The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread

[rookzie]

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.

 

 

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. 

 

 

rookzie, on 05 Sep 2013 - 10:35 AM, said:

 

.. And those figures do not necessarily reflect the true ROI and TCO of  the "tangible" alternatives.  As I has mentioned earlier, the use of the streetcar model, can be made scalable for demand, such that basic articulated units can be specified as "couple-able" into two or three joined tandems into trains.  I say this, because, as ridership figures (according to expectations) steadily rise, the number of BRT units required to sustain the passenger demand during peak will require substantially more operators for a given frequency and headway, compared to the number of operators employed for a rail vehicle of substantially higher capacity.  Non-peak periods?  Then, of course, the triple- or double-coupled "artics". become a virtual single "train".  Boston's MBTA (the "T") used this operation paradigm decades before the term "light-rail" was cool (or even a buzz phrase).

 

TCO also covers the maintenance of each option (BRT or streetcar), including personnel, training, power consumption, general vehicle maintenance, busway/street-track maintenance, electric conduit maintenance, engine-/tire-/steel-wheel/traction-motor maintenance – any and all other (of the many) factors peculiar to either alternative.  Buses are not necessarily cheaper to operate, when incorporated as a primary infrastructure component, due to the fact that hydrid-diesel or any other type of bus with a self-contained prime-mover generally will cost more to maintain than its electric counterfpart (be it trolleybus or streetcar), with these costs being averaged over a given number of vehicles in the circulation pool.

 

My intent is, not to refute the published figures for planning and the projected costs of construction for the alternatives (BRT vs. streetcar).  Those figures can be derived more or less directly.  Despite the stated intention of providing a lower cost transport transit infrastructure, pragmatics of  tracking the costs to sustain and to maintain a sizable number of BRT sub-systems has actually shown (consistently) that BRTs actually have become more costly to operate than rail-bound counterparts, for a given comparable scope and range of urban coverage.  The study has overlooked this “leg of the tripod” entirely.  It also would have the uninformed believe that BRT would attract the same amount of patronage from automobiles as that of LRT or of streetcar, a statement which is arguable at best (if not dubious) that the proposed BRT could approach the proven superiority of municipal rail.  The mayor himself (as well as the MTA reps) has directly expressed that BRT has the “feel and look of light rail”, but without the tracks, in a manner that would suggest, therefore, that BRT would be embraced with the same amount of enthusiam as that of rail. (I really don’t think so)

 

My opinion notwithstanding, I have little doubt that BRT probably is the best way to go for Nashville, in consideration the initial outlay cost, the (un)availability of a sustainable funding source, and the current ethnographics (cultures and societies) of the districts to be served by the corridor.  Because Nashville (its administrations, that is) had not done its homework, back during times of missed opportunities over the last 30 years, in preparing the people for self-funding of public transit future, it now is in a rather lamentable position to be able to accomplish what other cities have done with upstart rail projects (take Dallas for example).  Now the only apparently "palatable" method of making up for lost time is to apply for whatever grant a proposed project might be capable of winning, and then come up with a way of matching the difference (instead of the other way around: establishing a funding source first).  I believe that the perennial absence of such a funding source may have proven pivotal in the decision to select BRT as the “best” solution for this corridor project.

 

But I do feel that the proponents have neither fully apprised themselves, nor have they disclosed a more nearly accurate account of the real price tag on the cost of a “fast” mass transit application for this city.  BRTs are a necessary component in providing a comprensively balanced transportation system, but a BRT as a standalone, for this particular city’s surface needs, does not provide that balance.  But at this point in time, with federal funding grants on the dying, “drying-up” trend, settling for what it can get, without a defined sustainable funding source, the city might be hard pressed to aim for the streetcar option.

 

In conclusion, BRT, therefore, would be the way to go for this upstart, although not necessarily in the manner proposed. for the lane configuration.

___________________________________________________________

 

 

MLBrumby, I addressed this point back on 05 Sep. (repeated above), although it might even have been touched on back before I joined the forum.  That was the EXACT thing I tried to emphasize then as appearing to have been entirely overlooked.

 

As far as what nashvylle is probing for, in response to your suggestion concerning "smaller traveled streets", if someone could "dig up an array of street railway maps of Nashville and examine the then existing lines (some of which were Radnor, Jefferson, Cedar [Charlotte], Glendale, Belmont,...), some of us could "archaeologically piece" together some (viable) "scenes of the future", and tie them in with some of those contemporary layouts proposed by some of the forum members, earlier in past postings.

 

Some of the independent lines serving the county were:

 

  Tennessee Electric Power Co. (TEPCO)

  Southern Coach Co.

  Nashville InterurbanRy.

  Nashville-Franklin Ry.

 

Some lines were interurban only and competed with the larger steam lines of the turn of the 20th C.  Although all of Nashville's streetcars ceased operation in the early 1940s, I personally observed streetcar tracks (severely deteriorated, of course) entombed at least 16-20 or more inches below the surface of Belmont Blvd, during a utility excavation in 1998 and again in 2009 (both times between Compton and Linden), and again during the mid-2000s on Jefferson Street between 26th and 28th Avenues, where the deteriorated trolley roadbed had become exposed under crumbling pavement.

