The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread

[Neigeville2]

How is this worse than getting carjacked?  Public transit is as safe or unsafe as the city it serves, it doesn't cause or prevent crime in itself.

[BnaBreaker]

Sidebar.... for those wondering why some West Nashville residents may be wary of having BRT stops at their front door....

 

http://cleveland.cbslocal.com/2014/02/14/knock-that-white-boy-out-arrests-made-after-mob-of-teens-attack-disabled-vet/

 

Oh for gods sake.  Really?  You're really using a single, isolated event in a different city as an argument against BRT?  Just stop.  That is truly ludicrous logic. 

 

'Hey guys!  A rape took place on a sail boat off the coast of The Maldives!  We should probably ban all boats from the city, since boats cause rape!'

Edited February 15, 2014 by BnaBreaker

[timmay143]

Oh for gods sake.  Really?  You're really using a single, isolated event in a different city as an argument against BRT?  Just stop.  That is truly ludicrous logic. 

 

'Hey guys!  A rape took place on a sail boat off the coast of The Maldives!  We should probably ban all boats from the city, since boats cause rape!'

Yeah, one event doesn't equal the sum.  However, I think the point could be made that this is partially what fuels their opposition to transit and the AMP.  I don't think it is right, but I can "understand."

 

Such a roller coaster ride for the AMP.  Not sure what the answer is, if there is even an answer.  I think a dedicated tax revenue (mostly local, state funding can some later once "they" see what MT can or can't provide) for transit is needed for anymore "large" proposals in order to get the ball rolling quicker for MT in Nashville.  Of course, that is a-whole-nother debate as who and where to tax and for what.  A small tax for people who will directly benefit, and/or a whole Davidson Co. tax, and/or a regional tax for things like commuter rail transit.

 

Such a mess.  It will be interesting to see how this turns out.  At any rate, whether this is built or not, it will only be a matter of time before something HAS to be done.  If the AMP doesn't make it, we will see something done eventually.  It just may be frustrating that Nashville seems to be "behind" when it comes to things like this and other "peer" cities.  Some of it has to do with "state legislation" and some local.  Regardless, Nashville has to find a way to work with/around these things.  I really like what Mayor Dean has done, but it now seems it may have been too much, even for him.  Hopefully, the next Mayor will be as "progressive" and continue to pursue MT as a benefit for the city as a whole.

Edited February 15, 2014 by timmay143

[rookzie]

Oh for gods sake.  Really?  You're really using a single, isolated event in a different city as an argument against BRT?  Just stop.  That is truly ludicrous logic. 

 

'Hey guys!  A rape took place on a sail boat off the coast of The Maldives!  We should probably ban all boats from the city, since boats cause rape!'

 

If you read, BnaBreaker, my main point in this refers to the short-sightedness in "those other people" in the West End ─ not representative of the whole, but those whom you recall have been vocally discriminatory.  I believe what Nashville_bound had in mind was that the reference could become fodder for Ms. "Those People" as you and others have referred to in the past.

 

"But this could not have occurred at a worse point in time ongoing debate here in Nashville.  In truth, though, I don't believe that this incident will hold any testimony against construction of the AMP ─ none whatsoever (possibly a moot matter at this point in time)."

 

I say the issue about the MTA with experience, because, (and as Neigeville has stated) public transit safety is related to the emphasis on such provided by the city (and the agency).  I have experienced first-hand some acts violence at MCCentral during the last 6 years.   While it's not isolated to any one city or to any specific sector, indeed more could be done to minimize the probability of escape by perpetrators with many occurrences by investing in surveillance equipment, upgrading and expanding what currently is in place, and at least attempibgt to follow practices in other cities.

 

I'm not stating that nothing whatsoever is being done to keep a handle on things, but I do know that what from what I have experienced on some of these coaches, more focus justifiably could be placed on managing passengers with outspoken behavior ─ more than what I have seen done on some coach routes.  When an incident does occur, the driver has the discretion of taking action or not.  Quite often the driver ignores the matter in hope that it will simply dissipate and go away.  I've seen this occur a number of times, before the rider of concern got off the bus unprompted (or I myself got off the bus at my own stop).  In policy, the driver can request that the "agitated" or "disturbing" passenger leave the bus and wait for a succeeding bus.  If the passenger chooses to remain on the bus, the driver can call the supervisor and wait idle until the supervisor arrives, which may take up to 20 minutes or more, before the matter is deferred to other hands.  In the meantime, the matter very well could have become escalated, whether it actually does or not.

