Jump to content

The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread


TopTenn

Recommended Posts

In "listening" to these recent posts, I just had to arise from my stupor and throw in a word or two.  I start by rewinding to some posteings three weeks ago

 

 

UTgrad09 on 26 November 2013 - 02:39 PM

“….My concern with Dean right now is that he has so much going on right now that I think there's a possibility for some blowback on this simply because of concerns about the budget and taxes.

I am happy as hell that the mayor advocates public transit, but I'm worried that his approach might actually put the whole thing in jeopardy.

You're likely never going to change some people's minds about rapid transit...but in order to get this to work, Dean needs to worry about getting more allies, not trying to ram it through.”

 

Neigeville on 26 November 2013 - 08:43 PM

“…It's going to take a mixture of allies and ramming.  There's almost always a fight over a rapid transit system when it first starts…”

 

Yes, it always does take a mixture of allies and ramming (aggressive assertiveness).  There exists a large range of reasonable ramming spectrum, but I think that the mayor’s choice of ramming “vectors” has resulted in an errant trajectory which needs to be redirected toward achieving his intent.

 

nashville_bound’s suggestion for the western terminus for the first phase at Murphy Rd. and Orleans Dr. at West End might be substantive.   However, any decisively projected reduction in opposition might be academic at this point in time, because of the magnitude of damage which already may have resulted from the outcry from the “Western” opposition.

 

Not to say that this is irreversible, but a primary factor in this entire proposal, beyond the funding aspect, is the lack of influential, vital, and critical momentum needed to escalate common public buy-in, particularly in the western sector of enclaves.

 

The state of unrest and polarity hardly can be unexpected, since from the start the mayor and the constituency have exploited the conclusions of the consulting firm, Parsons Brinckerhoff, which has a Nashville office, to glean support for a rapid transit alternative along the Harding Road – West End, Broadway segment.  Granted, the East Nashv’l supporters have much to gain from the proposal, or from any other advancement in mass transit.  The Nashville City Paper (Aug. 10, 2013) quoted justifications of BRT over LRT of streetcar:

 

“...Michelle Kendall, who works out of Parsons Brinckerhoff’s Nashville office, said besides the cost there are other considerations that make BRT ideal for Nashville’s east-west connector over a streetcar system: the shorter installation time frame, more flexibility, higher probability of securing federal dollars and future transit expansion….”

“…after hearing the study’s case for BRT, Gary Gaston [Nashville Civic Design Center]… believes BRT has its benefits.   ‘I think the fact that it can be done quickly and cost less –– as opposed to maybe having to wait up to 10 years to get something like a rail system –– is better,’ Gaston said. He added that if successful, which he believes BRT would be, it could transition to further transit advancements in the future. ‘I’m really excited. I think the fact that we’re going to do this on hopefully a fast track to get this in place, is probably the most important thing.’…I think the fact that it can be done quickly and cost less –– as opposed to maybe having to wait up to 10 years to get something like a rail system –– is better…”

 

“Michael Skipper, executive director of the Metropolitan Planning Organization, said federal transportation grants typically go to projects that produce the ‘most amount of travel savings for the population for the least amount of money.’ ”

 

 

All the premises of the rationale for BRT over LRT, while subjective (as discussed long ago), appear to have no relevance for the justification of the project as a facility, in the minds of the main opposition.   The current perception seems to regard the decision as distorted reasoning layered on rigid constraints (path/route).  What it boils down to, is not so much as what is decided at a first or “up-start” RT project, but rather what and where one can be created which can predictably and attractively move numbers of people without long-term reduction in capacity of the present mobility infrastructures.  That term “attractive” encompasses much, but implicitly it refers to garnering much, much better level of public buy-in than what has been attained.  I Know that there ALWAYS will be opposition, so damn if you and damn if you don't.  But when opposition gets fierce and fiery, then it's time to check out the ol' blood pressure, so to speak

 

The fact that the administration has insisted on such an obviously controversial and inflexible choice of path, with all the justification that can be gleaned, does not necessarily make the proposal a best fit for the western segment – rubber or rail.  I myself certainly am not an authority to cast judgment on the decision.  The more dialog we have on this forum sub-topic, the more is revealed in terms of valid (and perceived) concerns.  Not only is the Elmington Park locale a known school-zone congestion trap (West End Middle), but also at the extreme opposite end, East Lit. Magnet, at Main and Gallatin, is no different (or worse).  Historically, American primary and secondary schools (as well as those of higher learning) have been conceived and developed along main thoroughfares incorporated within the federal highway numbering system for nearly a hundred years or more.  Long after the completion of expressways, these roads remain as surface arterials for local and through traffic, in this instance, US 70S.  US 31E has been rerouted in part along Ellington Pkwy, but the primary roadway of 31E remains in effect as Main St. and Gallatin Pk. For local passage.  With the daily diurnal traffic overload at Harding Rd. at White Bridge, Woodmont, Kenner, and Bosley Springs intersections (with St Thomas West, Belle Meade Plaza, and venues like Kroger, Harris-Teeter, Publix, and the nearby Lion’s Head district and Nashville State Community Col.), I wouldn’t even want to try to predict any long-term outcome, with claims publically touted that the E-W project will solve grid-lock [on West End].