 

Of course, these "ghost" routes would be obsolete, as they had existed, for prospective transit needs.  They flourished when Nashville had its corporation limits separate from the county, when names such as Woodbine, Radnor, and Bordeaux, were unincorporated separate county communities. (a "Bordeaux Unincorporated" metal sign remained remained at the east portal of the old truss bridge at least until the mid-'60s.)  On thing about existing street railways such as Muni (SF), King Co. (Seattle), 'T' (Bost), "T" (Pitt), SEPTA (Phila) – at least in regard to the lines which have existed since prior WWII – is that their continued presence has "trumped" and transcended at least 3 generations of urbanization in some cases, such that these lines have remained basically unfettered, in spite of the actions of commercial and residential development.

 

SF-Muni's "N Judah" light-rail comes to mind, and it had been a streetcar (PCC car) route during Aug. 1968 when I first rode it (LRV during Jun. 2001 when I rode it again).

 

N-Judah [sF-Muni route - 1968]

[

 

 

N-Judah [sF-Muni route -  2001, and now]

 

It could be a battle in futility to even suggest "reclaiming" some of these line routes, even along some "logical" segments.  It could be worth the toil looking into, though, and toying around with.

Edited September 22, 2013 by rookzie

[Guest]

Well you can 'imagine' to your heart's content, but after two years off planning this system I would rather 'know' what the 'plan' is before moving forward. Also, are you suggesting that the city/state will increase the gasoline tax to fund the BRT? I am not sure how politically viable that is but at least it is a plan and one that affects all the stakeholders....

I am more concerned about targeted payroll and or property tax increases that just affect downtown businesses/residents. If Dean's plan is for all to feel the 'joy' of paying to go green it would definitely be more palatable from my perspective.
 

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...

[Guest]

IMO it is a mistake to 'do something' just to 'do something'....

This success or failure, perceived or factual, of this reborn BRT/LR/SC route will go a long way toward ensuring or precluding future Nashville mass-transit options for a long-while.

 

"first impressions are key. If you give me a bad first impression I probably will have that idea of you forever honestly." - unknown
 

Edited September 23, 2013 by Guest

[UTgrad09]

IMO it is a mistake to 'do something' just to 'do something'....

This success or failure, perceived or factual, of this reborn BRT/LR/SC route will go a long way toward ensuring or precluding future Nashville mass-transit options for a long-while.

 

"first impressions are key. If you give me a bad first impression I probably will have that idea of you forever honestly." - unknown

 

 

I get where you are coming from. Generally speaking, I don't like to "do something just to do something"...but this is a case where there is literally no consensus on how to proceed.

 

There are elements of the city that would like to see a huge investment in mass transit, and want light rail, no matter the cost. Part of that due to the numbers advantages rail gives you (more potential ridership and efficiency), and part of that due to appearance (not only the sexiness of rail, but also keeping up with the Joneses -- er, Charlottes and Austins).

 

There are also elements that would like to see increased transit options, but within reasonable budget constraints. The "yes, we need to do something, but let's be careful just in case it isn't as successful as we predict" crowd.

 

Then, of course, there are those that simply do not believe in public transit in general -- many times including those that have a negative experience in other cities (especially if they are transplants). "It costs too much for the benefit" or "no one ever rides it" or "it will spread crime in the city" types. But not always. Some like the idea of public transit, but think that an effective system will just never work *here*.

 

And lastly, I think there is a large undecided group that really doesn't know what to think exactly. This is the group that the above groups are counting on to sway to either "build it" or "don't".

 

 

Personally, given our growth rate, and seeing how much traffic has increased just in the time I have been driving (circa 2001), we need to get things rolling. No, we don't want to make expensive mistakes. But at the same time, debating the issue to the point of satisfying everyone just isn't going to happen. I agree with proceeding cautiously, but given the time it takes to actually implement these systems, we can't afford to wait another 10 years before this gets off the ground. In 10 years, the metro population will likely be north of 2 million, and 300-350,000 new residents -- and their cars -- will be on the roads. The interstates have been jammed at rush hour for years, now...but perhaps the biggest difference I have noticed has been on the secondary roads. 

 

The development pattern has shifted quite a bit in the last 10+ years, too, with more urban infill than ever before. At this point, it is really urgent that we tackle the problem...and in a comprehensive manner. As I have stated before, the Amp is the starter line. It should not be viewed as a final solution, but simply the starting point. We need rapid transit within the city, as well as rapid transit that radiates out our corridors to the surrounding suburbs. I think we need to get the inner city rapid transit started first, though, so there is a viable network in place for longer distance commuters to reach their jobs. That's where the Amp comes into play. It would be great to have a commuter rail line to Murfreesboro and Rutherford County, but it really won't help people there that don't have jobs right downtown.

 

Each month that passes yields 2,500 new residents to the metro. The clock is ticking. I do think this is a case where we need to bite the bullet and "just do something". Waiting around IS a big problem.

