The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread

[MLBrumby]

The thing I like about my proposed BRT/LRT route encircling downtown and midtown is that it leaves Beaman's property out in the cold with no line running past it.   I believe sooner than later, the property values of sites adjacent to the line will actually rise faster than other sites farther away.  I know ...  I know... as long as his property is a car dealership, he probably doesn't care a whit.

Edited January 25, 2014 by MLBrumby

[smeagolsfree]

Only problem with stopping at 440 is this now that I look at the big picture. There is no parking where the AMP would end if it ended at 440. That is why they are planning a large park and ride facility close to St Thomas. There will probably be one on the East end as well but not sure where as I have not gone to any of the meetings. Maybe someone can chime in. There has to be a park and ride option otherwise it sort of defeats the purpose of the AMP. If it works the way it should, it will force people to use it and stay off of West End. Traffic is not going to get any better without it, so I say stuff it down the Westenders throat and let them suffer. They either use it stay stuck in traffic. The folks over in Belle Meade had the option of joining Metro and they refused, so they should not have a say in anything that happens in Metro.

[MLBrumby]

And I'll add that Nashville is projected to have around 700,000 citizens by 2020.  Given the distribution of that many people in the valley, that's a lot of people without rapid transit options. 

[nashvillwill]

Only problem with stopping at 440 is this now that I look at the big picture. There is no parking where the AMP would end if it ended at 440. That is why they are planning a large park and ride facility close to St Thomas. There will probably be one on the East end as well but not sure where as I have not gone to any of the meetings. Maybe someone can chime in. There has to be a park and ride option otherwise it sort of defeats the purpose of the AMP. If it works the way it should, it will force people to use it and stay off of West End.

I've got to disagree with this. I've said from the initial planning stages that I thought having a park and ride was a waste of money. This is not commuter rail! This is LRT with wheels. Think about it. Let's say you live 5 miles west of St. Thomas and need to go to Midtown or Downtown. With AMP in place you have two options.

A.) Drive the additional 10 or so miles, which in heavy traffic, may take 25 min. Then you have to park at your destination which cost $8-15.

B.) Park and transfer to AMP. Wait the five minutes or so for the next "train". Then include ride time of 10-15 min. Cost will probably be $5 each way. For a total of $10.

The time is a wash. The cash savings is minimal. It requires people to get out of the sanctuary of their car and stand on a hot/cold/wet platform and be forced to mingle with "those people".

Don't get me wrong. I absolutely support transit and The AMP. But I think the focus of this system needs to be towards the people who will actually use it. That is, the people who are within reasonable walking distance on each end of the system. Do you think once the AMP is built that Mrs. "those people" will just throw up her hands and say "I guess I HAVE to use it now"? No, she won't. In fact, she's absolutely right. The AMP WILL be a burden to her, because she's already decided never to use it. Smeaglosfree, you said "if it works right, it will force people to use it". You know as well as I do, that in America, you can't force anyone to do anything. In fact, the more people feel pressured, the more they resist, which is exactly why this topic has become so hot at the 11th hour.

Again, this is NOT commuter rail. This is rapid transit for high density. If metro and MTA are counting on people abandoning their cars for this, I'm afraid it's destined to fail. They should be focusing on the people that are clawing for an alternative. And that is the people of midtown, downtown, Capitol Hill and the 5 Points area (and perhaps further down Gallatin Rd.).

The bottom line is that I'm afraid many Nashvillians (officials included) don't understand what this is or even what the purpose is supposed to be.

I support the AMP, but I have to agree that it should stop at 440. West of that, it's not needed/wanted, nor is it appropriate use of transit in low density, and it will not be successful (beyond 440).

Trust me. I want the AMP to happen! But I think the powers that be need to take a SERIOUS second look at what they are trying to accomplish, what the people want, AND ADJUST ACCORDINGLY. Otherwise, they will end up proving their detractors right.

Edited January 25, 2014 by nashvillwill

[nashvylle]

stop the dedicated lanes at 440 and have The Amp be BRT Lite from 440 to St Thomas. The BRT Lite buses can the technology to keep the lights green as they approach. 