 

So it’s a long way from becoming a slam-dunk.  As mentioned in long past discussion, little if any long-term relief for through-moving mass vehicular flow has been offered or proposed to offset any long-term adverse effects on such (as the administrative proponents positively claim to be of negligible consequence).  I have no doubt that any mode of RT can be made to work effectively, for the intended purpose, and as others have stated we cannot afford to wait for a succeeding mayor to stoke the coals of progression (he/she might even quench ‘em).

______

As an aside, but in no way unrelated to the issue, the final reading b the Metro Council on approval of the Sulphur Dell Sounds Ballpark redevelopment, has again brought to mind the issue of moving large numbers of people into and away from a common venue, while maintaining a semblance of status quo (whatever that is) in the crossroads of central N-S, E-W movements.  I have total confidence in what this venture can ramify into economically and socially for Rosa Parks,  Jefferson Street (and all the other “state”, and low-numbered streets of Hope Gardens, Buena Vista, Germantown, and Salem Town), and the CBD itself.  A lot has transpired since the old stadium was razed in 1969 at the same location (which had been mostly industrial).  What has alarmed me, though, is the sentiment expressed during a late November town meeting.

 

“…supports say Jefferson Street has more than enough capacity to handle the crowds. 'We're also talking about off-peak hours for the most part,' said Brian Heuser, a founder member of the Friends of Sulphur Dell. "It's a concern, but the overwhelming benefit here certainly outweighs the traffic concerns,…."

 

That very vantage on perspective ranking of mobility in general has become rampant and is what has gotten the region as a whole into its present systemic state of roadway choking.  I see little benefit in relegating traffic flow to the back seat, as it were.  Has anyone ever tried to turn left from westbound Jefferson onto Rosa Parks lately, during any downtown event, or during peak?  Has anyone observed that the portion of Jefferson west of that intersection is 3 lanes wide and is congested day and night?  Has anyone recently crossed the Jefferson St. bridge to or from I-24 or Ellington Pkwy while trying to avoid being ticketed by the cops planted at the foot of the bridge?  This same "blinder" vision I have seen among the most vocal proponents of any major civic proposal, particularly those of the eastern leg of the E-W Connector.  They seem well versed in expressing the good that it can do for them, but they fail or avoid altogether to sympathetically attempt to analyze the negative impact that such a proposal could have on other of an ecosystem as a whole, or even within their own locale.  "What's in it only for me," is just another element of human nature, I suppose.

 

The ballpark project could and would be an exercise in RT planning, as part of a comprehensive long-term initiative, while the opportunity exists before construction of the ballpark.  It is said that parking would be addressed with multi-level garages, with a city-state consortium.  That’s well and good, but it does not at all address the flow of motor traffic.  With all the transit resources channeled toward BRT-lite and the E-W Connector, Metro at least should plan, if not implement, by incorporating future corridors feeding the region.  Traffic is like water, not like air.  It is virtually “incompressible”.  If you displace it in one or one ways, then it has to go somewhere, in another one or more ways.  It’s not simply going to “dissipate”, nor are motorists going to be encouraged or influenced to give up their cars with the additional volume, even if it’s in the short-term.  Any term is what matters to anyone hung in traffic.  The same applies to an extent with the E-W corridor; the dedicated lanes will confer some long-term effect on traffic displacement.  At least, however, the E-W connector will offer an alternative.

 

While not as aggressively robust in scale and diversity as the stillborn Maytown development proposal, which would have been mandated to include two bridges, one of which was to have been dedicated to mass transit use, at least the Council had expressed some form of transit conscientiousness with the Maytown proposal.  Maytown, though, would have been primarily privately funded, making Metro requirements easy to mandate for such an unorthodox undertaking.

 

Back to the mention of compromise that the E-W Connector first phase terminate at Murphy Road, such a consideration does have future near-term viable ramifications.  The gentrification of Sylvan Park, particularly near the 46th Ave and Murphy commercial redevelopment likely would fuel uproar with similar opposition as with the current proposed segment through Bowling/Whitland, Richland, Cherokee Park, should the current proposal be amended to divert along Murphy to Charlotte Pk. and westward.  The plain truth is that not much can be accomplished without some road widening, given the fact that US 70 (not 70S) along Murphy and west on Charlotte is in much of the same plight as Harding (and to a great extent outdated with no turning lanes).  But additionally, 46th is too narrow as it is now (although 51st, but not Nebraska Ave., is quite wide).  It is a subject of consideration though, and in the long-term, an overlap of RT routes – say, from downtown along Charlotte in its entirety, and from downtown along Broadway, West End, and Murphy to Charlotte – would not be unlike common practice in other cities, if the market warrants.

