can't really even see the tires since they are mostly covered by the body of the vehicle, and also since the vehicle pulls RIGHT up to the raised platform, so that really shouldn't be much of an issue.  The buses run on dedicated lanes, make regular stops on a set route that it is unable to deviate from, and the BRT buses feel exactly like light rail on the interior.  The only difference, aside from the very minor ones I've mentioned AND, of course, the $100 million in savings, is completely psychological, and people need to just put on their big people pants and get over it. 

 

Now, is the perception of the public important since the project's success depends on public participation?  Absolutely.  Is it important to 'keep up with the Joneses', as it were?  Sure, to some extent.  But is it worth paying $100 million just so people who are skeptical of mass transit don't have to rethink their perception of bus travel?  In my opinion, hell no. 

Edited August 31, 2013 by BnaBreaker

[producer2]

Well said BnaBreaker!

[Hey_Hey]

At the very beginning I was a supporter of light rail as well, but as time has gone on I have become a big BRT fan nationwide (true, well designed BRT). I would go so far as to say that I think it is wasteful to put in light rail in the vast majority of cities in the US. The metrics of BRT and light rail are very, very similar in terms of travel time and capacity. There is still a role for light rail in truly high volume areas/routes, but in places like Nashville, Charlotte, and Austin I don't think the volume is going to max out BRT for a very long time. This would be sort of like the police only buying BMWs for their patrol cars instead of more inexpensive Chargers. They both get the job done, but the BMW offers the name recognition and reputation for twice the cost.

Edited August 31, 2013 by Hey_Hey

[BnaBreaker]

I agree completely HH. I see places like OKC propose these big LRT projects, and I just have to scratch my head. I mean, good for them for really going for it, I guess, but outside he immediate core OKC makes Nashville look like Chicago in terms of density. There is nowhere NEAR the level of density there to justify light or heavy rail, and the more I think about it, even though we have mkre density than OKC, we fall into the same boat, and it would be foolish of us to shell out $100 million+ extra dollars just to play follow the leader. Besides, and this has been said before, but its not like BRT cant be relatively easily converted into LRT if and when the need arrises.

[Neigeville2]

I think most cities beginning mass transit have a big political fight.  It's compounded of a number of issues, affluent people who think the system is just a subsidy for the poor, these people who think public transportation should "pay for itself" even though every other form of transportation is subsidized, the people who dread Nashville's transition into a more metropolitan identity (the fairgrounds preservationists seem to have a big overlap in membership with the anti-BRT crowd).  It becomes really boring to have to listen to the same claptrap over and over ("Nashvillians love their cars"--really?  I just feel like slapping anybody who says that).

 

The fact is rapid transit, like roads and sidewalks, is a basic infrastructure amenity that any self-respecting city the size of Nashville, and as frequented by tourists, should offer its citizens and visitors.  I'm pretty sure the majority will support rapid transit, although I wish the word "bus" weren't involved because face it, most people hate buses and view them as ugly, uncomfortable and degrading.  Once a system is built it becomes a focus of public pride-even in Dallas, where nobody uses it, people are really proud of the DART system.

 

On the advocate side, it's depressing to see so many people knowledgeable about transit who don't seem to get that the most important thing about the system is for it to be highly visible and not look like a bus, but like something you might actually like to ride on.  Branding is everything.  People should see it and immediately say "what is that!?", not "oh, look, another bus full of poor people".  If we end up with a bunch of tasteful looking, ordinary buses using up a lane nobody's going to use the system except those people who have no choice.

 

The best system for us would be elevated trains, monorail or gondolas, (for many reasons, including the pleasant views afforded riders, something seldom mentioned in these discussions) but such a system requires a bit of imagination to understand, and imagination is available in only the teenciest doses in this city.

 

I do think rail is better because it is perceived by potential users as better, but that said, it's far more important to have wide doors level with the platform (something Denver's light raid doesn't have downtown-the front door has a handicapped ramp, at the others you have to step way up), & to have the vehicle actually go where it needs to go (something Austin's light rail doesn't have--the downtown station is like 1/2 mile from the nearest tall buildings because they economized by using existing track-a false economy in this case, I say.) 