[MLBrumby]

I was in Nashville last week and noticed that the "Stop Amp" signs seem greatest in the western suburbs accessed via West End/Harding Rd.  So to my point above, I wonder if the opposition would not be so big if the plan followed lesser-traveled parallel routes. 

[bwithers1]

Presumably there would be less opposition if the Charlotte Pike route were used for the West Side. My impression is that there is a loose coalition of some of the folks who would prefer Charlotte Ave with the more hardcore StopAmp folks on the West Side, who are pretty much opposed to public transportation of any kind in their area, or maybe of any kind anywhere period.  Sometimes politics makes for strange bedfellows. 

 

But the proposal that is going for congressional funding for this first BRT route is based precisly on the amount of current and projected future traffic on West End and the development potential along that route that has been passed by the Planning Commission through an upzoning and the application of an Urban Design Overlay along West End.  So suddenly switching to "a road less traveled" would weaken, not strengthen that congressional funding application.

I was in Nashville last week and noticed that the "Stop Amp" signs seem greatest in the western suburbs accessed via West End/Harding Rd.  So to my point above, I wonder if the opposition would not be so big if the plan followed lesser-traveled parallel routes. 

Edited September 23, 2013 by bwithers1

[rookzie]

Presumably there would be less opposition if the Charlotte Pike route were used for the West Side. My impression is that there is a loose coalition of some of the folks who would prefer Charlotte Ave with the more hardcore StopAmp folks on the West Side, who are pretty much opposed to public transportation of any kind in their area, or maybe of any kind anywhere period.  Sometimes politics makes for strange bedfellows. 

 

But the proposal that is going for congressional funding for this first BRT route is based precisly on the amount of current and projected future traffic on West End and the development potential along that route that has been passed by the Planning Commission through an upzoning and the application of an Urban Design Overlay along West End.  So suddenly switching to "a road less traveled" would weaken, not strengthen that congressional funding application.

 

...and therein underlies the reason for a potential stalemate with those at odds with the "decision" of the "final" choice of the proposed route itself.

 

The application approval is "locked" into the currently proposed route, or so it seems at this point in time – not to take away from the merits of a Charlotte Pk. alternative – but as has been stated many times over (implicitly or directly), the planning and decision was selected with West End - Harding Pk as the primary target foremost in mind, for reasons openly exclaimed: high traffic density with high densities of commercial development.  I cannot say that route alternatives ever were seriously considered for an EXPRESSED purpose of mitigating arterial traffic along that portion of the route, which so happens also to be a heavy and viable one in commercial development (as well as residential).   Perhaps alternatives were weighed.  I do know for a fact that West End was studied back during the '90s for rapid transit but not necessarily for BRT or Streetcar (I believe that LRT might have been the theme of curiosity at the time).

 

I also am not at liberty know the details and constraints of applications with the FTA for subsidizing such initiatives as upstarts.  We all know that guidelines do exist, relating to qualifications concerning high-density metrics and projections, for eligibility for such grants.   Do we know whether or not the Federal Transit Administration has in place density requirements which strictly constrain a route to run along a high density arterial in the route's entirety?  Could at least a partial change in routing have qualified for a potentially successful application?  Again and again, why was the public not apprised of and compelled to be included in the planning of the AMP project to start? (that is, assuming that it never was openly included)  Do we know whether or not the entire proposed point-to-point route (E-W) qualifies for federal subsidy.  Whether or not it does qualify along its entirety or along only portions of it, could indeed FTA matching funding be earmarked for portions along a proposed route path which purposely includes "qualified deviations" from a "qualifiable" route?  The proposed east-side path along Woodland and Main Streets; on the surface (pun intended), do not hold even close to the commercial/high-residential levels of density afforded by Broadway - West End - Harding Pk. – at least that segment does not appear so, despite the presence of trendy Five-Points area.  Main Street from Fifth Street to Eleventh Street is far from becoming transformed with redevelopment (although it does hold promise).

 

So therefore, do we know whether or not any gravity was given to alternative routes to the current AMP plan – paths which could utilize in part some "low-density", secondary roads (as has been recently mentioned in others postings)?  Contingent upon the answers to these (and related questions), the controversy stemming from the opposition from those in areas directly affected may have been imminent and predictable, or, conversely, at least avoidable to some extent.

 

Perhaps the Parsons-Brinckerhoff study was predicated primarily (and perhaps short of desperation) on targeting federal stimulus moneys, about to run out and with competition for these diminished resources being critical.  But then with local funding issues on the stage prioritized with everything else, the mayor's quest for a matching and sustainable source may virtually be overshadowed by maxed-out coffers.  Even with no resolve in Nashville's answer to match funding, in the bid to maximize chances of being awarded federal funding, a "final" direction in the decision for the specifically proposed implementation of the E-W AMP may have been, not so much a compromise, as it may have been a "blind" pitch to make the case to the feds.

Edited September 24, 2013 by rookzie

[BnaBreaker]

I was in Nashville last week and noticed that the "Stop Amp" signs seem greatest in the western suburbs accessed via West End/Harding Rd.  So to my point above, I wonder if the opposition would not be so big if the plan followed lesser-traveled parallel routes. 