[gannman]

stop the dedicated lanes at 440 and have The Amp be BRT Lite from 440 to St Thomas. The BRT Lite buses can the technology to keep the lights green as they approach. 

 

Having the ability to turn lights green won't help much during peak hours. The BRT Lite section would throw the entire route off schedule, making it unreliable. P

[TnNative]

I just used Lyft for the first time, and I highly recommend it for anyone needing a ride. I used it to catch a ride from Metrocenter to Edgehill Village, and the suggested payment was $11. Not bad at all. Also, if you download the app now you get $500 credit to be used within two weeks of downloading it. It is all app based and there is no cash needed. Once you request the ride you can watch your driver get closer, so you know when to expect them.

While it isn't mass transit it will definitely make living in Nashville without a car easier. The driver said it has been used more than they ever thought it would and that they needed additional capacity. This is evidenced by the fact that there are many notices that there are no available drivers.

While its free definitely give it a shot and see how you like it.

 

Apologies for going off the current topic. I used Lyft for the first time last night. Really good experience. A car arrived at our house within 4 minutes. The driver took my wife and I to a house in Whites Creek. When it was time to leave, another driver arrived in about 15 minutes to pick us up. We were using an introduction membership promo, but I'm guessing it would have been at least 15$ to $20 cheaper than a cab (including both ways). You know what your fare is before getting into the car, and also with the elimination of cash as payment, it cuts down on possible sketchy scenarios with the driver and with the driver's customers.

Edited January 27, 2014 by TnNative

[rookzie]

Having the ability to turn lights green won't help much during peak hours. The BRT Lite section would throw the entire route off schedule, making it unreliable. P

 

All of "you's peoples" [LoL]  ̶  every last one of you  ̶  have poured a lot of "beef" in comments during the last two days of "resumed" discourse.

 

Rather than directly agree or otherwise, a couple of you have presented a deeper analysis of what I had alluded to several months ago, in comparing the operation of streetcar/BRT to a streetcar/LRT mix along a western corridor.  I (as briefly as I could) made a distinction in the definition of terms, and without splitting hairs, I had suggested that the only way any kind of truly potentially beneficial RT along a western corridor could work would be to provide a dedicated AND separated pathway, which means a separated r.o.w  away from the direct vicinity of the West End - Harding Road stretch in subject.  It's much too costly to even engineer now, but it can be envisioned and informally evaluated, without applying for grants or funding.

 

Since nearly all property is no longer obtainable to allow for a separated r.o.w. on the west end, and because there never, ever will be any way to take any by eminent domain (not to say that this ever would be an option), the only prospective consideration of options for moving people THROUGH that portion of town would be to long-range plan in consortium with the existing parallel RR and start from there.  If it can be proven viable to be able to acquire any property whatsoever flanking the RR, then that would prove to be the only foreseeable chance to conceive LRT, even in it's non-purist form (running partially in mixed traffic at some points, typical in other locales).  Again, a very expensive alternative (if one at all), but it's cannot be said to be simply out of reach in the foreseeable future.

 

Right, you really could not operate a reliable BRT dedicated line in conjunction with a BRT lite set-up and be able to maintain headways in heavy mixed traffic during peak, as too many conditions would occur to breach the efficacy of controlled movements.between stops.  Without conferring additional constriction of through-lane movements, even the current array of local stop-and start route movements leaves much to be improved upon.  BRT lite works best when the passage is along a significant span of distance, such as Gallatin and Murfreesboro Roads, and hopefully this coming April with Charlotte and then Nolensville Roads.  They just don't have the distance to effect time savings with limited stops in mixed traffic, compared to local buses, along the relatively short distance from I-440 to White Bridge.  If you cut the AMP to end at 440, then it basically it just that –  cut short.  (That's still not a bad idea, though).  Even with the many local designated stops along that stretch of West End - Harding, during any given time, not all the stops are actually being served by the current MTA N°s 3 and 5.  As far as attracting and maintaining ridership on that stretch is concerned, MTA could lasso in quite a bit more choice riders on that segment, if they would offer a long-since badly needed real-time GIS point-to-point arrival smart-phone app.  Even dressing up current stops with the same real-time LED-displaying micro-shelters as those on the Gallatin- and Murfreesboro Rd.BRTs could go far to define a better presence of the currently offered service, which we hear will be eliminated with the advent of the Connector.