 

In final, 37206dude posted the scheduling of public meetings on the E-W Connector plans.  This is only the most recent set of several such town meetings on the project.  None of them seems to have resulted in any substantive effort by the planners and administrators to address the concurring and meritable concerns, among many individuals who bother to attend these meetings. (this usually applies to most other suggestions for improvements in other transit practices as a whole)

 

From personal experience, the gatherings usually have consisted of only justification of choices in decisions on some unpopular or questionable proposal details.  The administrators almost always have had their minds made with unyielding conviction, even concerning suggestions not directly related to routes.  In some instances, the respondents conducting the discussions have expressed scoff or retort ─ even if unintended ─ to questions or to common suggestions for reconsideration.  Unfortunately, even an MTA-RTA office staffer whom I have known for a number of years, and who is sell apprised of internal discussion, appears to agree that the decision makers generally have been closed to re-evaluation for even some rational, well-founded public concerns; in fact, this person (employed there for at least 15 years) voluntarily informed me of this pre-disposition.

 

-=ricky-roox=-

Edited by rookzie
Link to comment
Share on other sites


FYI - Maybe a start...

 

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Burkley Allen <[email protected]>
To: listserv HWEN <[email protected]>; BHN listserv <[email protected]
Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2013 6:23 AM
Subject: [hwen] Amp Informational Meeting Monday, December 16

·         Amp meeting December 16 at 6 pm at Martin Center, 2400 Fairfax – The grant application for Metro’s proposed bus rapid transit line on West End has been submitted to the Federal Transit Authority.  Metro will be find out in February if these funds are awarded.   In  the mean time engineers have been hired to refine the design of the project to take into account issues and concerns that have been raised during the earlier phases.   To bring neighbors and business owners up to date and to allow an opportunity for questions,  a District 18 community meeting will be held on December 16.  Speakers representing  MTA and the amp coalition will be joined by members of Stop Amp to present all sides of the discussion.  This will be followed by a question answer session moderated by    Tom Cash , president of HWEN.  Written questions may be sent ahead of time to  me at [email protected].    Please include your address or street.
 
There will be additional public meetings in January where the design engineers will show how the system design has evolved based on citizen input and to hear further comments and concerns.   These will be specific to the part of the route close to where  the meeting is being held.
The public meetings will include a project overview and small group breakout sessions with displays and preliminary plans available for those discussions. Dates, times and locations for the meetings are listed below:
 
East Nashville
Monday, January 13, 5:30 p.m., East Park Community Center theater, 600 Woodland Street, 37206
Downtown
Tuesday, January 14, 5:00 p.m., Nashville Downtown Partnership, 150 4th Ave., N., Ste. G-150, 37219
Midtown
Wednesday, January 15, 5:30 p.m., Metropolitan Board of Parks and Recreation, large conference room, 2565 Park Plaza (near Centennial Park), 37203
West Nashville
 
This is a big decision for Nashville, and it is important for everyone to know as much as we can about it as we evaluate it.  I hope to see many neighbors and business owners at the meetings.
 
Thanks,
 
Burkley Allen - District 18 Councilmember
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if its not the AMP, it would be light rail, and  that will require higher taxes.  The  naysayers will be  a lot more upset. They will hate having rail lines go through their backyards. So I guess we will get nothing and end up like some busted rust belt city with no future because we could not make the difficult choices and dare to do something for the future of the city. Go ahead and keep the car culture and see where that ends up a few years from now when we resemble L.A and the smog rather than progressive and smart cities like Portland, Oregon.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surprisingly or not, I have spoken with many of the detractors of the AMP who live in the Richland/Whitland area off of Harding would actually support light rail… 
 

Well, if its not the AMP, it would be light rail, and  that will require higher taxes.  The  naysayers will be  a lot more upset. They will hate having rail lines go through their backyards. So I guess we will get nothing and end up like some busted rust belt city with no future because we could not make the difficult choices and dare to do something for the future of the city. Go ahead and keep the car culture and see where that ends up a few years from now when we resemble L.A and the smog rather than progressive and smart cities like Portland, Oregon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

St. Thomas Hospital is deeply involved with and is a strong supporter of The Amp. As a result, the proposed alignment will almost certainly involve a western terminus near Harding/WBR.

 

St. Thomas appears to have been a supporter from the start, and an institution of that type and size always has much to gain from an RT venture that can directly serve it.

 

Surprisingly or not, I have spoken with many of the detractors of the AMP who live in the Richland/Whitland area off of Harding would actually support light rail… 

 

 

Now THIS DOES surprise me (speaking for myself).  Maybe you are on to something here.  Perhaps the Western sector as a whole has not revealed its true colors.  So far, I have heard from the Westerners" only what is NOT wanted, rather than what might be wanted instead.

 

Even so, whether LRT or BRT, (any other RT or even streetcar), the primary premise of the opposition hinges on the capacity-handling aspect of the roadway and turning provision restrictions (and to a lesser extent property values, by NIMBYs).  By what you have "polled", even on an informal basis, it seems that there exists a lack of coherence and solidarity (sectarianism, as it were), within the opposition.