 

To be quite frank, I'm guessing most of these people don't really have any idea what, exactly, it is they are opposing or why they are opposing it, other than the fact that it is something new that they aren't used to, and they are afraid this new thing in their lives might upset whatever balance they think they have. 

Edited September 23, 2013 by BnaBreaker

[rookzie]

To be quite frank, I'm guessing most of these people don't really have any idea what, exactly, it is they are opposing or why they are opposing it, other than the fact that it is something new that they aren't used to, and they are afraid this new thing in their lives might upset whatever balance they think they have. 

 

Thanks, BnaBreaker.  Yes, I suppose that to be the result of overall failure to consort with stakeholders, especially those on the West-side -- primarily the segment from White Bridge Rd. to Bowling-Elmington.  The proposal basically was hurled at them, rather than sprinkled, to the point that the opposition has turned the matter into a witch hunt brought on by betrayal, as cause and effect.

 

While some embrace the AMP, as bwithers1 put it, "...politics makes for strange bedfellows...," and ranting can induce sympathetic reaction from the otherwise uninformed or indifferent, turning a snowball into an avalanche of opposition, making it relatively hipped to tote the torches.

Edited September 24, 2013 by rookzie

[bwithers1]

Rookzie, I don't want to quote your very detailed posting above, but I do want to provide some feedback to some points that you have raised. And I do so mainly as one of a small but pretty dedicated group of East Nashville residents who make it our business to be quite involved with Nashville's planning process because we constantly monitor Plannning Department and other Metro department agendas, write to the commissions, and go to pretty much any meeting that public officials will hold. While it is true to some Metro decisions are pretty much made from the get go, it is also the case that the squeeky wheel gets the grease and that decisions get made by those who show up. I believe that the Amp process has shown flexibility to incorporate public feedback, so long as that feedback is constructive.

 

I have to say that the Amp planning process has been quite open to the public. I have personally attended quite a few community meetings where input was sought and questions were answered that sometimes resulted in changes to the plan. For example, at one point the BRT was ONLY going to go down Harding/West End/Broadway and they dropped East Nashville alltogether. There was considerable public outcry at the East Nashville community meeting, and the East Nashville leg was added back in to the plan. That was about 2 years ago. There was another community meeting series that presented a series of options like bus exterior designs, interior layouts, bus stop and shelter options, and other details. Community feedback was sought on those issues as well. Later on, District 6 Councilman Peter Westerholm hosted a specific community meeting at the East Library with neighborhood representatives and East Nashville business owners to get feedback about the specific locations of the stops in East Nashville, how those would impact traffic coming into and out of businesses, how those would impact the numerous school crossings on Main Street, where the park-and-ride would be located, how that would impact the East High School campus and how the alumni group for that school felt about that, how the bus turn-around at the library would impact Library parking, how best to rearrange the traffic signals at 11th/Main to facilitate the turnaround, etc. There have also been transit representatives at quite a few East Caucus meetings with neighborhood leaders, Historic East Nashville Merchants Association meetings, and other community meetings. These are just for East Nashville, but similar meetings have been held on the West Side. Plus, the public transit issue has been pretty prominent in the NashvilleNext planning series of meetings, which include options for people to e-mail or even text in questions, suggestions and feedback. That's a lot of public and stakeholder input.

 

East Nashville's role in the federal application relates not only to the development potential for East Nashville (Main Street is part of MDHA's East Bank Redevelopment District and Five Points is part of the adjacent but separate Five Points Redevelopment District), it also factors prominently in the potential ridership of the system. The Gallatin Road bus route (with a regular and a BRT-lite route serving the same street) is the #1 public transit route in Nashville in terms of ridership. It is pretty clear that many of those proven riders would transfer from the Gallatin routes to the the Amp either at the East Library to continue down West End or at the Music City Center to get to other parts of town. Main Street/Gallatin Rd has been the #1 "pike" in Nashville in terms of permits pulled for several years, so even though there are not a ton of large buildings going up, Planning has the numbers to back up the claim that the Main Street route is already a center of commercial redevelopment, and it has a lot of room to continue that growth. In addition, it also serves quite a large number of residents in MDHA public housing developments and existing affordable housing on the north side of Main Street. So the Main Street route connects to a decent nexus for Nashville's existing federal funding for housing initiatives, Nashville's private investment in building renovations that house small businesses, and a large population that has already demonstrated that they are willing to use the existing public transit system and would embrace an enhanced version.  These are all pluses for the federal funding application of this first leg.

 

The route selection has two components to balance: it has to show potential to grow private investment along the route chosen and it has to serve an economically diverse population. The West End part of the route is not really economically diverse. So those workforce housing developments along or just north of Main Street serve to provide that balance.

[Guest]

bwithers1,

 

As usual you provide a detailed and thoughtful response. I have actually followed the BRT developments but have had no luck with getting my two question (posed earlier in this thread) answered. Since you have been much more involved that I, and attended many more informational meetings regarding the Amp, can you share any answers to my questions regarding costs/taxes and how they plan to create 2-dedicated, BRT, limited-access lanes on the Bowling-White Bridge section without impacting the existing 5 traffic lanes (no parking lanes)?