 

Someone correct me if I'm off track, but I believe I remember something about the Main Street (east Nashville) segment of the Connector being run in mixed traffic for a short way west of East Lit. School.  How stable is that for a scheduled runs during school-bus and car swarms around the school? Even though it's only a relatively short distance from 11^th St. to 5^th, it is still subject to future congestion in mixed traffic.

 

“…the main citizen complaint is that while the proposal is said to be 'flexible' (considering it is BRT, not rail), that alternative suggestions have not been considered by this administration.”[UTgrad09]

 

“    powers that be need to take a SERIOUS second look at what they are trying to accomplish, what the people want, AND ADJUST ACCORDINGLY.” [nashvillwill]

 

…there is no guarantee the next mayor will be in favor of mass transit. We could get another Purcell... Especially since a guy could just get elected by wooing the rich stopamp people.” [nashvillwill]

 

"Just because a meeting is held does not mean input is being sought. The overwhelming opposition is coming from West End and Harding Road…. the meetings were publicized and attended but the feedback is being ignored by MTA. ... Dean was checking a box on a list, nothing more. IMO."[nashville_bound]

 

Fueling the fire of debate is the administration's staunch resistance against alignment changes (and/or curtailment), and twice I have concluded that the administration is so fiscally constrained (common phrase used by FTA) in its ability to earmark funding, that it fears that it won't get anything, if the current plan cannot be built in its original entirety (save a couple of changes on the east end and downtown).  As I had stated a while back, it's the top-to-bottom planning of this thing that has irked the West so much, as they appear to feel not having been  include in long-range planning discussion of this proposal (regardless of any previous scheduling of routine public meetings at the start, or whether or not the public had been informed and polled for any serious consideration of input).

 

No, playing the cards on a future administration's favor is like being on the game show Let's Make a Deal, and expecting that the next envelope will be bigger and better than the one in hand.  It was mostly the rich constituency that moshed Dean into office in the first place, not to say that he has not brought in a lot of good for this region (because he has).  The enclaves of the richly endowed, despite party lines, typically wouldn't submit to "wanton" disregard of their main thoroughfares, be it West End, Harding Road, Harding Place/Battery Ln, Bowling, Woodlawn, or even Hillsboro/21^st Ave; or even "high-speed" (50 mph) Franklin Road.  They just won't have it.

 

Don't get me wrong, though, but at least former candidate and party contender Bob Clement, as U.S. Congressman, did help establish the first (and only) commuter rail service in the state here.  During spring 2002(?) he also arranged publicity for a visit of an Amtrak Superliner (bi-level) intercity passenger train, which was brought down from Indianapolis and placed on exhibition at Union Station, in a failed effort to woo support for restoring such service to the region.  What might have happened had Clement been elected as mayor in Sept. 2007?  We just might have ended up with a regretful one or two terms.  We just cannot say what we would have had, or what we will be having at the end of this current term.  But not expecting a re-focused effort by the next administration does not mean that the city will just "settle" now for whatever it can get in "edgewise" for transit.  We only have a year and a half remaining of the present term of administration, and who can analyze and make conjecture on the political platforms of the top three current expected-to-be candidates, in terms of transit?

 

-=ricky-roox=-

 

[Rockatansky]

I think the main citizen complaint is that while the proposal is said to be 'flexible' (considering it is BRT, not rail), that alternative suggestions have not been considered by this administration.

But MTA has been flexible. They changed the route downtown and made the East Nashville portion an integral part of the project (rather than being a later phase). Just because MTA won't bow to every whim of the West Nashville elite this late in the game doesn't make them inflexible. 

