Jump to content

The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread


TopTenn

Recommended Posts


A bit off the "beating" path of Nashv'l mass transit, but in line with the topic, it's promising to hear what BRT can do, as part of a mixed rapid system.  Since I've dwelled on Cleveland here and there, this  article from the Cleveland Plain Dealer (newspaper), mentions what appeaars to be a contemporary trend in a number of US metro areas.  It's goes to show that one of the largest poster-child, rust-belt metro areas actually can be transformed to a state of transit "solvency" and viability, from the "ashes" of what it had been back when I used to hang around there some 30 years ago (while employed at Norfolk Southern RR).

 

RTA awards contract for Little Italy-University Circle station, work to start next month 

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2013/09/rta_awards_contract_for_univer.html

 

"...

RTA also reported that it had record ridership numbers for the month of August. Ridership increased 4 percent system-wide, or 166,000 more rides than in August 2012.
Ridership on the HealthLine was up 4.7 percent, year-over-year, the busiest August since the Euclid Ave. line opened in 2008.

The Red Line rapid had more traffic, too, up 5.7 percent in August, a pace not seen since August 1988.

A burst of traffic on RTA trolleys boosted August ridership 49 percent,  year-over-year. The E-Line that runs along Euclid Ave. from Public Square to the Stephanie Tubbs Jones Transit Center near the Cleveland State University campus had an all-time record of 99,032 customers for the month.

..."

 

 

Nothing about the article content is particularly "monumental", but the references to ridership increases for both the Cleveland BRT Healthline and the roughly parallel heavy-rail Red Line, as well as for the trolleys, is encouraging for thoughts of local potential here in Nashv', if politics would ever play its deck of cards right.  Even the E/W WE-5Pts BRT, as a standalone upstart, can be made to work, if nurtured with the right "fruit".

Edited by rookzie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That menace to society, Lee Beaman, is at it again.  He's thrown his considerable checkbook behind the STOP AMP movement.  His dealership on Broadway was covered in STOP AMP yard signs this morning.  Don't buy from Beaman!

 

I can't imagine why a car dealer would be opposed to an improved mass transit system.  In other news, corporate tax cheats oppose tax reform, pharmaceutical companies and illegal cartels both oppose drug war reform, and arms manufacturers oppose diplomatic solutions. 

 

Given the obvious conflicts of interest, it surprises me that he's so willing to put his opinions out there and open himself up to the criticism. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

StopAmp is notorious for griping about reduced traffic lanes without mentioning the fact that the parking lanes are going to go away and be replaced by traffic lanes.

Answered my own question. Stopamp.org

It seems that the major complaint is about reduced traffic lanes.

Edited by bwithers1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


There will always be people who oppose anything and everything that would lead to any type of change. 

 

It's not to say that some of the opinions and concerns aren't at least a little bit valid, but the best thing we can do is voice our support for mass transit, and hope to educate those on the fence, or those that might be a little misinformed (bwithers' point about the reduced traffic lanes, for example). If you encounter people with these viewpoints, resist the urge to dismiss them as 'stupid', but rather try to engage in a meaningful discussion. Maybe you can change a few minds.

 

We also have to bear in mind that our government covers the entire county, so it's harder for a lot of people living out on the edges to see the benefit with something like BRT (the old "why should my tax dollars pay for something I won't even use!" argument). 

 

I think it's hard for people to imagine things like the Amp taking away traffic lanes (er, part time parking lanes) as helping ease congestion or at least lessen future congestion -- much the same way that studies show that widening freeways actually leads to more congestion. It's somewhat counterintuitive, and difficult to explain, especially to people who live in an area where 1 person = 1 car.

 

 

As for Lee Beaman, he's a big business man...and has been a fixture in the community for a long time. But if he stubbornly stands in the way of the enormous momentum building in our city, it will wash him away. He would be wise to grab a surf board and ride the waves.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^Exactly!  He should be able to see or at least come up with a "benefit" to his cause.  Signage on the bus, stations, etc.  Or heck throw a few million at it and "sponsor" the line.  The Beaman-Amp BRT...