 

Thanks,

 

NB

[nashvillwill]

I'll add a question to NB's list.

It's been my understanding (from my limited knowledge on the subject), that transit projects are typically rejected by the FTA if there is no dedicated funding source. As we stand now, The AMP has no funding source. Are we submitting a pipe dream with this application, or is it possible the FTA will approve despite the fact?

Furthermore, what do Dean and company need to do to get a funding source approved? It seems to me we are kinda putting the cart before the horse on this one. I hope it doesn't backfire.

[bwithers1]

Thanks, NB! Unfortunately, I am not certain about the answers to either of those questions. NashvilleWill's question about the dedicated funding stream is also a good question.

 

Metro Council passed a good chunk of money in this year's capital improvements budget to pay for some of the infrastructure upgrades and streetscaping that would be required to implement the Amp. That particular portion of the start-up funding is obviously paid by all Metro taxpayers although Council stipulated that its expenditure is contingent upon receiving the federal funding. But in terms of the long-term operating cost of the Amp, my assumption is that Metro will still have to identify a dedicated revenue stream. I am not certain if that means a dedicated taxing zone as was done with sales taxes for the Music City Center or what.

 

As for the Bowling-to-White Bridge section, that may have been covered at one of the west side meetings, and I haven't attended those. The details of the East Nashville leg have changed from the original plan based on community input, so there may be some similar level of negotiation still taking place in the West End leg. For example, at one point the East Nashville plan changed so that the BRT will use regular traffic lanes coming over the Woodland Street bridge (with dedicated signals, though) in order to access LP field, and it changed from using the center lanes to using the side lanes along the sidewalk on the Main Street portion. There may be similar, minor changes available on the West End leg so that it may not actually use two full lanes of traffic for that entire stretch from Bowling to White Bridge. Early discussions of the BRT showed the route using maybe one center lane between stops, but then using two lanes in order to accodate the stops, and since the stops are mid-block, that extra room closer to the intersections would be available for the left-turn/U-turn lane that would be needed.  I'm not sure where things are for that stretch that you reference.

 

My understanding is that the federal application doesn't have to have every minute detail worked out, and that there is some room for minor changes, although changing the route or changing to light rail would not count as minor changes

Edited September 24, 2013 by bwithers1

[rookzie]

Rookzie, I don't want to quote your very detailed posting above, but I do want to provide some feedback to some points that you have raised. And I do so mainly as one of a small but pretty dedicated group of East Nashville residents who make it our business to be quite involved with Nashville's planning process because we constantly monitor Plannning Department and other Metro department agendas, write to the commissions, and go to pretty much any meeting that public officials will hold. While it is true to some Metro decisions are pretty much made from the get go, it is also the case that the squeeky wheel gets the grease and that decisions get made by those who show up. I believe that the Amp process has shown flexibility to incorporate public feedback, so long as that feedback is constructive.

 

I have to say that the Amp planning process has been quite open to the public.

....

....

....

The route selection has two components to balance: it has to show potential to grow private investment along the route chosen and it has to serve an economically diverse population. The West End part of the route is not really economically diverse. So those workforce housing developments along or just north of Main Street serve to provide that balance.

 

 

bwithers1,

 

As usual you provide a detailed and thoughtful response. I have actually followed the BRT developments but have had no luck with getting my two question (posed earlier in this thread) answered. Since you have been much more involved that I, and attended many more informational meetings regarding the Amp, can you share any answers to my questions regarding costs/taxes and how they plan to create 2-dedicated, BRT, limited-access lanes on the Bowling-White Bridge section without impacting the existing 5 traffic lanes (no parking lanes)?

 

Thanks,

 

NB

 

 

Thanks for the heads-up, bwithers,  since these are things that I really don't know.

 

You provided a great research reference for me and the forum as a whole, in documenting that; it's quite testominial, in that it gauges the level of collaborative co-operation.

 

Your discussion does provide some resolve in my concern.  What remains to be determined relates to the qualification requirements of the FTA.  While you  may not have such answers, it would help for me to research this on my own, time permitting.  I was inquiring of this primarily in reference to congestion mitigation.  True, the AMP is intended primarily as a circulator, rather than a conduit of large numbers of people for fast conveyance over long distances.  The objective is different from that of Light Rail.   So according to your summary, the AMP initiative route selection has two components to balance. 