Edited January 28, 2014 by Rockatansky

[BnaBreaker]

Agreed. The only real alternative idea Ive heard is the thought that going down Charlotte instead might be better, which would obviously be something that aims to change the entire complextion of this project, and would basically require a start from scratch. So, to me, just because they arent giving that serious thought doesnt mean they arent flexible.

[MLBrumby]

That's what I'm trying to say/think/comprehend.   Way out of my element, but traffic management is a lot of what you see (either good, bad, or muddling through somewhere in the middle).  So I know certain things won't change very quickly after the start of BRT service down West End... and that is auto traffic.  I don't remember too much about Atlanta before MARTA, but I know that after it opened the spur to Lenox, the volume of vehicle traffic down Peachtree and Piedmont did not decline appreciably.  And within five years it had far exceeded the traffic volume prior to Marta.  So don't expect overnight changes.  Which brings me back to my post above... and the fact that for BRT to succeed out of the gate, it must not attempt to compete with cars.  It needs to serve the community that will live/work/play in the urban core.  To which I say... a BRT loop.  Establish the route via secondary streets, and dedicated where possible... then work on converting to LRT in due time.  I just don't get the obsession with West End. Sorry!

[captainwjm]

change the entire complextion of this project,

 

Unintentional irony.

[12Mouth]

My thought is that BRT without dedicated lanes is simply nice looking BT. This may be fine if we are planning for 3-5 years from now, but I fear that we'll be completely screwed in 20-30 years. Your ridership is going to be limited to transit enthusiasts and/or people who don't have cars. We already have the music city circuit lines running downtown that run loops for free. Why would any rational person pay to take transit which is slower than taking a car? Most people won't - transit ridership generally hits a tipping point exactly where you think it will - when it makes rational sense (cheaper than parking, faster than taking a car, predictable arrivals).

 

The secondary streets will eventually be packed, too. Also, if you think the response on West End was bad, I think you'll multiply it by 100 if you start running mass transit down low density secondary streets. Ask the Richland folks how they'd feel about running the AMP down Cherokee...

 

Also, an interesting related read from a few months back arguing that the data shows traffic is actually reduced or not affected when you remove a lane. Counter-intuitive at the very least, but an interesting discussion...

 

http://bit.ly/1e5kqB1

Edited January 28, 2014 by 12Mouth

[rookzie]

...aims to change the entire complextion of this project, and would basically require a start from scratch. ...

 

...and I did allude to that last point also in a very recent post.  They (Metro) already spent a million and some odd $ (maybe much more; haven't bothered to check again), on just the last formal study alone by Parsons-Brinckerhoff, not to mention the evals done during the early 2000's on a more limited West End corridor.  In the state of being "fiscally constrained", it could prove detrimental to deviate significantly from the "final" FTA alternative analysis, because it definitely would not be without additional funding, for reapplying from the start, no matter who would undertake the effort.

 

Unfortunately, that might (but not necessarily) end up happening, because, if matching financing cannot be obtained to offset the expectations from the state coffers (but I do believe that the mayor would levy some "magic"), then there exists the danger in the not-too-distant future that too much time eventually may have elapsed, effectively rendering the current provisional FTA award as having defaulted.

 

So now, unintended consequences is pitted against a vicious circle, in the form of a multi-balancing act against the clock...

 

 

BNAbreaker

 

.aims to change the entire complextion of this project

 

Unintentional irony.

Yeah, it was a funny "edgewise" pun, wasn't it. (quite on time, at that!!)

[Neigeville2]

... - transit ridership generally hits a tipping point exactly where you think it will - when it makes rational sense (cheaper than parking, faster than taking a car, predictable arrivals)....

 

 

 

I think Nashville is further from that tipping point than we might think.  For one thing, the frequency of headways, the ability to make connections, and general safety and comfort, are certainly bigger factors than whether it's faster than a car.  From door to door, it's unlikely to ever be faster than a car for most people.  