 

And unfortunately we can't count on the adolescent nihilists in the state legislature to do anything for Nashville (or the state for that matter).  Where will the money come from?  If only we could trick them by saying it was for freeway expansion.  We've just got to build the first leg of the system as fast as possible; once it's in place people will be clamoring for expansion.  It's important to get it in place while the town is booming so the rapid new growth will be built around the system--BRT will make high density growth much more attractive.  Sorry for the lengthy ramble.

[rookzie]

Maybe they are left of you but based upon their reasoning, they are still right of center for sure.

nashville_bound – Posted Today, 08:24 AM

 

Anecdotal I  know, but I have gotten an ear-full of opposition to the AMP from most of my lefty friends in the Richland, Whitland, Cherokee Park neighborhoods. Here is a recent FB discussion ... mind-you all of these are far-left voters... these are four posts from four different liberal Nashvillians...

 

"We are concerned about the impact this project will have on our historic neighborhood (which is right off of West EndAve). Increased traffic on West End Ave (Nashvillians love their cars--I seriously doubt drivers here will take to mass transit. My feeling is that the people who now ride the bus, will be the riders of The Amp.), losing green spaces to create parking. People in & out of the area throughout the day. Not to mention the increase in our taxes. I've yet to read anything that leads me to believe that enough people will use The Amp to make it worth all of the costs (financial & otherwise). Some of our neighbors were able to change the way 440 was built (and in the process saved our historic homes). I'm hopeful that we can alter the current plans for The Amp (stopping it entirely probably isn't realistic) so that we can all feel "good enough" about the project."

 

" Look around the country none of these make enough money to cover operating cost, let alone the capital investment. Find out who will get rich, someone is, follow the money."

 

"Needs to be rail plain and simple. Commuters will use rail because they can "see" where it goes. Businesses will be around a rail line as well, but not around a bus route that is easily rerouted. Go rail."

 

" I agree. On visit to San Francisco, we rode the streetcar often but didn't think once about getting on a bus. I've generally liked Mayor Dean but I think the has become his trophy so he can say he built something when he runs for next office. Unfortunately, he couldn't afford a streetcar so we are getting a bus whether we want it or not."

 

I more than tend to agree with producer2. I know that this personal opinion probably will put me “on a limb”, likely to get “sawed off”. [but that’s what we’re here for, unless we can gather at a donut shop or somewhere else]

 

Arguably, the last two opinions could be ascribed as being "blind" or neutral to left or right.  Statement 3 seems to a declaration of consensus among most all cities, including Motor City Detroit (of all towns, which just might end up getting a streetcar new start after all), whether or not a fixed guideway system (any kind of rail) can be fully funded with a sustainable source.

 

The first two statements reflect an age-old mindset toward involuntary outreach (by taxation), because "…it won't help me, since I don't ride those things...therefore why should I pay to have my property value threatened..."  Compare that predisposition with that of other locales of this city – the areas such as the east- north, northeast-, and Nolensville Road districts.  Granted, the Whitland, Cherokee Park,  and other contiguous enclaves of the West End area have some "killer" crown jewels of masonry, but so do other neighborhoods as well, as the beholders would see it.

 

I-440 was, for the most part, destined to be built on its present, former railroad property (Tennessee Central Beltline), and except for residential property which would have been displaced by some interchange ramps the construction of which are known to have been successfully opposed, I-440 was a done deal of a different breed, to start.  We're not talking about tearing down houses for imminent domain here.  Additionally, transit is not generally expected to make a profit, despite its operating revenue sources, so operating costs will seldom if ever be recovered by fare revenue alone.

 

True, referendums on tax increases for transit more often than not will be voted down, particularly when a transit authority becomes embattled within metro areas having governance at odds with each other (e.g. MARTA and the Ga. counties of Fulton with Gwinnett, Dekalb, and Cobb, in particular, as well as other neighboring counties).  I am not speaking for or against the AMP BRT or streetcar, per se, but I do not believe that the decision to select the dedicated-lane BRT from Five Points to the West End (the US-70S portion) , has been the most judicious selection of an FTA supported new start, particularly since the public has had little input into the choice.  I also realize that it is almost seemingly impossible to garner conclusive accord and agreement from the public on just what should be the so-called “first leg” of a planned comprehensive system of mass transit – BRT, BRT-lite, streetcar, light-rail, heavy-rail.