 

Neither of these components directly relates to the negative aspects of the volumes and surges of commuting patterns traversing the Western section of the route -- the section to which I had referred, in particular, and the one against which the opposition is mostly directed.   Even some key constituents of the extreme West-End, Harding Pk – persons like  Marsha Blackburn., who openly have reported "concerns" of exacerbated gridlock along the White-Bridge - Elmington trunk line, when the AMP is constructed with dedicated center lanes.   Unless you and I have to travel that stretch ourselves, then we cannot speak for their concerns empathetically.  Only time will tell whether or not four through-traffic lanes with two dedicated center lanes can be proven in practice not to measurably adversely affect through-traffic, which relies heavily on the few direct thoroughfares available on the west side, including that segment of controversy (as I had indicated in an earlier post).  Then, too, it's also a matter of the city counsel and catering to special interests of certain enclaves.  For decades – perhaps for at least 40 years – East Orange, NJ and parts of the city of Newark has banned all left-turns in some sub-districts.  When I returned to Nashville in the early '90s (after a 15-year absence), I used to get quite irritated that left-turns were commonly permitted onto side roads, with or without traffic light controls, from four-lane thoroughfares during morning and afternoon rush.  Well, this still appears the norm with exceptions.  Left-turns seem to be a main matter of concern for the "Stop the AMP" movement.

 

With respect to the concern with restricted motorist freedom and the anticipated high-volume traffic ensnarement along that stretch, In this respect, I was responding in an attempt to garner some feedback on MLBrumby's question on the use of possible alternative or secondary roads parallel roughly West End Ave, and Harding Pike between the two locations above.  This is the segment over which the proposal for dedicated center lanes has galvanized so much attention and fuss.  This is the reason that I posed the academic questions on the eligibility requisites for applying for federal subsidy, even though Nashville's spoke-and-hub "floor plan" may not accommodate secondary-road paths for efficient transit circulators.

 

Again, though, I thank you for clearing up the "civic" concerns about the project planning progress and the matter of having at least some fair amount of openness.  You do have to admit, though, that the "dissension" does have a  perception, founded or not, of how congestion very well could evolve along that western stretch, while there should be little if any doubt of the value-added benefit toward the eastern segment (for which you are a stakeholder directly).  This, of course , is notwithstanding the fact that there always will be those persons who cannot even be lived with by their own siblings, much less who are capable of accepting the merits of anything about which they may know little.

 

You also indicate that the Amp process has shown flexibility to incorporate public feedback, "...so long as that feedback is constructive."  When it happens to not be "constructive" in the eyes of the authorities (however the planning authorities interpret the term "constructive"), then do such matters of this magnitude simply lead to INflexibility and result in perfunctory "steam-rolling" over the questioning and exceptions of concerned citizens without any offers of discussion?  This HAS happened, you know.   I recognize that some matters of decision blatantly cannot be altered or compromised, to maximize the ability to remain competitive in seeking subsidy.  There are some rock-bottom thresholds which must be adhered to, for example, certain judicious choices of route.

 

It may not be feasible in the very least to use some roughly parallel routing different from Harding Road - West End at Elmington I-440, but the question is do we know whether this is even feasible or not (say, Bosley Springs - Woodlawn - Compton, which may be totally out of the possibility), and do we know whether this even was ever publicly aired or not?

 

All I'm saying is that these are ALL things that should be documented at least for the record, notwithstanding the results of the detailed analysis studies.  Perhaps they are and have been ongoing – I don't know.  That's where contributors such as you, who have a vested interest in this project (based on close proximity to the AMP) come into play, and that's what I've been hoping for all along –- proactive denizens who have remained directly abreast of the planning (as well as one can), to help fulfill these queries, as you as just done.

 

I also believe that too many people with tunnel vision have attempted to "overload the ferry" to the point of sinking, with attempts to make the upstart project serve their own district needs.  The AMP, by all intentions implicit by the abstraction of design and routing, is purposed as a circulator which in theory convincingly can be expected to spur at least some of the touted long-range benefits of a BRT (if done right), which would link at least one working-class region with those which may be considered robust in commercial and residential redevelopment density.

 

Nashville has more than a few potentially viable corridors which can qualify as "circulators" along surface routes, not all of which necessarily would be selected as BRT and which could assume partial routes along secondaries.  Others of this forum topic have showcased that long before I showed up here.  It's just unfortunate that those directly engaged with planning on the west side not appear to be on the same page, as opposed to those of the east side who so far seem to have worked in concert.

 

My earnest apology for digressing perhaps from the Q&A responses of late, but in honestly, despite my fantasy for streetcar, the BRT indeed CAN and WILL be made to work, IMO.  But processing the final developmental details of the AMP will become far less protracted if "sectarian" differences can be ameliorated.

Edited September 25, 2013 by rookzie

[bwithers1]

Hi, Rookzie:

 

You raise a few questions that relate to the western leg of the Amp route, and I don't know much about those as I have been mostly (perhaps selfishly) focused on the part that is closest to me. I definitely don't know whether the alternative western route that you proposed below has ever been proposed or aired. But if folks in West Nashville are worried about "East Nashville Riff Raff" coming into their neighborhood along Harding Pike, imagine their outrage if the route brought people literally into their neighborhoods and to their doorsteps! Running the Amp through residential streets like those would be akin to continuing Briley Parkway down Woodmont Boulevard. That's pretty unlikely

 

I don't know details, but my recollection is that the White Bridge Road Amp stop and park-and-ride will be somewhere in one of those shopping centers. So the BRT line should not actually interfere with the Harding/White Bridge Road intersection, which was #5 on the list of the most congested street intersections in Nashville last year. Maybe some of those commuters will use the park-and-ride and take the Amp on in to their destination in town. If so, their doing so would have little or no impact on the actual White Bridge Road intersection, but it would remove some cars from that stretch of Harding/West End between White Bridge and downtown. That's the stated goal anyway.