 

Perhaps then it would behoove them to be forthcoming with a proposed concept and to devise a method of funding such an expensive alternative as LRT.  Of course, then too, this also could lead back to ground zero, to the decision ultimately concluded by the administration, since the administration "decided" that the current choice is what's going to happen (determined primarily by comparative costs).  It then could be a matter of their proposing some alternative approach for funding the difference in the initially proposed rail- and BRT options.

 

IMO though, an effective light-rail alternative (to serve that locale) would be based on a long-range plan for an extended route (mix-n-match w/ streetcar mode), along or separated from the current West End - Harding path.  Without any "burning bushes", so to speak, for municipal funding of such an expensive undertaking, it would be just another pipe dream.

 

Maybe I should not be surprised to learn this, since many Nashvillians not directly associated with living in or traveling through the Richland/Whitland/Cherokee Park locale had been silently hoping for the approval of some rail alternative (which had been narrowed down from two to one - from LRT to streetcar), in lieu of BRT.  I suggest that they consolidate and devise something that has not already been evaluated and that they can take to the table for encouraging broad and common discussion on ways to ultimately achieve an amended initiative, if they really want to have any gravity in the matter—some dialog in which the region as a whole can participate.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some interesting comments from the story:
 

Four decades ago, Austin, Texas, had a population of 250,000 and a reputation as a laid-back oasis of liberal politics and live music. Today, the Austin metro area is home to 1.8 million people and has some of the nation's worst traffic congestion.

For years, the city has done little to address the growing problem. But most in the Texas capital now agree something has to change if Austin is to save what's left of its quirky character.


"There was kind of an epiphany — a moment in time when we realized that we are going to have to quit ignoring the problem, which we'd done for so many years in the past," Leffingwell says.

An 'If We Don't Build It, They Won't Come' Mentality

While Austin fiddled decade after decade, Dallas was busy building the largest light rail system in the country. Thirty years later, the Texas city with the conservative reputation has the regional mass transit network, not Austin. Austin has done practically nothing in that regard.

"I think that is a fair statement," Leffingwell says. "There's a very strong no-growth movement in our city. And that applies not only to transportation but other infrastructure."

Leffingwell says that view can pretty much be summed up as, " 'If we don't build this water plant and we don't have enough water, they won't come. If we don't build this power plant and we don't have enough power, they won't come.'

"And that is absolutely wrong in my view," he continues. "The growth trend has been steady and constant since 1870, and there's no indication that anything is going to change."

In fact, the Austin metro area is predicted to double in population over the next 25 years to 4 million people.

The Texas A&M Transportation Institute has built sophisticated computer modeling of Austin's future traffic — and the findings are not good. The commute from downtown Austin to the northern suburb of Round Rock currently takes about 45 minutes during rush hour. But by 2035, the institute estimates, it will take two hours and 30 minutes to go those 19 miles.

Perhaps nobody knows more about Austin traffic than Texas A&M's Tim Lomax. The transportation planning expert says Austin's relentless growth overwhelms all potential solutions.

"The technical word we use is 'awful,' " Lomax says. "If you do all of the scenarios that we normally think of as transportation improvements, it's still going to be awful."


Trying To Lure Drivers With Speed

Austin is the largest city in America with only one interstate running through it. Just six lanes wide through downtown, Interstate 35 backs up for miles regularly.

A tolled bypass to the east of Austin was supposed to help relieve the bottleneck. But Texas state Highway 130 was built so far to the east that practically nobody uses it.

In desperation, the state raised the toll road speed limit to 85 mph, the fastest in the nation. The idea was that drivers could drop the top, drop the hammer, crank the music and fly right past Austin.

It's a beautiful, wide-open highway — but it's empty, and the builders are nearly bankrupt. So now, the state is considering tolling Interstate 35 and making the toll road free — as well as building a light-rail system and putting in more bike lanes.


But Lomax says his computer models show the only real solution is going to involve changes in behavior and lifestyle.

"We did some modeling to suggest the kind of magnitude of change," he says. "We used a giant hammer on the travel model. We took away 40 percent of the work trips. We said those are going to happen somehow, but they're not going to happen in a car."


"We said, instead of people driving on average 20 to 25 miles to get to work, now they're going to drive five, six or seven miles to get to work," he says. "That says there's going to be a massive shift in jobs and population."

If Austin can do all that, Lomax says, the roads and highways in his computer models stay the color green — traffic still flowing. But without those drastic changes in behavior? The entire region turns into red capillaries of doom, with everybody crawling along everywhere almost all the time.

Like many in Austin, businessman Kevin Tuerff moved here to attend the University of Texas and never left. Ten years ago, he bought his dream home in the Austin Hill Country. Traffic has become a mess as the population has exploded.

By last year, Tuerff was fed up with two hours on the road every day. Now he rents a high-rise apartment in a gleaming new building downtown.

"My office is about five minutes by car or 12 minutes by bicycle," he says. "And that's what I love about this place."

Tuerff is part of that 40 percent that Lomax needs to make his transportation models work. And there's a growing population of successful professionals paying $3,000 to $5,000 in rent every month for the privilege of walking and biking to work and play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

...So now, the state is considering tolling Interstate 35 and making the toll road free — as well as building a light-rail system and putting in more bike lanes.