 

If he is opposed to tax dollars, then he "should" help fund it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without knowing Mr. Beaman myself, I'd guess that he's looking out for his own business interests: Better public transit means fewer car sales.

 

With any luck, Mr. Beaman's disdain for the AMP project might prompt his dealership's eventual move into the Davidson County suburbs (Bellevue, perhaps?) and open up a prime area of real estate along Broadway.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without knowing Mr. Beaman myself, I'd guess that he's looking out for his own business interests: Better public transit means fewer car sales.

 

With any luck, Mr. Beaman's disdain for the AMP project might prompt his dealership's eventual move into the Davidson County suburbs (Bellevue, perhaps?) and open up a prime area of real estate along Broadway.

 

There is definitely still a need for car dealerships close to downtown. It seems like Metrocenter has become a good place for some of them (Downtown Nashville Nissan relocated there, Lexus of Nashville is building there, Crest has been there for ages)...but I do hope eventually that the car dealerships will either move off of Broadway, or evolve (consolidate size, become primarily a "showroom" dealership).

 

As for Mr. Beaman...I think he would be smart to embrace the urban culture that is rising around his dealership. Mass transit isn't really going to cut much into his bottom line, as you see that the vast majority of the new developments are still filled with cars...

 

But it's about knowing what you are catering to. I'm sure he thinks of himself as THE Toyota dealer (among other makes) in Nashville...though with the population growth, dealerships have popped up all over the burbs. New residents/transplants aren't going to be loyal to the Beaman name automatically (and a large percentage of the inner city growth comes from new residents/transplants)...so he has a potential underutilized market he can tap into. 

 

Toyota does make the Prius, as well as a number of other hybrids and smaller cars, which are popular and well-suited to the urban environment. I think it would be smart to play that angle at his downtown dealership, as well as consolidate the facilities, and sell a good portion of his land. I think that would play well with the demographic that is rapidly moving into the area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I forgot what the report proposes, but you might check that out, to examine lane pre-emptions.

 

My initial understanding of lane re-purposing was that it was to maintain the same number of through-traffic lanes (4) at the expense of any parking or shoulder lanes, such that the passageway would consist of 2 eastbound and 2 westbound for through traffic and 2 center lanes for transit.

 

But then I could be "on something" with that idea. [under the influence]

 

-=ricky-roox=-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disclosure: I am neither a proponent nor opponent of the BRT. At this time there is very little information regarding the final products tax and traffic implications. I am also not a resident of a neighborhood that is currently supporting Stop the AMP. I was a member of Transit Now before a Hitler'esque moderator decide my philosophy was not 'green' enough, but conversely I am not a member of Stop the AMP.


Per the norm, I disagree with the vast majority of the herd-mentality of this thread. I am surprised that so many on this board are ready to sign-off with so little information. I would love light-rail, I think the AMP may be workable and affordable but In my mind the questions that I raised 18 months ago regarding this project have continued to go unresolved.

1) How does Dean propose to pay for the city's portion of the capital/operating costs? This has been a question that keeps being kicked down the road.

 

2) The proposed Harding Road to St. Thomas section is currently 5 lanes with no street parking. This is one of the most congested areas of our city.  How does the BRT affect the mild congestion in the morning, increased congestion at lunch, and crazy 'rush-hour' congestion from 3-5:30? In addition this is precisely the location of the proposed parking garages that the commuters are being directed to use so that they can hop-on and hop-off the BRT.

 

This BRT (at least the Harding segment) is not a slam dunk. There are many stakeholders in Richland, Whitland, Cherokee Park, Wentworth, and Woodlawn that are fully prepared to fight this encroachment into their neighborhoods. Most of these are 'limousine liberals' who contribute the most money to the mayor and council and who happen to be Dean's neighbors. 