 

Most transit trips involve at least one transfer and most begin and end with a walk.  Our arterial bus lines are not frequent enough and there are still too many places in Metro like Elm Hill Pike, where I see bus riders forced to walk in traffic because not only is there no sidewalk, in places heavy vegetation grows all the way to the curb.  Many of us here are transit enthusiasts, but most folks won't use the AMP if the first or final leg of their trip involves risking life and limb.  Or stepping in mud or water.  So there are a lot of improvements to be made all over town before the system can come into its own.

 

Level boarding from a platform through multiple wide doors on the other hand, is huge and I think makes the service much more attractive than curbside buses.  Not just because boardings are faster, but it just feels better for the riders.  You're not cramped and you're not on stage like you are when you enter the one front door, a big issue for inexperienced riders (for whom the AMP will be a great introduction to transit.)

 

One of my main concerns: 15 minutes is a long time to wait.  The main bus lines in Chicago or NYC have headways of a few minutes most of the day-you can just walk out to the corner knowing a bus will be there, no studying schedules, no worries about missing a bus.  I'm not sure the planned frequency on the AMP is actually any greater than the existing service on West End.  This is a problem with the free DT circulators as well; I seldom use them because I'd rather walk than wait. 

 

I also don't think it's as important to be faster than a car as you might think, because mass transit has all kinds of unquantifiable advantages over a car--I'd certainly rather relax and read a book for half an hour than fight traffic for 10 minutes. There's such a feeling of freedom when you step off a bus and into a city street, as opposed to hunting for a parking space, paying, wondering if the car will get broken into, remembering where you parked (yes, I'm old).  Cars are just such a chore to deal with. And you can ride the bus safely even after enjoying a few adult beverages.

 

Anyway, sorry I can't be more concise but my gist is I don't think Nashville is anywhere near that tipping point for a variety of reasons but we've got to start somewhere.  I just hope the AMP isn't blamed for making things worse before we reach that point.  Those people sitting in traffic looking at those two empty lanes (bus every 10-15 minutes) are likely to develop a bad attitude. 

 

It's not counter-intuitive to me that closing lanes would improve traffic, it means that many fewer lane changes for one thing.  Ironically, I think this project with its sidewalk improvements and left turn restrictions will make West End a lot safer and more pleasant for the people who are griping now.

 

[rookzie]

The secondary streets will eventually be packed, too. Also, if you think the response on West End was bad, I think you'll multiply it by 100 if you start running mass transit down low density secondary streets. Ask the Richland folks how they'd feel about running the AMP down Cherokee...

 ...or as I had mentioned earlier this month, even down Murphy to 46^th and/or Nebraska to 51^st.  Not only can the roads not take it without a major widening makeover, but Sylvan Park wouldn't have it without a similar fight either.  Again, it was just a verbal thought offered only as a compromise (even if not a viable option).

_______

 

But that is more of another reason that Metro needs to get the entire spoke-'n'-hub county region to get fully galvanized into open discussion with additional transit master planning.  Most locals are confronted with the same issue of rectilinear co-ordinate mobility, whether a motorist or a transit rider (by choice or by necessity).  But with a spoke-and-hub layout, there exists a disproportionately small amount of rectilinear movement capability in the city as a whole, beyond the grid of the "old" central city, since the Metro county area proper, developed radially along somewhat random appearing private toll roads (pikes) from a relatively pint-sized original corporation limit. The 28^th and 31^st Avenue North extension is the most recent effort in decades that Metro has implemented to help address problems of cross-town passage (although modest).  A less recent effort was the widening and realignment of White Bridge Road away from Kenner Ave. to Woodmont Blvd. (and the abandonment of the original bridge over Richland Creek and the CSX RR), back in the 1980's.