[end Quote]

 

 

 

I can't speak for the capitals of Cal., Ga., Minn., Mass, Utah, and Col., all of which have some form of surface urban (local) rail, Boston being perhaps the sole one of these never having entirely abandoned is rail infrastructure (and the only capital city to have had a heavy rail system with or without light rail or streetcar).

 

Notwithstanding these exceptions, there does appear to be a pattern (cause and effect?) that state govt. and the incorporating municipality generally are at odds with proposals of urban rail (as well perhaps with respect to other civic matters).  So I find it interesting, indeed, that the state of Texas would be as proactively involved in an LRT proposal for its capital city, as the article implies (or as one might infer).  While not necessarily related, this is particularly unusual for conservative regions which, in the distant past, had been bastions of ethnic separation (primarily southern and south central heartland).  Again, I have no knowledge of the extents of any state-supported transit-oriented initiatives, except to say that at least a few state governments are known for their comparatively liberal subsidy for commuter rail (railroad type service, as opposed to LRT).

 

Perhaps the Lone Star legislators are getting' their own butts "whooped" with gridlock, that they themselves are on the brink of turning "postal".  This is a "poster" case of rampant urban growth gone riot ─ urban "constipation", as it were, in need of a laxative.

 

Tennessee has a lot to learn from this, but it won't until it's own capital "finishes" turning into another Austin.  Thanks for running across that article, Tim.

Edited by rookzie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ike many in Austin, businessman Kevin Tuerff moved here to attend the University of Texas and never left. Ten years ago, he bought his dream home in the Austin Hill Country. Traffic has become a mess as the population has exploded.

By last year, Tuerff was fed up with two hours on the road every day. Now he rents a high-rise apartment in a gleaming new building downtown.

"My office is about five minutes by car or 12 minutes by bicycle," he says. "And that's what I love about this place."

Tuerff is part of that 40 percent that Lomax needs to make his transportation models work. And there's a growing population of successful professionals paying $3,000 to $5,000 in rent every month for the privilege of walking and biking to work and play.

 

 

I found this part particularly interesting. I think it illustrates the problem with the suburban model as a whole, especially as cities get larger. When cities are small, commuting 10-20-even 30 miles isn't such a huge hassle. That usually means 15-45 minutes, depending on proximity to a freeway. But when the city grows larger, the time doubles or even triples. It no longer becomes feasible to spend an hour or two of your time just driving to work. It is exhausting. People will have to look for homes and jobs that are closer together.

 

I think this will ultimately be a good thing for Downtown Nashville, regardless of how much the regional transportation network is improved (assuming the inner city transit network is)...but it will put quite a strain on the farther out suburbs. I do wonder how places like Brentwood will react. Brentwood has a large amount of office space/office workers, and already terrible traffic problems. Obviously as these problems get worse, workers will likely try to find locations closer to work. With Brentwood's long stance against 'dense' development, I wonder how it will play out. They resist even high end multifamily development, and don't seem to want to end the one house, one acre policy that they have had for so long. The Davidson County side is a lot more built up, but only has a couple of access points to the office buildings. Lots of people commute from Rutherford County as it is. Eventually, I see the situation coming to a head, with either Brentwood having to cave and allow office workers to live close to where they work (ones that can't afford large lot houses), or the office space becoming less desirable to tenants because of the strain put on workers commuting. Cool Springs, on the other hand, seems to be addressing the issue by building more dense residential development in much closer proximity to work. In the end, I think that will be the right choice for the suburban model.

 

It remains to be seen how other areas will be affected...such as places with lots of industrial jobs (like Rutherford County). I would imagine the employment areas will ultimately determine what type of residents live in the area....white collar residents near white collar centers...blue collar residents near blue collar centers. It's already happened to a degree...but I think the worker segregation will be more pronounced in the future.

Edited by UTgrad09
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...So I find it interesting, indeed, that the state of Texas would be as proactively involved in an LRT proposal for its capital city, as the article implies (or as one might infer).  While not necessarily related, this is particularly unusual for conservative regions which, in the distant past, had been bastions of ethnic separation (primarily southern and south central heartland).  Again, I have no knowledge of the extents of any state-supported transit-oriented initiatives, except to say that at least a few state governments are known for their comparatively liberal subsidy for commuter rail (railroad type service, as opposed to LRT).

 

 

Please forgive me for suggesting that a historically being associated with "ethnic separation" has had any bearing, whatsoever, on the receptiveness and actions of a state- or a local government toward the long-term transit needs of a region.  To better qualify my statement, the fact is that hundreds of mid-sized cities potentially are subject to becoming hell-holes of crawling rubber like Austin.  Whether Cincinnati, Des Moines, Raleigh, Evansville, Indy, Louisville, Charlotte, New Haven, or OK City – capital city or not – the rampant growth of population and commercial hubs and “nodes” which the Interstate highway system “fertilized” and fostered during the past 50 years, after displacing rail as a primary conveyance, can be attributed in large part to climate and job market dynamics.