Finally, I do not think Lee gives a thought to what you think about him nor his land-use policies. He and his family have been outstanding citizens of Nashville and I think he will continue to do what he believes is best for his hometown. Lee is passionate about many issues at odds with the denizens of this board but hey that is what makes this country great...Nashville needs all its yahoos and hipster wannabes... (typed while smiling ear to ear)
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would imagine that a portion of the costs will be through taxes just as roads and any other form of transportation is paid for. Is there something that says my tax dollars can only go for roads or am I allowed to take municipal transportation that does not make me purchase an automobile? And before the simple obvious reply of "take the current bus system" comes back, how about I would like a more efficient and quicker system that will move more people and allow for many of us to ditch the car...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disclosure: I am neither a proponent nor opponent of the BRT. At this time there is very little information regarding the final products tax and traffic implications. I am also not a resident of a neighborhood that is currently supporting Stop the AMP. I was a member of Transit Now before a Hitler'esque moderator decide my philosophy was not 'green' enough, but conversely I am not a member of Stop the AMP.

Per the norm, I disagree with the vast majority of the herd-mentality of this thread. I am surprised that so many on this board are ready to sign-off with so little information. I would love light-rail, I think the AMP may be workable and affordable but In my mind the questions that I raised 18 months ago regarding this project have continued to go unresolved.

1) How does Dean propose to pay for the city's portion of the capital/operating costs? This has been a question that keeps being kicked down the road.

 

2) The proposed Harding Road to St. Thomas section is currently 5 lanes with no street parking. This is one of the most congested areas of our city.  How does the BRT affect the mild congestion in the morning, increased congestion at lunch, and crazy 'rush-hour' congestion from 3-5:30? In addition this is precisely the location of the proposed parking garages that the commuters are being directed to use so that they can hop-on and hop-off the BRT.

 

This BRT (at least the Harding segment) is not a slam dunk. There are many stakeholders in Richland, Whitland, Cherokee Park, Wentworth, and Woodlawn that are fully prepared to fight this encroachment into their neighborhoods. Most of these are 'limousine liberals' who contribute the most money to the mayor and council and who happen to be Dean's neighbors. 

Finally, I do not think Lee gives a thought to what you think about him nor his land-use policies. He and his family have been outstanding citizens of Nashville and I think he will continue to do what he believes is best for his hometown. Lee is passionate about many issues at odds with the denizens of this board but hey that is what makes this country great...Nashville needs all its yahoos and hipster wannabes... (typed while smiling ear to ear)

 

 

I commend you, "nshv'l_bnd", for the candor in your sentiment. This introspection, I strongly feel, is component to keeping us "on the trax" [intended pun], even if the generalized, qualified reference includes me.

 

I have somewhat attempted to respond at least objectively, in my mostly unsolicited opinions and responses to the material presented in this forum topic, and the primary reason that I have elucidated, or rather, expressed in excess my vantages on some of the subtopics is that I strongly have felt that the mayor's administration, as well as the MTA-RTA alike, typically have undertaken civic decision-making exclusive of well-informed foresight.

 

This applies, not only to the TCO of the actual choices of selections themselves, but also to the rationale underlying those choices. I have alluded indirectly to the matter on TCO in a discussion on the initial outlay and operating- and maintenance costs of rail vs. rubber-tired RT not as an analysis, but just a general reference. It just seems almost without doubt that a decision was taken as somewhat ill-informed or at the very best "un"informed, in arriving at a conclusion. Figuratively speaking, the big picture was "cropped" in many aspects of planning and specification, with what appears to have been little diversity (if any) of input – NOT simply that derived from the professional consultants.

 

A decision is a generally an expected resolve based on a conclusion or a set of weighted conclusions based upon a position, opinion, or judgment resulting from consideration of (hopefully ALL) information and data aligned to a comprehensive scope of interrelated but distinctly defined abstractions representing real-life situations and constraints. A conclusion is the thought and belief from the understanding of this information and very often results from an intuitive assumption, one directly perceived of facts and conditions, but which often is independent of otherwise perceived reasoning process. It's the element of perception underlying these rationalizations which often lead to self-identified disparity and (in this case) heated civil polarity.

 

Nashville_bound, admittedly I am one of those thousands who remain tantalized nearly to death with testimonials and imagery from an ever-growing list of media journal sources on burgeoning or fledgling rail-based transit systems in North America. This is one, at least one time, that I probably am not adhering or yielding to "neutrality" and objectivity within my response. I will speak only for myself, but yes, I have basically acquiesced and have become "wussified" into quietly accepting the AMP as something that just is going to happen anyway (whether or not it actually does).