 

I realize that these "isolations" can occur on US Airways, at Reagan National, or at the Courthouse Square.  Just as with everything else that would require some action with the transit agency, these things have to be funded, and unless those in charge perceive any problem, then nothing likely will be changed behind the scenes, and unless some alarming publicity develops with the news media.  No one has said or implied one way of the other what details of surveillance and safety would be integrated with the AMP project, and we all assume that the matter has been given sufficient consideration in terms of staffing, operating rules, and costs.  While not germane to the article on the incident in Cleveland, any kind of expansion brings with it some growing pains, and public safety related expenditures and operations should not be disproportionately incorporated into the formula.

 

As an aside, both the city of Nashville and the MTA have been remiss in not addressing pedestrian safety and fatality incidents which have occurred at least 5 times during the last 3 years along Charlotte Ave. at the intersections of 4^th and 5^thAvenues.  Some have involved motorcars, while most involved people run over by buses.  An additional statistic almost became me on my birthday of 2 years ago, when the Nº23 Dickerson Road bus turned into my path at the crosswalk with out even slowing down.  The driver of that bus appeared to have deliberately begun to negotiate a right turn on red, in spite of my presence in the walkway.  Not believing what I was experiencing, I turned toward the direction from which the bus was turning (into my path), and just in time decided to make a run for it, as the rear door brushed against my body, just before those right-rear duallies would have made a mince pie of me.  There were witnesses.  I filed a complaint after having received the royal run-around from at least 3 staffers, including the MNPD itself.  I never received any acknowledgment or followup.  I even appealed by e-mail to WSMV Jeremy Finley, who had aired twice previously the shortcomings of MTA's questionable handling of drivers involved with running over people (some even on a sidewalk).  Jeremy responded to my detailed account of what had happened earlier that afternoon.  He concurred that safety at those intersections at and near the vicinity of the MCC were problematic and warranted continuous surveillance monitoring, similar to that placed in other locations along lower parts of lower Broadway.  He thanked my for my written discussion and hoped to use it in some future investigation involving the matter of interest, but he concluded by stating that until another fatality does occur, then absolutely nothing will ever become of a complaint. (so maybe next time, I can only hope beforehand that my survivors will push it to to the limit)

 

As far as surveillance is concerned, I would hope that the engineers would take in consideration the risk-factor hot spots of the interaction of parking garages, pedestrians, and motorists with which the BRT infrastructure must interact, including all intersections.  I don't know how Cleveland, Boston, or Eugene do it, but I would think that each of these locales has in place some network of observing the interaction of all these factors.  Not to focus on crime, but to observe issues which inevitably will involve collision with non-transit vehicles, prompting eventual incident intervention and possibly temporary disruption of service.  In my mind I don't see an articulated coach pulling over to the right lane on West End Avenue following a collision with an SUV until the cops arrive.  If the busways are constructed with a barrier or a shallow sunken pathway to separate the busway lanes from motorists, then coaches of course can detour around an incident.  I do know that engineers already must have some contingency and preparedness plans in place to deal with those matters.  Perhaps coaches will be equipped with an onboard signaling system similar to that for HRT and LRT, which displays signal color aspects to assist drivers in maintaining a safe distance from a preceding coach.

 

With any kind of "free-flow" movement operation which must share some points in mixed traffic (such as perhaps along a short stretch in East Nashville and at traffic cross points [and, of course, downtown]), and whether BRT, LRT, or SC, I would think that live monitoring of these "clash" hotspots would provide means for learning how to improve matters for minimizing probability of motorist incidents as time passes.

[Guest]

Look jerk-off I did not say this was MY argument against BRT! If you read the damn thread you will see that CRIME is ONE of MANY reasons SOME residents along the RESIDENTIAL portion of West End/Harding are against the AMP. I did not bring up the issue I am showing that there is a VALID concern that should not be dismissed so casually by those that DO NOT live along the route.

Any mode of transportation that allows for easier movement of the population (I assume that is why they want to build the AMP) can bring in the 'good' and the 'bad' element. So to answer you twisted logic, NO, a sailboat will probably not cause a rape but a water taxi can afford mobility to a person intent on raping.




 

Oh for gods sake.  Really?  You're really using a single, isolated event in a different city as an argument against BRT?  Just stop.  That is truly ludicrous logic. 