 

Far too few "rims" exist along the spokes (near or far) to accommodate "epi-centric" travel around the region (as opposed to radial), whether one is a motorist or a bus rider.  What could be considered as "rim" roads are at best just "sectors" or "chords".  As it stands now even, without disturbing the secondary streets (any further than they already have been), the currently available cross-roads are far and few, and the few that are "far" (from the center of town) do not pass uninterrupted or without the constraints of the elite (Battery Ln, Harding Pl., Davidson Rd.,...).  We all are aware that at the very best, the only path cross-wise is a zig-zag path, and very little of that infrastructure can effectively be transformed into being able to accommodate both private motor and dedicated RT.

 

We need to start with the E-W Connector, and it needs to be done before it will be too late to be done in its currently approved format.

[12Mouth]

I think Nashville is further from that tipping point than we might think.  For one thing, the frequency of headways, the ability to make connections, and general safety and comfort, are certainly bigger factors than whether it's faster than a car.  From door to door, it's unlikely to ever be faster than a car for most people.  

 

I mostly agree - particularly if we are looking at the next 5 years. Maybe even 10 years. If we don't do anything major (and maybe even if we do do something major), West End is eventually going to be a traffic nightmare. I get what you are saying about connectors secondary roads, and I would personally benefit much more from a loop/connector style bus that connected 12south, the Gulch, Vandy, Belmont, Edgehill Village (I think that these sorts of connectors are essential, as well, and need to be run every ten minutes well into the night).

 

I'm looking at all of this from the perspective of Nashville in 20-30 years, which is why I think the dedicated lanes are very important. Given this, I think that Denver is perhaps a better comparison than Atlanta/MARTA, as we are predicted to be larger than the Denver area currently is in 20 years. They opened their first light rail line in '94, I believe - conveniently 20 years ago. They were already slightly ahead of where we are now, but 20 years later, they have a pretty comprehensive and highly used system with 6 lines. If our transit options consist of (even nice looking) city buses that are unreliable and stuck in traffic, I don't think we will see ridership rise significantly and we will most certainly run into problems way down the road.

 

If eliminating a lane of traffic will not significantly increase traffic and will make our transit system quicker and more reliable, why wouldn't we do it?

[rookzie]

I mostly agree - particularly if we are looking at the next 5 years. Maybe even 10 years. If we don't do anything major (and maybe even if we do do something major), West End is eventually going to be a traffic nightmare. I get what you are saying about connectors secondary roads, and I would personally benefit much more from a loop/connector style bus that connected 12south, the Gulch, Vandy, Belmont, Edgehill Village (I think that these sorts of connectors are essential, as well, and need to be run every ten minutes well into the night).

 

I'm looking at all of this from the perspective of Nashville in 20-30 years, which is why I think the dedicated lanes are very important. Given this, I think that Denver is perhaps a better comparison than Atlanta/MARTA, as we are predicted to be larger than the Denver area currently is in 20 years. They opened their first light rail line in '94, I believe - conveniently 20 years ago. They were already slightly ahead of where we are now, but 20 years later, they have a pretty comprehensive and highly used system with 6 lines. If our transit options consist of (even nice looking) city buses that are unreliable and stuck in traffic, I don't think we will see ridership rise significantly and we will most certainly run into problems way down the road.

 

If eliminating a lane of traffic will not significantly increase traffic and will make our transit system quicker and more reliable, why wouldn't we do it?

 

"...style bus that connected 12south, the Gulch, Vandy, Belmont, Edgehill Village..."

 

Is that where you got your handle from, TwelveMouth?

 

Denver is one o' those centers, the transit systems of which tend to "morph" and transform at a rather accelerated rate of change, not only because the subject region ─ Denver, in your example ─ has had the resources at hand, but also because of the attractiveness of the system features to start.

 

A dedicated-lane BRT goes far in attracting riders, as manifested in nearly all such structures done right, but LRT systems typically and historically have appealed to patrons far more than BRT.  Denver went the way of light rail to start, and once the appeal "caught on" in local popularity, the results were like "fanned flames" and gas on the fire, so to speak, providing that public "turbo" incentive to accept the concept of expansion beyond the initiative.