 

In speaking for myself only, I feel betrayed, at least once, by the mayor's initial "commitment" (as it were) to transform the Gallatin Road BRT to a "REAL" BRT and then to a fixed guide-way system of some sort (as expressed by the mayor three years ago); and now again, in part by the "automatic" choice of BRT over streetcar for the AMP.  In retrospect, perhaps in each separate case, no well-informed total analysis appears to have been based on the metro area's comprehensive needs, despite any detailed analysis undertaken.

 

My unsolicited opinion of the AMP is that US 70S: Harding Rd/West End/Broadway (in particular, the first two) just might have to be considered as one of those arterials which simply cannot be fixed with a dedicated right-of-way transit mode. The mayor's strive to bolster and justify the inception of the AMP predicated on qualification of commercial density can end up being analogous to the conceiving of urban routing and access of the Interstate system. It potentially can make "steady" moves of people into and out of a portion of the targeted area, but at the elimination of or disruption of something else. That corridor indeed is one of the most congested surface roadways in the region. I've already stated in an earlier post that, given the current circumstances with absence of any sustainable financing early on, the best remaining option for the AMP itself is as a BRT, but not necessarily in the "golden" form of BRT implementation, using a dedicated segment, and I say this because of the expected irrevocable harm in through-put capacity, along the western and middle portions.

 

We're in a hub and spoke layout here, in a town with a relatively small central grid system, compared to many larger cities, and former pikes turned into public thoroughfares leading radially, rather than parallel, from the core. Time and time over, this has translated to increasingly clogged arterials, with driving alternatives being haphazard, out-of-the-way cut-throughs with unintelligent traffic control and compounding (and confounding) speed-mitigation measures.  While traffic inevitably will become worse (and in shorter periods of time than in a 12-month period earlier), adversely affecting a primary arterial as Harding Rd. - West End Ave. could also (predictably) “re-write” the traffic eco-system of the entire western-southwestern third of Metro Davidson. I want to see at least a streetcar in ANY part of Nashville, but my likes aside, the process of the mayor's arrival at a decision, and with absolute oligarchic rule and determination, is more disturbing and flawed than not having that streetcar itself.

 

Oh, poor me, I can't have my streetcar (gosh! darn!) or light rail. The reason that I am "settling" for this AMP, even (as I have stated in a previous rant) if the proposed implementation is not best suited for the affected area, is that we really have no choice – simply not choice at all – in the matter, as I see it. The decision mainly appears based conclusively on whether or not federal funding likely could be awarded as matching.funds, not based on pro-active planning and first-step taking for self-funding of long-range projects non-highway related. I am the first to admit that I am not at liberty to know the funding sources for the MCC, but at least one council member stated publicly that the city could have had (LRT or streetcar-circulator) rail by now, if it were not for the MCC and related infrastructure changes needed for its construction.

 

The mayor's constituents "moshed" him into office (and incumbents often can "cruise at altitude" for re-election), and because the mayor has encountered this affront of opposition from a sizable number of stake holders comprising much of his constituency, he now stands a chance  of losing efficacy in handling landmark projects, during the remainder of his 2nd term (for which he ran basically uncontested).  The question of the preparations for sustaining capital and operating costs remains foremost, but not "civicly" addressed (not to say that the mayor would wish to be open to such discussion, to start). Again, I have indicated in the past that no due documented (and accessible) analysis appears on-hand that evaluates detailed comparisons of maintenance and construction costs among various undiscussed options in the two most viable alternatives streetcar and BRT – options such as electrification vs. internal-combustion (electrification as an option even for BRT).

 

I also had mentioned that most cities with some form of advanced urban rail system long ago began investment for an eventual system, unlike Nashville. The decision to build the AMP, while not a "slam-dunk" as you say, appears to be one taken as a hasty means of avoiding the "no-brainer" choice of doing nothing at all. With a chance of winning some limited federal funding, any practical planning for more distributed needs has been tabled for this pet project known as the AMP.