 

Of additional interest to me,

 

"I thought that about five or six years ago. I was really looking for someplace else to go. I felt like everybody's driving a [Porsche] Boxster and wearing a Rolex, and I don't relate to this population," Scofield says. "But I couldn't think of any place. Because I want this kind of — the attitude, the political mindset, the social mindset, but I also want warm weather."

[Amy] Scofield calls this "the velvet rut" of Austin. It is shared by many here, and that's the problem in a nutshell: not enough leaving, plenty more coming, and nobody, old or new, wanting a fleet of bulldozers plowing up their pretty city.

 

 

Liberalism historically has tended to be strongest in North, Northeastern and West Coast centers, where public-sector unions, high taxes and heavy regulations may translate into fewer private-sector jobs.  In southern locales, with typically lower taxes and lighter regulations, employment has tended grown faster.  So what might this be compared to?  I call it an “algal bloom” syndrome of urbanization. A combination of optimum factors, such as the presence of various combinations of “good rich nutrients” and warm temperatures, are all conducive to these surges.  And just like algal blooms, the number of “non-leaving and more coming” in these urban cultures will increase exponentially, until one of these essential nutrients is exhausted.

 

This is what puts faster growing Austin and Charlotte in marked contrast to New Haven and Toledo, in this day and age.  None of this has anything to do with historically past ethnic separation or diversity, as it most like had during the first half of the 20th century, during mass migrations from the south to the more liberal, less agrarian North and Far West.  This “glacier” of “reverse” migration in the South has borne no barriers to ethnicity or, social origin.  In conclusion then, my suggestion of a correlation between past ethnic separation and a state government’s being more or less predisposed to subsidize urban rail transit in its capital city, is without foundation.  The only observed reference to any such past could be related only to the fact that the South and the North have undergone somewhat of an exchange in growth-rate trends.

 

Perhaps it’s the overall nature of conservative mindset which can be held culpable in apathy to and not claiming accountability to alternative urban transportation needs, even long after it has become too late.   The State of Tenn. certainly has exclaimed its budget priorities otherwise toward non-transit commitments, since to defer to one city’s requests would lead to similar requests from other cities.

 

As timmay had spoofed an early November press statement:

 

“Oh nooooooo, not mass transit everywhere!!!!

 

"If we do something like this for Nashville, we're going to have projects pop up in Memphis, Knoxville, etc."

 

Edited by rookzie
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm surprised that no one has yet harped on this:

 

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2013312220101

 

The Tennessean  -  Dec. 22, 2013

Project Raises AMP Questions

 

HCA has changed its headquarters site for two subsidiaries to the North Gulch from Midtown, calling into question whether the move from West End Avenue will affect the path of the proposed bus rapid transit project called the Amp..... The HCA project is expected to bring more than 2,000 jobs to the area, and when slated for West End....

 

[Metro Councilman Charlie Tygard]...“Certainly HCA’s density and the expected development around that would be another argument as to why Charlotte is a better route than West End and would probably face far less opposition,” he said. “I have not yet been sold on the virtues of the Amp at the West End location. There is too much opposition.”

While the former location may have enhanced the Amp’s chances of success, Councilwoman Emily Evans said HCA’s location shift is not likely to affect the project’s feasibility.  “The bigger question that will have to be answered if it moves to Charlotte is if there is enough ridership, density, population, etc. ” she said. “This is a nice project, but it isn’t going to make or break any one mass transit decision.”

 

 

May have some "leverage" in a "quasi-Charlotte" corridor ─ maybe not.  It certainly will "keep the stew from sticking at the bottom of the pot".

 

-=ricky-roox=-

Edited by rookzie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charlotte Ave/Pike is not w/o issues, though.  Primarily, the fact that the city never widened the thoroughfare, as it should have many years ago, particularly a short distance west of White Bridge and at about the 5900 block, just east of Lellyett St., where 4 lanes narrows to two with a center turn lane.  This may not be necessarily a problem, per se, since the current West End - Harding Rd. route would end (for the time being) near the White Bridge north-south latitude.

 

But other more easterly sections of Charlotte closer toward town do pose a capacity problem, such as the stretch between the 5300 block (Morrow Rd.) and the 4000 block (40th Ave and the CSX industrial team track RR X-ing) and between the 3700 and 3300 blocks.  Charlotte has become one of the worst nightmares, if one has ever been caught on it westbound in the early evening, and that's not counting the Richland-Creek-to-White-Bridge section (west of Saint Anne Catholic Church School).  With no turn lanes in some of the most critical sections, including a school zone at 37th Ave., the Charlotte roadway infrastructure has been long neglected (as US 70) to the extent that some major makeover will be needed to accommodate any dedicated lane busway or railway, as it is now.  Except for locals of course, Charlotte basically has turned into a bypass throughway for those wanting to avoid Harding Rd and I-40, since no additional through parallel passage is provided south of it (Macabe Pk and Greenway) or north of it (the "Nations", Centennial- and Cockrill Bend Blvds.).  Locals long ago have maxed out at Urbandale- and Robertson Avenues, 63rd- and James Ave (via Centennial Blvd), American Rd, and Annex Ave., just to slither and weasel themselves past the hell-holes of Charlotte (only to have to rejoin it somewhere).   (this points to a problem mentioned months ago ─ not enough bridges across the rivers, the highways, or the railways, but especially the river).