 

While Nashville has yet to have any kind of real RT, a dedicated lane or two (even if it were to be only a single lane on not-so-wide streets, with a complementary single lane on an adjacent parallel street), can go far to demonstrate the effectiveness in the RT paradigm.  On a much smaller scale, even Urbana-Champaign, IL (MTD) has done this with its buses through part of the UIUC campus, and I used to take that thing with delight, when I was in school there some 11-12 years ago.  My car had to be washed off now and then, because even it couldn't match the convenience of that transit setup (unless of course I had to go for a Friday night black-angus hero at Quiznos).  That "doll-house"-BRT was a rather effective manner of moving herds of people ─ even back then ─ along otherwise what had once been congested, mixed-traffic pavement, into and out of that campus and into the regular urban district.

 

I believe that a dedicated BRT is a perfect jump-start for any network of RT, period, even if what is really needed in the long term cannot be afforded within the foreseeable (LRT).  What we cannot allow ourselves to do is to resign to ogling at other cities which have in place (and keep getting more of) what we don't have (LRT), and to wait for whatever we think that we might be able to afford only in the distant future.  instead we would be well served to take the plunge at the BRT level with restricted lanes.

 

-=ricky-roox=-

Edited January 29, 2014 by rookzie

[12Mouth]

 

"...style bus that connected 12south, the Gulch, Vandy, Belmont, Edgehill Village..."

 

Is that where you got your handle from, TwelveMouth?

 

You are on to me...

 

So, I totally agree with you. I use Denver as an example not to talk about how great light rail is, but to argue in favor of putting the AMP into place now with dedicated lanes from a timing/growth perspective because it is what we can afford at this time. I understand that LRT ridership increases are generally much larger than BRT. Since growth-wise, we'll be about where they are now in 20 years, and because they launched their transit system 20 years ago, I just think that there are some interesting parallels. And on that note of what we can afford...

 

http://bit.ly/1gr76bY

Edited January 29, 2014 by 12Mouth

[rookzie]

You are on to me...

 

So, I totally agree with you. I use Denver as an example not to talk about how great light rail is, but to argue in favor of putting the AMP into place now with dedicated lanes from a timing/growth perspective because it is what we can afford at this time. I understand that LRT ridership increases are generally much larger than BRT. Since growth-wise, we'll be about where they are now in 20 years, and because they launched their transit system 20 years ago, I just think that there are some interesting parallels. And on that note of what we can afford...

 

http://bit.ly/1gr76bY

 

Thanks, 12mouth, and you have been in a far better position to make that time-rated comparison than I, w/r/t Denver and Nashville.

 

Being one of the several locales often used as metrics in gauging Nashville's state of progress, Denver is one of those towns which I'd just hate to have to leave to move to Nashville, after having become accustomed to the Denver RTD (a shame that I feel that way, aint it?).  This is the reason that I fight hard not to allow thoughts on the fruits of Denver, SLC, or Portland [Or.] to beguile focus from what actually can be accomplished here at home, now.

[Rockatansky]

The Scene will be hosting an AMP debate on Wed Feb 12th at 6pm.

 

http://www.nashvillescene.com/nashville/scene-sponsored-event-gathers-amp-opponents-and-advocates-for-public-forum/Content?oid=4052747

[rookzie]

The Scene will be hosting an AMP debate on Wed Feb 12th at 6pm.

 

http://www.nashvillescene.com/nashville/scene-sponsored-event-gathers-amp-opponents-and-advocates-for-public-forum/Content?oid=4052747

 

Thanks,

 

Interesting that this "Entrepreneur Center" mentioned is located within the historic streetcar (trolley) barns.  These things somehow have managed to defy the odds of demolition, long after the streetcars left during the early '40s (although buses soon thereafter, and for an extended period, had once occupied those structures).

 

I wouldn't dare touch that debate, even though I did sign up as Pro-Amp a few months back (to silently express sentiment).  They might end like soccer fans from Philadelphia via Great Britain.  If they even would think that I might be pro or con, I'd get snatched in the torrent onsight, on site.