 

A comparable amount of "damage" could be done if an AMP-like, reserved-path transit-way were to be built down the middle of Hillsboro Pk, 21st Ave. (US-431). The congestion along that southwesterly corridor path (which also serves as a parallel alternative to both US-31 [Franklin Rd./8th Ave.S.] as well as to I-65 - I-440) is so bad that pass-through drivers have invaded all the back roads of Oak Hill, Green Hills Waverly-Belmont connecting to Granny White Pk. (12th Ave. S.) and to Lealand Ln. (10th Ave. S.). Observed from the air (when the plane banks) are literally hundreds of intersection backups within that entire "pie" sector of town. If Nashville were to get serious on any type of streetcar or light-rail, then it likely would have to be done in routes less obtrusive than direct use of the entire arterials themselves.  The actual proposed provisions of the AMP unsurprisingly will likely choke I-440, already bulging-at-the-seams.

 

Again, thanks for the fortitude of being level (and for calling me out). Especially at this stage in the mayor's administration (and with certain persons in charge at the MTA), my perception is that little if any possibility exists for Nashville as a whole to voice and to effect a change to turn the tide for advanced RT (LRT and streetcar), particularly since such a system would likely be entirely located within Metro Davidson, to start (as a locally serving initiative). Perhaps therefore I have become more disposed to assuming this defeatist attitude, with respect to a rail-based solution for the surface.

__________

 

I'll say one more (no, two more), before i shut off my volcano (for now anyway).  If the Metro Davidson and Wilson Counties maintain a blind eye and do nothing to keep developments in check along the Nashville and Eastern Railroad (NERR) from Riverfront to Lebanon, then the MCS suburban commuter route risks becoming never being able to gain double track and terminal trackage where assuredly it WILL be needed in time.  Particularly, this danger looms at the site of the old Thermal Transfer Plant.  Metro seems only concerned with what it can to for spurring development, and not what it can do expand on and to repurpose ROW for impending transit needs.  We already lost the gulch property – along the CSX between Charlotte Ave and Division St. in favor of Eleven North, Velocity and the Icon. (I pray that the Station Inn never gets swallowed up!) Nashville should have capitalized on the availability of the Clement LandPort, while they might have had a chance, and/or some of the strip of land along 11th ave. Industrial (no longer industrial) at the CSX Kayne Ave. Yard between Church St. and 8th Ave S. at Gleaves and Magazine Streets.

 

This strip, now nearly completely redeveloped from original L&N-NC&St.L industrial real estate and sites of a coach yard and roundhouse and former freight-handling facilities (including the long defunct Railway Express Agency [REA]) very well could have been the start of a multi-modal facility for city-bus, Amtrak, Greyhound, AND light-rail, a set-up increasingly being found in a other mid-sized cities (with Greyhound and Amtrak). It would have made too much sense for Greyhound to have been invited into a consortium as host for a multi-modal facility with Amtrak, when Greyhound had to vacate the old Hansen Chrysler dealership at Charlotte and 11th, a year or two ago. Of course, then, too, state lobbying would have had to come into the playing park, making such a proposal that more precipitous. Amtrak's return to Nashville probably is at least 15 years away from now, 10 at the very earliest (as a pipe dream). Newer or repurposed passenger depot combined stations (for bus and train) exist at Spokane, Greensboro, Battle Creek, New Orleans (New Orleans Union Passenger Terminal), and Albuquerque, to name a few.

 

But you’ve got me cornered, Nashville_bound. You got me cornered.

Edited by rookzie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a beautiful post, rookzie...I can't add much to your analysis (and certainly not your opinions or study of the subject), but will offer a few of my own on the subject.

 

For me -- I like rail. I would prefer rail...at least of some kind. Whether it be streetcars or light rail. But I am not opposed to BRT. It's just in my world, where money is no object -- I would rather ride the rails than a bus -- even a fancy one.