 

But potentially much can be gained with a properly conceived and engineered RT along Charlotte.  If planners get the wax out of their ears, and find ways to divert from their common "incestuous" ways of thinking, then a mini-hub for E-W Charlotte and the relatively new 28th-31st Ave N-S local (MTA Nº 21 University Connector), then a future expanded N-S route (perhaps numbered "51" [Fifty-One] as a BRT-lite, just might "light" up that sector of town.  If the current E-W connector plan would end up being diverted from West End (just per chance), then Vandy still could be served by the N-S connector, as it is already, just a short span from an E-W along Charlotte.  (the MTA numbering system for so-called "BRT" appears to be the digit "5" and the last digit of the route number for existing local service.)

 

 

In any event, much yet unplanned work would be needed for a re-routing of a dedicated-lane BRT (or dedicated "anything") along Charlotte.  In the very distant long run, some RT route paths likely will need to overlap each other, including along Broadway and West End (say, from Murphy Rd to 46th), given the radial layout of the city.  The recent HCA proposal and decision will not be the last one to "parameterize" where RT likely can be sustained, and along that line of reasoning any long-term plan for a networked rapid transit will need to be started and implemented without delay, with provisions to expand as warranted in the distant future.

 

One thing in favor for Charlotte in the near term, as was announced in the news late last summer, is the MTA's intention to begin a BRT-lite along Charlotte, beginning next April (if MTA does not renege on its announcement), to be followed with a new BRT-lite along Nolensville Rd. (perhaps supplementing the current Nº12 with a Nº52).  Implemented to be half-way decent, the new Charlotte BRT-lite (at least to the current MTA terminus at Wal-Mart - Lowes, near River Rd.) can go far in piped connections from the developing commercialized and established residential enclaves of West Nashv'l (north Hillwood, Charlotte Park, Croleywood, the Nations, Sylvan Park, and Clifton-McKissack with the northern edge of the midtown medical district, HCA and downtown-CBU.

 

And so back to ground-zero, with no RT currently in place, it's a matter of what will end up defining the first RT, the problem in the first place, since everyone, either does not want the first RT (in the form of a BRT), or they all want the first RT to serve their own foxhole.  But it's too late to be waiting for capricious corporate decisions to evolve into some recognizable hotspot ─ Charlotte or Broadway.

Edited by rookzie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even though that map is kind of hard to decipher, it still makes me excited to see what might be.

 

If I were king of Nashville, I'd have a light rail line going from the airport to downtown, too, which I don't see on the map, as well as to Opryland.

 

And even though I tend to agree with Marsha Blackburn on many things, I think she is way off about state funding (or not funding) the AMP.  Her excuse is that the AMP will benefit just a small part of the state.  Well, isn't that the case with any transportation project that the state funds?

 

I've lived in many cities around the world, including many in the U.S. that have great public transportation networks. If Nashville wants to be more attractive to the younger generation of entrepreneurs, we really need to ratchet up the public transportation system.  Widening roads and building new highways ad nauseum isn't the answer. 

 

Anyway, I've been lurking around here for months (introduced to this awesome forum by UTgrad09) and finally was able to register.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to the forum!

 

I second light rail running from BNA and Opryland.  Both lines would come with built in ridership that has no preconceived notions about how to travel around town.  This would also be a huge benefit to anyone who lives in or around downtown that travels frequently.  It would be nice to be able to walk out the front door and get on the Green Circuit or the Amp, take it to riverfront, then take LR to BNA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the welcome!  This seems like a fun forum.  Glad to see I'm not the only city planning geek out there.  When I was a kid, my friends were drawing pictures of explosions and fighter planes while I was drawing pictures of cities and street grids.

 

Anyway, yeah Nashville needs light rail.  I think BRT is a big step in the right direction, but unless it's made to look radically different from a regular bus, people are going to assign the same stigma to it that they give regular buses.  Salt Lake City, which never had that much traffic (its street layout is brilliant) still has a fantastic streetcar network that's being extended all the time.  A visitor to SLC has almost no need to drive anymore.  And Utah is even more conservative than TN.  I don't get it.  Maybe it's because the whole state of Utah wants SLC to thrive, whereas many Tennesseans in other parts of the state don't want to see Nashville succeed?  I don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nashville currently has an express MTA bus that runs between downtown and the airport.  It's $1.70, runs express fairly frequently, includes luggage racks, and when I take it, I am one of the few onboard.    It's a great service and is certainly cheaper and less time consuming than a taxi.  The last time I took the Airport Express, the MTA dispatcher let the driver know about an accident on I-40, so the driver took an exit and was routed around some city streets to avoid the I-40 delay, and we got downtown on time as scheduled.  That's what I call service!

 

Still, there will be no airport BRT, let alone light rail, until that bus utilization shoots up.

Even though that map is kind of hard to decipher, it still makes me excited to see what might be.