 

'Hey guys!  A rape took place on a sail boat off the coast of The Maldives!  We should probably ban all boats from the city, since boats cause rape!'

[FrankNash]

A poll was taken a week or two ago about the need for the AMP.  70% of Metro are in favor of this.  I think it will come down to the city having to cover the 30 million the state won't pay. Now is the time to make this happen!

[Guest]

Dean has lost the momentum, Metro does not have 30M in extra $$, no dedicated funding identified... My bet: if BRT moves forward it has much more BRT 'lite' components and less dedicated lanes/stations.

[FrankNash]

The AMP is still in the design process. We will know more after March 15th. The city has many options to make this a go, but not without the 75 million from the Feds. Dean has always said that the 75 had to be part of the project no matter what. We will get the Feds money and the city will make up the rest.

[BnaBreaker]

Look jerk-off I did not say this was MY argument against BRT! If you read the damn thread you will see that CRIME is ONE of MANY reasons SOME residents along the RESIDENTIAL portion of West End/Harding are against the AMP. I did not bring up the issue I am showing that there is a VALID concern that should not be dismissed so casually by those that DO NOT live along the route.

Any mode of transportation that allows for easier movement of the population (I assume that is why they want to build the AMP) can bring in the 'good' and the 'bad' element. So to answer you twisted logic, NO, a sailboat will probably not cause a rape but a water taxi can afford mobility to a person intent on raping.

 

 

LOL!  Jerk off?  Seriously?  What are you, twelve years old?  It's odd that you felt the need to resort to name calling in the first place, but even odder seeing as how your 'correction' of me basically just validated my reaction, as far as I can tell.  As you stated, in your mind, a single isolated incident in another city that happened to take place on a BRT system, completely validates the fears of those who think that BRT in Nashville will increase crime in their neighborhoods.  You say that it's not your idea, but then you say it's a completely valid idea that should be taken seriously.  If I misunderstood your position then I apologize, but at least from where I sit, you're making it awfully difficult to see any distinction.

Edited February 16, 2014 by BnaBreaker

[UTgrad09]

Simma down and let's not let this get personal.

[Guest]

Ha, Juvenile?  name-calling by a 12-year old? Maybe, but your post was so infantile (rape by a sailboat!?!?##/ Yes that is exactly what the article/I said) that I am not sure of your age and thus I did not want to use language that was too colorful ... my description of your reaction to my post was accurate enough. If you are not suitably impressed, please PM me and I can satisfy your curiosity on my extensive repertoire of insults. (Note: I would rather not interact with you after this reply.)

Personal? Well reposting a article is not very 'personal', but the great AMP debate is personal because I live and work a block off the route, my childrens' schools are on the Harding segment, and I have dozens of friends along the corridor that will be 'personally' impacted. I have read for 18 months as many on this board spew jingoistic-like attacks (Rookiez being the most notable exception.... thank you of your informed, well-reasoned posts) simply because many along the route do not support a petty mass-tranist proposal that will impact me/them... unlike most of the commenters on this board.

Personal? I do have a personal view on the AMP, mass-tranisit, on crime, on race relations, on most things...

Do I believe building a road into a forested area will bring more crime? Yes I do.

Do I believe that the AMP will bring more crime into Downtown, West End, Richland, Whitland, Cherokee? Yes I do.

Do I believe that a light-rail line would bring even more crime? Yes I do...Common-sense really.

Does this make me against every mass-transit proposal? No it does not.

Do I believe it should be acknowledged and accounted for? Yes I do.

Do I believe the road, the bus, the train are responsible if some rape, robbery, murder, abduction, home-invasion should occur? Wait for it.... wait for it.... NO I do not! Just as I believe a gun is not responsible for killing anyone. However, it does not make it any less of a threat? It should be acknowledged, and addressed via discussion and planning. Your attempt to dismiss its existence does not make the threat any less real.

Increased crime is but one in a long list of legitimate objections to the AMP project. What is this administration's plan to deal with the increase crime threat? More cameras? More foot-patrols/undercover bus riders (ha)? Perhaps starting a community crime watch program in the areas? {Chirp} {Chirp}

So to recap... if the AMP is implemented the residents along the West End/Harding can expect increased crime, more congestion, higher taxes, and you wonder why some that have stayed in Nashville and invested millions in businesses and homes my be concerned? ha, keep up the insulting indifference on their legitimate concerns and Davidson Co. may succeed only in driving more of its tax-base into Williamson County.