Edited February 7, 2014 by rookzie

[volsfanwill]

http://roberthartline.com/2014/02/03/the-ghost-town-of-west-end-ave/

 

this showed up in my facebook newsfeed today

what an idiot

[rookzie]

http://roberthartline.com/2014/02/03/the-ghost-town-of-west-end-ave/

 

this showed up in my facebook newsfeed today

what an idiot

 

Opponents nearly always exploit images of a starving child, an emaciated dog, or in this case a bit of creativity for the same intended effect on the inanimate (in this case, the "hostage" is a dilapidated, forlorn mini-"Dodge City") ─ to overdramatize a worst-case imagined scenario.  While on the opposite end of the spectrum, fanatical proponents themselves often utilize "enhanced world" imagery to figurehead their mission (frequently in the form of still renderings and digital animations), it is needless to be said that opponents prey on fear, and people's tendency to become likely swayed by negativism than by optimism.

 

Being oriented toward or against a proposal beyond supported and merited concerns (driveway access, facilitated pedestrian movements,...) generally is out of bounds from rational thinking.  They need to even give opponents a break with that cheese-ball  "for lease" signage superimposed on the store fronts, in that photo.  Evaluation of the results of a proposal (abstract or physical) always must be based on the subjunctive (what-if's), since the results of implementation are always in the future.  Each of the sub-topics enumerated in that opinion are valid and essential elements of deep discussion and analysis (reiterative examination), but typical assessments and conclusions  almost always are subjective and distorted (often graphic) for the sake of emphasis, even when the intent is not necessarily so.

 

The very same reasoning applies equally to evaluations from proponents whose rationale often has failed to incorporate (intentionally or otherwise) best practices of identifying defining and evaluating cause-and-effect (on a parametric basis) of a perceived condition.

 

Had something like the connector already been in place some twenty years ago, the proposal might not have been contested during the lead time prior to that point so passionately, as it is now.  Also, however, the problem would not have been perceived as being as serious as it is now.  Therein lies a paradox.  Those with the worst mobility issues at stake (headed in the direction of becoming critical) are the very ones who would resist it the hardest.  Of course this "mobility issue" as they perceive it, is anything that would constrain the existing facility accommodating motorists only, let alone what grid-lock makes imminently more unmanageable annually.

 

Just let 'em stew in they own roadway misery.  Pray tell that others of us, who do need not rely on passage through the West End of the city, remain vigilant of the dangers or getting stuck in traffic along that stretch.  Then they can be given the autonomy of providing much of the imposed funding of a facility on which they can arrive at some kind of consensus, to extricate themselves from their own traffic jams.  While I'm dead against a do-nothing alternative, I'd say, just let what's going to end up happening actually happen (at which time it will have been beyond too late).

 

-=ricky-roox=-

[timmay143]

http://roberthartline.com/2014/02/03/the-ghost-town-of-west-end-ave/

 

this showed up in my facebook newsfeed today

what an idiot

I understand the opposition.  However, this is a just a rant with no hard facts for bolstering the argument.  Instead, it undermines the opposition's argument.

 

Oh no, difficult left turns. what will we ever do!  What's the difference between a median which might serve as just beautification as opposed to a transit lane which serves more?  Making U-turns is how it is done in FL.  Which is where I will be moving at the end of March, bittersweet .

 

However, typing this out is does pose the question of how this is going to be handled.  I guess in most cases on West End it won't be a problem to bust a block in order to line up with a light so that you can "make a U-turn" or "turn left."  I see where this is a little more of an inconvenience than a simple median where you are still allowed to make a U-turn or turn left since there is no danger of a transit bus coming from behind.  However, we make it work for bike lanes.  Although, a bus is more dangerous to a car than a bicyclist .   I do see where residents at the Harding Rd. stretch would be concerned with people having to turn around in their neighborhood.  But if that area is mostly residents living there, I would imagine they would be the ones turning into the neighborhood anyways.  Also, this stretch, IIRC, is not a dedicated lane for the BRT.  Still, I guess I should take a closer look at this to understand everything going on.  Stressed to the max right now in life!  Not much time for UP for me.