 

However...one thing to consider is that Dean & his administration, after conducting a study on that corridor, may have concluded that despite the transit enthusiasts' preferences, the easiest sale for the city as a whole would be the less expensive (on paper, at least) BRT. Even if LRT or streetcar numbers are higher, we have to remember that selling theoretical development along the corridor is much harder to do when it only benefits some (in the sense that those that don't ride it aren't going to immediately think of the economic benefits of the system -- but simply the cost).

 

This is our first real attempt since the days of sprawl started at implementing a rapid transit system. It will (pray to God) not be our last. So the trick is to sell something that is not only beneficial, but, in the eyes of the budget hawks, palatable. In this sense, the ridership and development projects do not matter nearly as much as the final price tag. Think of the grumbling we're getting over this, and then imagine if the proposal was for a system twice (or more) expensive.

 

So the idea is to get SOMETHING in place. Something that will hopefully have a meaningful impact. We, as a city, can't afford to play around until everyone is in agreement.

 

I think it is also valid to consider that one mode (like BRT) may be more viable for one corridor, but that light rail or street cars may be viable on others -- if not now, in time.

 

So let's not think of BRT as a sellout or 'not the solution we are looking for', and think of it as a backbone, or a launching point to a more comprehensive mass transit system that enables Nashvillians to navigate the core without a personal vehicle. Just because one line is BRT doesn't mean another can't be rail...or that eventually the BRT ROW will be replaced by some form of rail.

 

It's not that we should settle so much that we should pick our battles, and accept our victories wisely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think the better option would be rail along smaller traveled streets that roughly parallel West End.  It's how LRT (and BRT) is often done.  A comparable city (at the time they put theirs in) Sacramento has their whole rail downtown on dedicated rail/bus streets.  So much TOD sprang up around it too... so the effects/benefits of mass transit were truly spread out.  I'm not sure how that would follow in Nashville, but that's why the "consultants" are paid the big bucks, right?  I saw the cost differentials posted here earlier, and completely understand why BRT is a better option in that case.  However, I wonder if Nashville hasn't look thoroughly at the long-term picture (the Buses will have a much shorter life).  I know this has been debated to death, but I just don't think West End really is the better option.

Edited by MLBrumby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

MLBrumby- If Nashville were to build LRT on parallel routes to west end, what routes what they be exactly? I think it's a good idea in theory, but I don't think it's realistic. Imagine all the "stop"light rail".org" websites that would pop up.

 

On a different note, the stop amp.org people have traveled to DC to voice their opposition. Doing nothing would be a victory for them, but a major loss to Nashville. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

...

This is our first real attempt since the days of sprawl started at implementing a rapid transit system. It will (pray to God) not be our last. So the trick is to sell something that is not only beneficial, but, in the eyes of the budget hawks, palatable. In this sense, the ridership and development projects do not matter nearly as much as the final price tag. Think of the grumbling we're getting over this, and then imagine if the proposal was for a system twice (or more) expensive.

...

...

It's not that we should settle so much that we should pick our battles, and accept our victories wisely.

 

 

Since it takes so long for me to sit down and draft a decent enough "dissertation", before I submit a posting, someone else likely will have responded before I have had a chance to post this.

 

UTgrad09, I was hoping that you'd be chiming in, as I suspect that these "torrents" have the "rotational" energy sufficient to suck in even the "distant".  But then you've been in this room far, far longer than I (seems like before I was born, so to speak).  I have nothing "constructive" to say as a whole, in response to your reply, except to say "thank you, thank you,...amen!"

 

It's as if you found me face down in the gutter, in a drunken stupor – bleeding from whatever I might have become entangled with the night before – then setting me upright after my nocturnal sprawl.  Like a parent stroking his son, following intense physical and mental suffering after a Friday-night scrimmage.  Don't wanna sound all mishee-mushee on you, but all you've said has had a calming effect – every point you've made does.

 

I would think that at my age, being at least "half old" (62 on 911 as I mentioned a few weeks ago), I'd assume a more "spectral" viewpoint of all this, rather than to focus on details that lead to irritation.  I always learn from those who take the time to examine closely your "homework" before they turn it in, and while I'm not putting you on a Mayan temple, your comments are never, ever self-serving.  I profit much from them, as that's how teamwork leads to success.  (maybe we can just put a large decal of you on the back of a bus – the AMP, you think?)