 

The fourth of those statements quoted by nashville_bound’s neighbors might be poised for more common sentiment for discussion and review.  The mayor’s seeming commitment to start the current BRT “lite” on Gallatin Pk (in 2010?) with the advent of the MTA NABI articulateds was touted publicly with eventual plans to augment that corridor with some form of LRT, by implementing some way of acquiring sufficient ROW for dedicated busway lanes (a challenge particularly along the stretch between Main St. and Trinity Ln.), with an ultimate vision of transforming that corridor to a fixed-guideway (rail) system.   I do not recall having heard any additional discussion on that vision since that time.  As well patronized as the MTA Nº56X “BRT Limited Stops” / Nº26 “All Stops” corridor has become since that time, I would at least have expected some progression in transit service augmentation on that route, despite the fact that it may not have been deemed as having a density warranting high probability of being awarded Federal funding.    The recent (an ongoing) replacement of the US31E overpass across the CSX at Amqui in Madison could have and would have perhaps incorporated any needed structural changes for projected plans to accommodate passage of light-rail or streetcar ROW, as the mayor had proposed for that corridor.   It has been quoted, "…the proposed East/West Connector was not chosen because it was the best route… it was chosen because of the available Federal funds…”

 

With similar rationale, the Music City Star (MSC) also was born out of competition with other municipalities for available funding.  The Eastern branch of the MCS, by consensus, would not have been the so-called “best-route” (or better phrased, the “most promising new-start route”), in terms of expectations.  Most tend to concur that the Southeast- and the North-Northeastern branches would have won that accolade, the Southeast branch to Rutherford County holding the superlative “most likely to succeed”.  The Eastern branch was selected primarily because it was the least expensive new start of its type to be implemented for the region.  It had to be made heavy-rail, instead of light-rail, in order to utilize an existing and eventually rehabilitated roadbed and to be legally allowed to run concurrently with freight operations (in compliance to FRA [Federal Railroad Admin.] rules).  Indeed, the 2006 MCS by far was a cheap new start, having being closely watched by the entire world of transit organizers, because of its comparatively small price tag, in itself placing Nashville’s MCS “on the map”, so to speak.

 

I do honestly believe, however, that the transit vision and implementation as a whole was breached by the mayor’s administration in its ramrod approach toward finalizing plans for the West-End corridor (whether rail or BRT would have been selected) and its chosen path.  While there have been town meetings and “invitations” to the public in the MPO prospectus for Nashville, very few if any measures appear to  have been undertaken to effectively publicize and to periodically apprise stakeholders of extensive liberal and concerted discussions on transit visions for the city as a whole.  Some prolific contributors of this forum have done a far better job of analyzing, deliberating, and conceptualizing a transit plan, than the so called experts have.

 

These are just two of your previous such posts:

  Musiczealot – Posted 13 August 2013 - 12:22 AM

  Volsfanwill – Posted 15 August 2013 - 08:18 PM

 

I do believe that a decision should not be made on cost differential alone, for the choice of BRT over streetcar (or LRT).  While Parsons-Brinckerhoff consultants did provide a “basis” for a decision predicated on capital outlay for new construction of the AMP BRT, nevertheless, the consultants’ study does not necessarily bias itself toward that choice.

 

UTgrad09 objectively voiced what may be shown to be a “painful truth”, with respect to an FTA approved new start for the AMP

 ________

 

UTgrad09 - Posted 12 August 2013 - 06:02 PM

 

For where we are -- BRT probably makes more sense right now. This line isn't going to involve tunnels, bridges, or elevated roadways where the costs could actually skyrocket past LRT. Our urban center is more dense than we get credit for -- but it is still not really 'high density' compared to most major cities. LRT is better able to handle large ridership...something that likely won't be a big problem initially. I think part of the fear is that Nashville is such a car dependent city as it is, initiating an expensive LRT system might be perceived as a waste of money (at least at first). Nashville needs to ween people off the idea that they have to use their cars everywhere they go. I think BRT is a good compromise there, because it will still serve those that are transit dependent (i.e. those that can't afford cars) yet should attract some of those that want to live a car free or car reduced lifestyle (those that choose not to drive).