I do not wish this to be the case. I want my family to continue to live downtown and help this city reach its full potential... I will strive to make this a reality in the echo-chamber this board is quickly becoming and by talking with my co-workers, neighbors and friends.

G'Day

Edited February 16, 2014 by Guest

[Paramount747]

Not sure how accurate it is that crime will go up. Perry March murdered his Belle Meade wife without riding public transportation! The mere fact the Nashville population has grown indicates crime may go up, however Nashville's murder rate is at a 5 year low.

 

Not sure what else to say, so I will leave it here, but many, not all, of the West End, Belle Meade, St. Henry, Hillwood  crowd have seemed to not identify themselves as Nashvillian's for years. They pride themselves in being apart from the city. I know many in the area that don't go to downtown unless it's a ride on I-40 to the airport to catch their plane to Tahiti.

 

However, if Belle Meade indeed is anti-AMP, maybe Metro should not help them with fire and police when asked. If they are truly the City Of Belle Meade, let them fend for themselves with ALL services, and not just pic and choose what Metro Services they are willing to accept.

[BnaBreaker]

Ha, Juvenile?  name-calling by a 12-year old? Maybe, but your post was so infantile (rape by a sailboat!?!?##/ Yes that is exactly what the article/I said) that I am not sure of your age and thus I did not want to use language that was too colorful ... my description of your reaction to my post was accurate enough. If you are not suitably impressed, please PM me and I can satisfy your curiosity on my extensive repertoire of insults. (Note: I would rather not interact with you after this reply.)

Personal? Well reposting a article is not very 'personal', but the great AMP debate is personal because I live and work a block off the route, my childrens' schools are on the Harding segment, and I have dozens of friends along the corridor that will be 'personally' impacted. I have read for 18 months as many on this board spew jingoistic-like attacks (Rookiez being the most notable exception.... thank you of your informed, well-reasoned posts) simply because many along the route do not support a petty mass-tranist proposal that will impact me/them... unlike most of the commenters on this board.

Personal? I do have a personal view on the AMP, mass-tranisit, on crime, on race relations, on most things...

Do I believe building a road into a forested area will bring more crime? Yes I do.

Do I believe that the AMP will bring more crime into Downtown, West End, Richland, Whitland, Cherokee? Yes I do.

Do I believe that a light-rail line would bring even more crime? Yes I do...Common-sense really.

Does this make me against every mass-transit proposal? No it does not.

Do I believe it should be acknowledged and accounted for? Yes I do.

Do I believe the road, the bus, the train are responsible if some rape, robbery, murder, abduction, home-invasion should occur? Wait for it.... wait for it.... NO I do not! Just as I believe a gun is not responsible for killing anyone. However, it does not make it any less of a threat? It should be acknowledged, and addressed via discussion and planning. Your attempt to dismiss its existence does not make the threat any less real.

Increased crime is but one in a long list of legitimate objections to the AMP project. What is this administration's plan to deal with the increase crime threat? More cameras? More foot-patrols/undercover bus riders (ha)? Perhaps starting a community crime watch program in the areas? {Chirp} {Chirp}

So to recap... if the AMP is implemented the residents along the West End/Harding can expect increased crime, more congestion, higher taxes, and you wonder why some that have stayed in Nashville and invested millions in businesses and homes my be concerned? ha, keep up the insulting indifference on their legitimate concerns and Davidson Co. may succeed only in driving more of its tax-base into Williamson County.

I do not wish this to be the case. I want my family to continue to live downtown and help this city reach its full potential... I will strive to make this a reality in the echo-chamber this board is quickly becoming and by talking with my co-workers, neighbors and friends.

G'Day

 

Wow.  So, let me get this straight.  I stated my disagreement with what I thought was your position (since you went to the trouble of posting an article to support said position, I assumed you agreed with it).  It makes you so angry that I counted you as one of those who thinks the AMP will increase crime along it's route, that you divulge into a petty rant that included hurling "insults" at me that I haven't heard someone use since I was in high school, stating your desire to never interact with me again, and threatening 'scarier' more 'grown up' insults through PM...and you're calling me juvenile?  Hell, I even apologized to you if I did, in fact, misunderstand your position.  Who's the 'infant' in this scenario?  But then, to put the cherry on the irony Sunday, you actually go on to say quite emphatically that you, in fact, DO think the AMP will increase crime after all, which begs the question...why did you have your panties so in a bunch over the fact that I assumed that was your position in the first place?  This is pretty bizarro world stuff, and I'm kind of at a loss here. 