 

If I were king of Nashville, I'd have a light rail line going from the airport to downtown, too, which I don't see on the map, as well as to Opryland.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

less time consuming than a taxi. 

 

That can't be true. Even if you lived at Capitol Towers and walked to the bus station, got on the bus as it was pulling out, it would still take longer than having a taxi pick you up at Capitol Towers.  For me, on the No. 7 route, I'd have to catch the bus to downtown and then switch.  The $25 flat fee from mid-town is worth the convenience; and is considerably quicker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah there definitely is a stigma to taking the bus, even if it's economical and quick.  But again I'm going to use SLC as a model.  Hardly anyone used UTA's express buses from the airport to downtown SLC, either, but it didn't stop them from extending TRAX to the airport.  And now it's wildly successful with 30,000 people using it a week.  The SLC airport line is 6 miles long and has 6 stops.  BNA to downtown Nashville is, what, just shy of 10 miles?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nashville currently has an express MTA bus that runs between downtown and the airport.  It's $1.70, runs express fairly frequently, includes luggage racks, and when I take it, I am one of the few onboard.    It's a great service and is certainly cheaper and less time consuming than a taxi.  The last time I took the Airport Express, the MTA dispatcher let the driver know about an accident on I-40, so the driver took an exit and was routed around some city streets to avoid the I-40 delay, and we got downtown on time as scheduled.  That's what I call service!

 

Still, there will be no airport BRT, let alone light rail, until that bus utilization shoots up.

 

 

That can't be true. Even if you lived at Capitol Towers and walked to the bus station, got on the bus as it was pulling out, it would still take longer than having a taxi pick you up at Capitol Towers.  For me, on the No. 7 route, I'd have to catch the bus to downtown and then switch.  The $25 flat fee from mid-town is worth the convenience; and is considerably quicker.

 

 

Yeah there definitely is a stigma to taking the bus, even if it's economical and quick.  But again I'm going to use SLC as a model.  Hardly anyone used UTA's express buses from the airport to downtown SLC, either, but it didn't stop them from extending TRAX to the airport.  And now it's wildly successful with 30,000 people using it a week.  The SLC airport line is 6 miles long and has 6 stops.  BNA to downtown Nashville is, what, just shy of 10 miles?

 

 

yes, greetings, jmtuna---.  Your joining makes me feel not so "young" anymore (as a lurker turned active).

 

I agree with you in the need for Nashv'l to be more reasonably objective and pro-active in long-term transitplanning.  Even when that map proposal was released, it appears to have been clearly a hugh oversight to have have omitted LRT from the airport.  Any promising city ─ Nashville, Charlotte, ad infinitum ─ always should inject that into long-range plans, even if an actual implementation gets tabled until 15 or 25 years later.  While we may never see LRT to this airport (at least within my expected lifespan), planners still should not be so blind as not to factor it into a schema.  Cleveland-Hopkins Int'l connected long before airport rail became in vogue, and others of all sizes either have followed suit or have planned such, during the last 50 years.

 

As far as the MTA airport express is concerned. it's attractiveness as a viable alternative hinges on its accessibility.  If it's not readily available (not within central proximity for most would-be boarders), then it's just another 2nd-class bus.  But for downtown workers like me, it can work well, within a constrained set of circumstances.  Last February 21, I rode the bus to work downtown (as usual) with my suitcase.  At 3:30, I scooted from my building a block away from the terminal and boarded Nº18, which at that point during the day was an express.  Indeed it did do a better job of dumping me off at the airport than I could have done so myself or with another driver, even on that outdated segment of I40-I24, among the oldest portions of the freeway, during the mid-afternoon rush.  I was able to get shuttled to the plane concourse, without having to drive and park at the economy lot and then ride stop-and-go for 6 or eight times before the parking shuttle would reach the terminal.

 

I realize that I just happened to have been an exception.  Otherwise, I never would have ridden the bus to the airport.  With an LRT, I could be assured that many multiples of me would think twice about taking a taxi, even here.

 

Airport LRT connectivity should not be secondary in the long-range plans, particularly given the fact that most travelers who don't drive here will be flying or taking Greyhound.  Where the Greyhound terminal is now, it makes beau-coup sense to plan something along Lafayette St - M'boro Pike in the form of LRT.  If the city ever gets a return of Amtrak, then that same could benefit a depot ─ perhaps a combined Amtrak- Greyhound terminal, somewhere down the line.

 

Sensible transit planning starts with sitting down and interacting with the people, and an airport LRT should not be pushed under the rug.  As an oversimplified analogy; no one really wants another Mapco, Circle-K, or 7-Eleven convenience store. (or do they?)  But some empty beer cans thrown in the weeds on an empty field, I guarantee you, will sprout a new convenience venue, drawing in all kinds of people from all walks of life (as well as traffic congestion).  It might appear unwanted, but it will end up getting utilized.  Basically, people tend to vote against anything for which a proclaimed "demand" has been perceived and proposed.  They generally, sooner or later, "take" to it, once in place.

 

-=ricky-roox=-

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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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

Important Information

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