 

As the demand increases, the viability for LRT would be much greater. If at some point in the future, LRT would be more effective, then the bus ROW could be converted to rail lines. That might sound like double-work for some people (in reality, it probably is), but if this is 15-20 years down the road, then BRT may have served its purpose (increasing the visibility and desirability of public transit) while the 'rapid' part of it would stay the same.

 

I'm not an expert on the issue...but the reviews to me seem mixed. There are arguably more positives for LRT than BRT, but some of them might or might not apply to our own situation. What needs to be done is find the best solution for Nashville, not just copy what Austin and Charlotte do. The solution for each city's needs may be different.

 

UTgrad09 - Posted 12 August 2013 - 07:09 PM

 

Obviously I think Dean jumped on the fact that BRT would be cheaper to implement...but Nashville did its due diligence in having an outside opinion on the matter. I was hoping for light rail as well, but the study said that it wasn't feasible. It was either electric streetcar, or BRT. If the study had come out and said LRT was the best option, I think Dean would have supported that.

 

Sometimes you can't just blame politicians when you don't get what you want. At least they did a study rather than jump into this blindly. 

 

Furthermore, I have read that the city could face issues finding federal funding for the rail systems, so BRT is likely a surer bet and will get off the ground more quickly.

________

 

volsfanwill’s point also was well made concerning the fact that one size does not fit all.

 

volsfanwill - Posted 12 August 2013 - 10:57 PM

 

A side note for comparison, I know we hate comparisons to Charlotte and Austin but sometimes it is necessary.  first both of them used existing railroad ROW. something that does not exist on the corridor that the AMP is proposed for. second. both of these cities have completely different types of systems from each other.  Austin uses light rail like vehicles but theirs acts as more of a commuter rail. with stops few and far between. Charlotte on the other hand has a light rail that acts more like a metro system with frequent stops that increase closer to the CBD. 

 

From what I have read on the expansion plans of both cities they plan to continue their respective patterns for the future.

 

I do see BRT as a gateway transit for Nashville.  convince people that it is viable and build other lines to increase usability.

 

I personally grasp things better visually so several months ago I opened up google earth and traced all the transit lines in the US minus regular bus.  that includes commuter rail, LRT, BRT, and even METRO systems. I was shocked at how many cities built LRT in the last decade, especially the number of cities of comparable size to Nashville.  Also, larger cities that have Metro systems are expanding new lines with LRT instead of heavy rail.

this leads me to my personal idea.  after seeing what every other city has done. I kinda combined several ideas. this is VERY Long term. like 20 years to build out.

 

AMP as proposed as a starter line.

Then build LRT as a north south line.  acting as commuter rail from Murfreesboro to the cbd where stops become more frequent.   (no this is not too long Austin's is over 31 miles and they might extend it another stop). 90% of the ROW follows an existing RR much of which has plenty of room to build dedicated tracks adjacent.  that would help alleviate the I-24 corridor problem. also, include a spur to the airport.  this would mean more frequent trains operating downtown. once that works and people see the benefits of rail, more LRT lines could be added to Gallatin and Franklin. 

Traditional heavy commuter rail (Star) to Dickson and Clarksville.

other lines BRT and LRT along Charlotte and into Metro Center. I have it all mapped out.

 

overall the important thing is, although we would all prefer LRT.  The city needs convincing.  so I'll settle for BRT as a starter. convince people that rapid transit is needed, then build more lines and better lines in incremental steps.

________

 

Rather than “squander” my time engaging in “knok-dwn-draggoutz” of debates on the heated subject of what is a best fit for the city of  Nashville, by necessarily joining one side or the other, instead, for several years now, I have focused on researching the “pragmatics” of modern existing and  new-start installations, as well as “heritage” system upgrades.   Having become “sensitized” to the relevant subject and the ramified details for side discussions, this is the reason that I managed to find a “glowing bush” in the form of this particular UrbanPlanet forum and its “open-source” spectrum of input.  Each of us, of course, is entitled to her/his own opinion.