 

I've gotta say, it sounds to me like you're just pissed off that it just took such a simplistic analogy (rape in water taxis in The Maldives...but it could be armed robbery in rickshaws in Manila, if that suits you better) made the argument that I am a "jerk off" for asserting you agreed with, but that you apparently totally agree with, look fairly hollow. 

 

Now, with that said, you have absolutely every right to be concerned about a potential crime increase.  That's fine.  But until you have solid evidence that your concern is based on something concrete, then you have ZERO room to get angry at people who assert the opposite.  I can show you countless mass transit lines in this country alone that have not only not turned the neighborhoods they serve into high crime areas, but actually helped them to thrive.  That's real.  That's evidence.  Posting one story from Cleveland about some kids beating up an old man on BRT is no more evidence that BRT increases crime along it's route than that a boat in The Maldives...well, you know. 

Edited February 18, 2014 by BnaBreaker

[Neigeville2]

Wow.  So, let me get this straight.  I stated my disagreement with what I thought was your position (since you went to the trouble of posting an article to support said position, I assumed you agreed with it).  It makes you so angry that I counted you as one of those who thinks the AMP will increase crime along it's route, that you divulge into a petty rant that included hurling "insults" at me that I haven't heard someone use since I was in high school, stating your desire to never interact with me again, and threatening 'scarier' more 'grown up' insults through PM...and you're calling me juvenile?  Hell, I even apologized to you if I did, in fact, misunderstand your position.  Who's the 'infant' in this scenario?  But then, to put the cherry on the irony Sunday, you actually go on to say quite emphatically that you, in fact, DO think the AMP will increase crime after all, which begs the question...why did you have your panties so in a bunch over the fact that I assumed that was your position in the first place?  This is pretty bizarro world stuff, and I'm kind of at a loss here. 

 

I've gotta say, it sounds to me like you're just pissed off that it just took such a simplistic analogy (rape in water taxis in The Maldives...but it could be armed robbery in rickshaws in Manila, if that suits you better) made the argument that I am a "jerk off" for asserting you agreed with, but that you apparently totally agree with, look fairly hollow. 

 

Now, with that said, you have absolutely every right to be concerned about a potential crime increase.  That's fine.  But until you have solid evidence that your concern is based on something concrete, then you have ZERO room to get angry at people who assert the opposite.  I can show you countless mass transit lines in this country alone that have not only not turned the neighborhoods they serve into high crime areas, but actually helped them to thrive.  That's real.  That's evidence.  Posting one story from Cleveland about some kids beating up an old man on BRT is no more evidence that BRT increases crime along it's route than that a boat in The Maldives...well, you know. 

 

I recall some kids beating up an old man at Green Hills mall a couple of years ago, no bus was involved.  It was in the parking structure on the S side.  Darn kids.

 

My experience in Chicago convinces me that criminals don't really use transit to commit crimes, it's not like there's such a thing as a getaway bus.  The El stops in bad neighborhoods were as dangerous as the streets outside, the ones in nice neighborhoods were as safe as the streets outside.  Maybe that defies logic, but really, hordes of scary people are not going to come riding to Belle Meade, their previous ambition to do so having been thwarted by the inability of scary folks to access automobiles.  Although personally I think it would be hilarious if they did.

[nashmoney]

Not responding to anyone in particular, just giving my 2 cents.

 

I can recall when Dean pitched the idea to create the 28th Ave connector and there were comments residents that crime would increase in the West End area due to North Nashville residents coming over, committing a crime on the West side, then having quicker access to "book it" back to the north side without anyone knowing.

 

The 28th Ave connector is open and I have not heard or seen of stats discussing crime increases in the West End/Centennial Park area as result. The MTA University connector bus is on this route.

 

I think a lot of it is fear of change and the idea that those who use public transportation are low income, uneducated, crime committing people. Nashvillians have to get over this stigma before we can get anywhere on mass transit, especially in the urban areas.

[rookzie]

Not responding to anyone in particular, just giving my 2 cents.