 

"..I think it is also valid to consider that one mode (like BRT) may be more viable for one corridor, but that light rail or street cars may be viable on others -- if not now, in time."

"..Just because one line is BRT doesn't mean another can't be rail...or that eventually the BRT ROW will be replaced by some form of rail."

 

That's the very reason that I have come to terms with BRT.  There IS not BRT "kit" from the Spiegel or Sears catalogs that we can just roll out onto any corridor and expect it to perform as a conduit or "people-pipe", and, yes, given the unique challenges of regions laid out like Nashville, LRT, BRT and streetcar, each may better be adaptable to serve one or another plan.

 

"...So let's not think of BRT as a sellout or 'not the solution we are looking for', and think of it as a backbone, or a launching point to a more comprehensive mass transit system that enables Nashvillians to navigate the core without a personal vehicle."

 

Columbus, OH has primarily a grid-like layout, allowing multiple parallel passages along long streets, a common set-up, particularly in the mid-west and in other flat areas.  Even our own Memphis is primarily a grid, given the topography in the southwestern part of the state, at extreme northern end of the fertile Delta region.  In theory, grids can be a driver's haven, as they often offer 2, 3, 4 or more surface-road options for drivers to traverse a general directional path to multiple, intermediate destinations.

 

Conversely, hub and spoke towns such as Nashville (except in the core) direct drivers on radial or circumferential paths, requiring drivers to "negotiate" their ways to a destination.  This "shortcoming" of Nashville actually could be a marketable and exploitable advantage for RT, if the players tailor the sub-systems to the elements.  You yourself and a few others have done a magnificent job of addressing this with some rather detailed proposals. replete with mini-hubs, cross-towns, and mixed-mode conveyances.  The spoke and hub "floor-plan" may very well serve RT and become Nashville's advantage over other metro areas as a whole, while being becoming ever-increasingly a driver's bane.

 

"...So the idea is to get SOMETHING in place. Something that will hopefully have a meaningful impact. We, as a city, can't afford to play around until everyone is in agreement."

 

The hell-bent attitude of the mayor and his entourage in handling this matter, BRT or whatever it ends up being, is the very thing that's about to become his own nemesis, if he continues to be unwilling to engage in earnest, bona-fide collaboration with the people, particularly those who have become so aggressively counter to his "decision", in his own sector of town.  For that alone, we ALL stand to lose out and get nothing done, in deadlock, just as it were Congress or something.

 

"...one thing to consider is that Dean & his administration, after conducting a study on that corridor, may have concluded that despite the transit enthusiasts' preferences, the easiest sale for the city as a whole would be the less expensive (on paper, at least) BRT. Even if LRT or streetcar numbers are higher, we have to remember that selling theoretical development along the corridor is much harder to do when it only benefits some (in the sense that those that don't ride it aren't going to immediately think of the economic benefits of the system -- but simply the cost)."

 

And that’s goes with what I stated about a month or more ago, that you almost have to already have something to start, in order to be able to get something else.  Although this saying does sound sort of like a tautology needless repetition of words without apparent clarification I really mean to say that, by nature, "cold feet" for new RT always is the norm for all first-start areas, even those other than Metro Davidson.  It's not necessarily so hard to "change gears" or "up-shift", once an upstart has been in place long enough to become a testimonial asset (or not).  Take KCMO as a prime case in point. There, they went through a knock-down-drag-out for years, before finally (now) accepting and undertaking the growing pains of an upstart rail "pet child".

 

Again, thanks for the "analgesic" response and take on all this.

______________ _________ _____

 

btw...

I took time to almost grow a beard while perusing about the last 40-something pages of this topic.  I was wondering if (directed primarily to the moderators) whether or not the UrbanPlanet server allows for a transcript of all history of this as a blog, with embedded illustrations or just as pure text, without one having to comb all the pages and manually saving them to a hard drive (and needing surgery for CTS).  I only know but so much, and I have learned much more than I could have expected in that "rummaging" skim-through alone, from your contributions (every bit of them).

Edited by rookzie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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