 

We (in middle Tenn.) do need to learn all that we can, from practices of other municipalities, to embrace the merits of both BRT and of fixed-guideway (rail) systems, while being mindful of the need to institute “checkpoints” and oversight , as it were, to avoid making “faux pas” uninformed decisions as what had occurred with Seattle’s downtown transit tunnel, a poster-child example of lack of foresight and wasteful spending due to design incompatibilities (finally resolved with the inclusion of a light-rail and bus mix).  I have included here some relevant articles as “seeds” of insightful study, for those who might be interested in further in-depth discussion of BRT vs Light rail as a municipal choice.  Please bear in mind that some of these are “editorial” and subjective in nature, rather than factual, although each of them is worthy perhaps of at least some consideration and evaluation.

 

“Quality Bus (‘BRT’) vs. Rail Transit – Fitting the Right Mode to the Application”

  Light Rail Now 

http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_brt_2005-01.htm

 

“Rail Transit Under Attack from "Bus Rapid Transit" Promoters”

  Light Rail Now

http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_brt_2007-08a.htm

 

“Weyrich: Federal Anti-Rail Promotion of "BRT" is ‘Dead Wrong’" [commentary]

  Light Rail Now, Light Rail Progress

http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_brt005.htm

 

“State Decision Making in the Context of Federal Transportation Funding”

  The Transport Politic

http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2012/07/26/state-decision-making-in-the-context-of-federal-transportation-funding/

 

“If Washington Can’t Commit, Chicago is Ready to Go It Alone”

  The Transport Politic

http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2012/04/02/if-washington-cant-commit-chicago-is-ready-to-go-it-alone/

 

“Kansas City’s downtown streetcar project wins a $20 million federal grant”

  The Kansas City Star

 http://www.kansascity.com/2013/08/30/4447914/kcs-downtown-streetcar-wins-20.html#storylink=cpy

 

Over time, I have “harvested” a sizeable amount of research – much of it scholarly – in the form of on-line and as printed-reference sources, regarding the multi-faceted subject encompassing transit service new starts and upgrades.

________

 

One of Mayor Dean’s rationales for promoting the AMP focuses on Cleveland’s [Oh.] HealthLine BRT, promoting its "success", as well as that of Eugene [Or.].  I do not question, per se, any demonstrated or perceived benefits of the Cleveland RTA’s BRT venture.  What does seem to have been totally discounted from consideration was the fact that Cleveland has had in place a well-established heavy- and light-rail system for quite a few decades - since post-war years (1955) - the initial heavy-rail system having been built and expanded upon a few miles of existing right of way once part of the former electrified Cleveland Union Terminal RR, the need of which was obviated when diesel's replaced the dirtier coal-fired steam locomotives into and out of Cleveland's Terminal Tower (now Tower City), during the late 1940s.  This east-west line, in addition to a few existing streetcar lines with beginnings during pre-war years (streetcars transitioning into modern light-rail cars), eventually have evolved into the present-day Greater Cleveland RTA, including its extensive system of buses.

 

One major but seemingly overlooked factor underlying the touted success of the Healthline BRT is the fact that it comprises a relatively new component of a pre-existing multi-modal mass-transit system: standard bus, heavy-rail, light-rail, and now a BRT line. If one examines the integration of the new Healthline BRT into the Cleveland system, it would be discovered that this line actually serves as a "surface" line roughly parallel to the east leg of the existing Red Line (heavy-rail), this portion of which serves the East Cleveland district along the dense and distant Euclid Ave., from Public Square (Tower City) to Windermere in East Cleveland.

 

To this extent, the Healthline BRT provides an arguably much needed alternative to the existing parallel, long proven Red Line rail route, as it serves far more passenger boarding points than does its rail counterpart, and with much more frequency, while maintaining intrinsic speed advantages over standard local bus service.  The Healthline BRT manages medium-sized groups of transit riders along relatively short distances, while the parallel Red Line rail handles larger (trains) of riders along longer distances.   In this particular scenario, Cleveland might appear to have the best of both worlds in one corridor: BRT supplementing a parallel rail line.