 

You also reference partisanship and "concerns" on the part of Marsha Blackburn. Frankly, I don't see Marsha Blackburn supporting public transit in Nashville in any way shape or form. That's not to disparage Ms. Blackburn, it's just that it would seem to be out of character with the political positions that she has maintained so far. Certainly there are Republican elected officials in the US who have wholeheartedly supported public transit, but I don't recall Marsha Blackburn doing that. I could be wrong.

 

Nashville definitely does have several routes that have BRT potential. I know that there is interest in Charlotte Pike and even Rosa Parks and we may be able to add these at some point. But we have to get one first in order to start adding the other routes to it. The current Amp route seems to be the most likely to obtain federal funding to get our system jumpstarted.

 

 

 

It may not be feasible in the very least to use some roughly parallel routing different from Harding Road - West End at Elmington I-440, but the question is do we know whether this is even feasible or not (say, Bosley Springs - Woodlawn - Compton, which may be totally out of the possibility), and do we know whether this even was ever publicly aired or not?

 

. . .

 

Nashville has more than a few potentially viable corridors which can qualify as "circulators" along surface routes, not all of which necessarily would be selected as BRT and which could assume partial routes along secondaries. Others of this forum topic have showcased that long before I showed up here. It's just unfortunate that those directly engaged with planning on the west side not appear to be on the same page, as opposed to those of the east side who so far seem to have worked in concert.

 

My earnest apology for digressing perhaps from the Q&A responses of late, but in honestly, despite of my fantasy for streetcar, the BRT indeed CAN be made to work, IMO. But processing the final developmental details of the AMP will become far less protracted if "sectarian" differences can be ameliorated.

[MLBrumby]

Does Marsha Blackburn represent any area where the Amp is slated to go? Her district doesn't even include Davidson. So why would her support matter? Also, it's my sense (based on deep knowledge of Nashville and where many friends and associates live) that the areas where I saw the most Stop Amp signs in the western suburbs are slightly left-of-center in their politics (Whitland, Murphy, Sylvan Park, Richland, Bowling, West End park, Love Circle, etc.).

Edited September 25, 2013 by MLBrumby

[captainwjm]

Does Marsha Blackburn represent any area where the Amp is slated to go? Her district doesn't even include Davidson.

 

 

No; but, yes, she has that slice of north Brentwood, south of Radnor Lake.  Part of the reason I moved to mid-town.

[MLBrumby]

Oh, I just learned something. Thanks.

[UTgrad09]

No; but, yes, she has that slice of north Brentwood, south of Radnor Lake.  Part of the reason I moved to mid-town.

 

The redistricting put all of Davidson into the 5th District.

[captainwjm]

The redistricting put all of Davidson into the 5th District.

I stand corrected

[Hey_Hey]

I had the unfortunate experience of being on Nolensville Rd at 5PM a week or so back.  Oh. My. Goodness.   I regularly travel Hillsboro/21st during that time, and Nolensville was twice as bad. It took 25 minutes to get from the fairgrounds to HiFi Buys, which is probably 2-3 miles.  That's another corridor that has significant potential as some sort of mass transit would provide a much more convenient and fast way of getting in and out of town. 

 

I still think West End needs to be the first priority because of the importance that route has on Nashville, but there are potential routes all over the place.  

 

I still think we need to see the aerial tram develop here.  Everyone remember our conversation back several months ago about this on the Green Hills discussion thread?  http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/index.php/topic/115575-green-hillsbell-meade-projects/page-2   

[UTgrad09]

I had the unfortunate experience of being on Nolensville Rd at 5PM a week or so back.  Oh. My. Goodness.   I regularly travel Hillsboro/21st during that time, and Nolensville was twice as bad. It took 25 minutes to get from the fairgrounds to HiFi Buys, which is probably 2-3 miles.  That's another corridor that has significant potential as some sort of mass transit would provide a much more convenient and fast way of getting in and out of town. 

 

I still think West End needs to be the first priority because of the importance that route has on Nashville, but there are potential routes all over the place.  

 

I still think we need to see the aerial tram develop here.  Everyone remember our conversation back several months ago about this on the Green Hills discussion thread?  http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/index.php/topic/115575-green-hillsbell-meade-projects/page-2    

 

From what I've experienced, the main problem is the intersection at Thompson Lane. Yes, there are other intersections that are slow...but it can take you 10-15 minutes just to get through that one intersection.

 

The entire southeast side of town needs some work. Nolensville Rd is bad, but I would say Murfreesboro Rd is equally bad...not to mention I-24. 

 

I think there's a serious need for commuter rail over there. Not light rail...commuter rail.

[timmay143]

Nolensville Rd/Harding Pl has been the city's #1 intersection for traffic.  My hood!