 

In all, that particular BRT is synergistic to Cleveland's already well-established rapid-transit infrastructure.  On the contrary, Mayor Dean's intent is to create basically a standalone "rapid" system new start in Nashville;  Cleveland's BRT is not a standalone rapid system, in terms of the rapid-transit infrastructure there.  The same can be said about Boston's MBTA (the “T”) Silverline BRT (which remains a result of the T’s decision not to implement an earlier plan to upgrade the Silverline with LRT, after the Silverline BRT replaced an “EL”[-evated] heavy-rail line [similar to Chicago’s “EL” or “L”], torn down for an eventually cancelled expressway project).   Perhaps a little discussed benefit of the East-West AMP might be as a corridor connection for Music City Star riders to and from Vandy and White Bridge Road.  But, that would be subjective at best, perhaps.

 

In summary, where I am going with all this is that, despite time constraints on FTA funding application, the Parsons-Brinckerhoff study for Nashville was an “alternatives analysis” tailored to the West-End corridor.  As costly as the study itself was, the Mayor and the MTA do deserve a trophy for having arranged an outside professional assessment of a proposed new-start project.  It might be best, however, for the commonweal of the workforce, tourism, the privileged and the underserved transit-dependent, as a whole to utilize the alternatives analysis, in conjunction with more pro-active comprehensive initiative and envisioning, as demonstrated by some of these forum contributors, who certainly and clearly have demonstrated their dedication and zeal in drafting their transit plans. [Kudos “ad infinitum” to you, dudes!  You know who you are and thanks!]

 

There only can be one “first” for a “new” mode of transit serving the surface streets of Nashville, whether or not it’s the West-End – Five-Points BRT or otherwise, and I don’t necessarily say that this one should be the first or not.  BRT  does have it merits over streetcar and LRT, but the differential of new-start costs of each and the selection of BRT (if implemented in its purest dedicated form) does not necessarily translate into the highest ROI, in terms of operating costs.  LRT (not streetcar, unless established in design as “hybrid” in purpose) is more “scalable” for peak vs. non-peak periods where high density and utilization is demonstrated.  For BRT during peak, the only way to increase frequency (shorter headways) is to have more articulated bus units and therefore more personnel (and wage costs).   With a moderate addition of coupled articulated LRVs (to form only short trains of doubles or triples of articulated units), a single operator can safely manage the control and boarding of a single virtual vehicle.

 

Also, streetcars and LRVs rely on a distributed power source, in the form of small electrical substations (as used in Memphis for its heritage-style streetcars [some referred to as “Melbourne” cars, originally from “down under”]).  These basically are large “transformers”, self-contained with relatively small footprints.  For peak periods, pure electric is more efficient system-wide, even more than diesel-electric hybrid, despite the initial outlay for overhead electric catenary lines for streetcar or LRV units.  The ride quality of BRT is debatable when a BRT must share some roadway with standard traffic.  Some LRT systems do exist in which the LRVs are DMUs (Diesel Multiple Units), as found in proclaimed successful set-ups, NJ Transit’s River Line and North Co. Transit District (NCTD) at Oceanside and Escondido, Ca.  DMUs, however, do not perform effectively in stop-and-go traffic and are best suited for totally separated ROW.

 

For the densities of Nashville, BRT might very well be the best bang for the buck, as well as the most realistic.  There exists even a variation of “traditional” BRT which utilizes electric (trolley) articulated buses, like the buses found in Seattle (of current Breda and of future New Rider mfg.).  While this seems a bit strange, it offers the dedicated-lane BRT, in conjunction with an overhead distributed power source.  Some practices of trolley buses incorporate batteries to permit “bridging the gap” for short distances off-wire, making the operation even more flexible.   Because trolley buses are not restricted to an absolute fixed path (rails) , the top-mounted electric power poles allow the buses a substantial degree of lateral steer-ability, enabling this type bus to board passengers at curbside as well as at road center.  The pole pickup shoes and the poles themselves pivot to allow this maneuverability (since buses still must be steered anyway).  So you have “pure” electric propulsion without the rails and an enhanced sense of permanence, but without the rails.

 

I don’t believe that dedicated or exclusive lanes, on the proposed West-End – Broadway segment of the AMP, are necessarily the best way to go for that corridor.  I say this, not because of exceptions taken by others (in particular, council members, who seem to express that their districts have been overlooked), but due to the mounting number of protests, on the brink of turning nasty, from the stakeholders in the residential areas along and off of West End Avenue, west of I-440 primarily (Elmington Park to St. Thomas-White Bridge, and likely from those who reside beyond that point (where West End becomes Harding Road, I believe). These guys really seem to be "hell-bent" (influenced by canvassing or otherwise) on getting the AMP plans derailed, at least in its proposed form with dedicated lanes. (most others whose areas are "touched" by the AMP proposal, seem to embrace it)  It would be of interest to see reactions and sentiment on the AMP project, if alternatives had been offered – say, LRT with dedicated lanes; LRT in mixed traffic (operation and vehicles more like modern streetcars [instead of LRT], as in Portland [Or.] and those being now built in DC and in Cincinnati); or some less invasive lane proposal with articulated buses (hybrid-diesel or hybrid-trolley-battery).  I am certain without a doubt that federal guidelines allow some latitude of basic proposal types and variations thereof.  A umber of federally funded trolley bus systems, for example, exist which are not BRTs at all.

 

While it unlikely would happen in lieu of the AMP itself, planning and instituting a multiple-hub, multiple BRT-lite network, suggested by some others in this forum, overall might be more beneficial and publicly supportable, even if it doesn’t appear as appealing as the AMP for a new start.  I believe that planning should encompass, not only consideration of ALL options and variations of “best practices”, even "flavors" of BRT, but also these very details of technology and methodology (including demolition, excavation, and utility relocation, disruptions, and environment impact) should be posed and proposed to the stakeholders in the form of progressive series of open discussions, without any capital decision-making by the administration. When all the "cards are laid on the table" and "the full tape is played" in informing all those truly concerned, then the truly concerned will be in far better position to make informed decisions on what could be had and on how to pay for it (or not).  And this should be done BEFORE and earmarking and approval of a fat sum of funds for any professional alternatives analysis – or at least not without expert discussion and infusion of ideas from diverse sources (new starts and existing systems and plans of other cities, such as our in-state neighbor Memphis, which has had a vintage streetcar system with modernized modifications, operating since 1993).

 

Because I was not present during any planning of the AMP proposal, I cannot rightfully say just how the planning process ws undertaken.  While It is known that Parsons-Brinckerhoff consultants were commissioned to draft and to finalize an alternatives analysis for a streetcar analysis and for a BRT analysis as weighted alternatives, and that this had been announced in the media before a conclusion was made, what is not known (to me anyway) is whether or not weighted consideration was given to other alternatives, to any extent.  All we do know for certain is that the mayor had mentioned, in the past, his impressions from visits to some other cities having different recent new-starts in various stages of completion.  We also do know that the public highly likely was not kept abreast of discussions during the progressive stages of the planning for the AMP (in consideration of the mobilized reaction and protest against it).  With a fat sum already dished out to the consultants, the decision to select the BRT dedicated-lane alternative may have become a matter of political logistics (let alone the issue of cost comparison), to avoid questionable funding for consideration of additional details of design in the analysis process , details which should have been included with the original study and evaluation, but which were not introduced into the process.

 

While the consulting firm does have reputed creditability, we do not know to what extent the parameters of designs from existing practices elsewhere were interjected into the equation for cranking out the final solution.  That having been said, We don't necessarily know if the solution is one of "salt", as opposed to one of "pepper", or if it is a solution of "salt, black pepper, red pepper, basil, and marjoram", tailored to the "tastes" of the region.  The fact is, the region does not necessarily know just what its "tastes" are, until it has had at least "samplings" in some form or another and explanations and descriptions of what has been and what can be done with them.  A "Music City Center" approach to a mass transit new-start project decision (irrespective of what the MCC funding sources are) by nature leads to unsurprising dissension and distrust, if not a perception of deception and antagonism.  The people have expressed a need to "weigh into" the decision-making on any transit plans which they believe would affect directly their quality of life.

 

Enough of my soapbox; I guess I ended up draggin' myself into the caldron of debate after all, didn't I?

Edited September 2, 2013 by rookzie

[dmillsphoto]

So, I found this. It  may have been posted but is new to me...

 

http://i.imgur.com/gSXWy4b.jpg