[rookzie]

Hi, Rookzie:

 

You raise a few questions that relate to the western leg of the Amp route, and I don't know much about those as I have been mostly (perhaps selfishly) focused on the part that is closest to me. I definitely don't know whether the alternative western route that you proposed below has ever been proposed or aired. But if folks in West Nashville are worried about "East Nashville Riff Raff" coming into their neighborhood along Harding Pike, imagine their outrage if the route brought people literally into their neighborhoods and to their doorsteps! Running the Amp through residential streets like those would be akin to continuing Briley Parkway down Woodmont Boulevard. That's pretty unlikely

 

....

....

 

bwithers1, you hit several nail heads with one hammer, right on target. Every point could not have been said better.

 

Back when I was in junior high, Metro (then with Mayor Beverly Briley) was aiming at making Briley Pkwy an inner loop, and at that time, only the segment from I-40 near the airport to East Thompsn Ln was open (or at least to M'boro Pk., but think that it actually used to intersect Currey Road). So, unless you are from Nashville (and are at least as old as I), then you might not have known that running Briley as a replacement of Woodmont and White Bridge, had been those guys "pipe dreams."  As you can see, Green Hills, White Bridge, and Hillwood regions would have none of that, even back then (the mid-'60s).

 

During this day and age, it's virtually unheard of to run an RT through the "bowels" of "high-end" residential districts. Most of the ones which do exist do so because they were conceived and constructed during the early 20th C, by the then-all private streetcar and interurban line companies, who themselves had invested heavily in commercial and residential real estate and the development thereof. They basically spawned the communities and the growth around themselves, particularly since automobiles had yet to become a standard (or even a staple) of most households. When most municipal trolley lines (streetcar and trackless) began going into the "red ink", and the "Great Conspiracy" reportedly began to take it's toll (diesel bus mfgrs. [GM in particular] lobbying and conspiring to force the elimination of electric traction vehicles), nearly all domestic trolley lines became "fossilized", so to speak.

 

The handful of systems which did manage to survive as a whole ended up abandoning many of their urban routes.  Even when these lines fell into "salvation" by public takeover, a few of these old trolley lines, including those which already had existed for 30 or 40 years or more, remained extant well past the general cut-off era of the 1950s through the early 1960s (period of steep decline in transit ridership and imminent failure).  You might recognize these heritage survivors as Phila, Boston, SF, NOLa, Seattle, and even little Dayton, of all towns (er, well, much bigger than the Dayton in Rhea Co. Tenn.) – Dayton OH, which has maintained a system of trackless trolleys (also referred to as “trolley bus” or “trolley coach”).

 

Take my previous post – the one to which you first addressed a response – where I mention the "N" Line ("Judah") of the San Francisco "Muni", which I rode during 2001 and previously over thirty years prior (1968). Judah Street was primarily residential but over the "ages" as undergone much mixed redevelopment (in terms of commercial activity) infused with mostly pre-existing residential. One rarely ever would witness with a new start RT in such a well-established and constantly maintained and "hipped" area.

 

[san Francisco - Judah Street]

 

 

One notable case of curiousity is the streetcar system started in Memphis during the early '90s. The blighted South End has undergone quite a turnaround with new construction (and some razing) with the advent of the streetcar serving that portion of the region, but . It may not be touted as a total success story (perhaps, to many, not much more than a large tourist attraction, since MATA has failed to gain funding to expand the system to include an LRT mix). Arguably the South Main Arts District and at the southwestern segment of the Riverfront Loop (along Tennessee St.), have undergone a level of renewal and rebuilding alongside that particular portion of the Riverfront Loop line, but what definitely is known is that the line was constructed during the early-to-mid stages of that transition. Unfortunately, however, that renewal and redevelopment, if certain safeguards are not in place, can lead to the eventual displacement of disadvantaged or underserved residents (gentrification), an indirect consequence of indifference or preconceived design (although it never is conceded as such).

 

[Memphis - Tennessee Street]

 

An alternate parallel route of the AMP along some undetermined secondary roads for the western portion of the route, indeed does show to make your point that, in an established "enclave" as the West End is in general, no BRT or ANY-RT, period, may see the likes of any secondary roads – not there anyway. Unlike the state of redevelopment of the urban core surrounding the streetcar circulator (one of three lines) in Memphis, the overwhelming majority of the West End of Nashville hardly can be termed as blighted and transitional. It also is a much larger and a community, much more pre-established and maintained since its pre-WWII suburban origins.  Arguably, the only portion of the subject community-culture in direct proximity to the prescribed proposed AMP, and which even questionably may be candidate for a targeted dramatically induced transformation of dense redevelopment may be the Main/Woodland Street segment, east of I-24 (although even the portion along Woodland, west of I-24 to the Cumberland River. stands to gain immensely from the new RT).

 

It really is not much, if any, surprise to me that the East side segment (and perhaps the mid-town corridor) merchants and residents would embrace RT, in any form. I think that I myself would.

[franktown]

I also have wondered about what the dedicated source of funding will be for mass transit. I remember a study from several years ago about possible sources, and also dug this back up (  http://www.nashvillempo.org/regional_plan/transit/dedicated_funding.aspx  ) about the state enabling the NMPO to create regional funding for mass transit