 

I can recall when Dean pitched the idea to create the 28th Ave connector and there were comments residents that crime would increase in the West End area due to North Nashville residents coming over, committing a crime on the West side, then having quicker access to "book it" back to the north side without anyone knowing.

 

The 28th Ave connector is open and I have not heard or seen of stats discussing crime increases in the West End/Centennial Park area as result. The MTA University connector bus is on this route.

 

I think a lot of it is fear of change and the idea that those who use public transportation are low income, uneducated, crime committing people. Nashvillians have to get over this stigma before we can get anywhere on mass transit, especially in the urban areas.

 

Yep, the stigma occurs anywhere, as I have personally experienced in Virginia Beach (as stated in a post a number or weeks past).   Hell, it even happened in Portland and Sacramento years back, as progressive as those towns may appear.  More recently it has occurred in KCMO and with the Berkley-Fremont (East SF Bay) BRT proposal.  It's going to keep on happening anywhere and everywhere.

 

It (the stigma of crime conduit) has little chance to "hold water" (become substantiated), and it generally only rears it's head overtly in acts of opposition in desperation.  IMHO, the traffic displacement on West End appears to be the thematic emphasis of the opposition, and I really believe that the crime factor at worst would be shrouded by what has been posed as arguably legitimate concerns of the E-W proposal design.

 

I ride that MTA Nº21 University Connector once every 3 weeks or so, and its riders are no less a "motley crew" than those on the Gallatin Pike Nº26 or the Nº 7 Hillsboro coaches.

 

The UConnector runs between Kroger in Green Hills and "Dodge City".  "Dodge City" is the colloquial name given the Cumberland View apartments, a housing project located near the North Precinct near 26^st and Clarksville Highway.  Just as with any housing project, the moniker "Dodge City" tends to be associated with urban crime.  I really haven't perceived a "riff-raff" feeling with anyone on that bus, and I suppose that if that anyone were present, then it would be me.

 

The University Connector has begun to fulfill a dual purpose ─ to get passengers from the north side ("near" north, not Bordeaux) to the due south side via 28^th  and 31^st Avenues, along that new "S-curve" approach and RR overpass, built on the long ago flattened and undeveloped site of the former RR roundhouse and engine shops (some weed-grown concrete floors still appear after abandonment some 50 year ago).  A second effect of that route (probably the newest of all current MTA runs) is that during afternoon rush, the times when I usually ride it, the bus seems to make better time from 31^st and West End to the Green Hills Kroger, than the Nº7 Hillsboro does on the latter's route along Broadway-21^st-Hillsboro Pike, during that period.  (the Hillsboro bus doesn't even travel as deep into Green Hills as does the Connector)  For through passage from the Vanderbilt area to Green Hills, the UConnector meanders along a path away from the main Hillsboro trunk, and I often have observed through riders for Green  Hills boarding the Connector, rather than the Hillsboro bus, where the routes intersect at 21^st  and Wedgewood.

 

Despite the stigma, the University Connector stands to gain great potential for expansion (in some fashion), during the next 6 or 7 years, I'd say.

[UTgrad09]

Just a little anecdotal addition:

 

I rode the MTA buses to/from school in middle and high schools. 

 

I rode the MTA magnet buses, the #2 Belmont, #3 West End, #7 Green Hills, #17 12th South, and #45 Brentwood.

 

The magnet buses were for magnet school kids only, and were a zoo. I never felt really 'unsafe', but there were some incidents. I had one kid hit me at the old bus shelter on Deaderick St. I have no idea why...he didn't go to my school. I guess he was looking for a fight. I never had such problems with people that went to my school. On the magnet buses themselves, the kids (including myself, at times), were unruly. I never saw fights, but I heard about them on other magnet buses.

 

The regular buses were a lot more...calm. Mostly people going to/from work. Mostly, from what I can tell, low income. I didn't really ride on any of the 'rough area' routes (as you can see), which is why I present my evidence as anecdotal, but from what I can tell, many of the riders I rode with were lower income. While I didn't follow these people as they exited the bus, they did not appear to be part of any criminal activity, and the buses did not appear to be some sort of crime conduit into these nicer areas of town (Green Hills, Belmont, Brentwood, etc).

 

In fact, I can only remember one incident (in 4 years of riding nearly every school day) in one of those areas. A man got on the 12th South bus (on Leland Ln, near Woodmont Blvd). The bus pulled forward about 100 ft or so, then stopped. A police officer got on the bus, and the man calmly exited, and then I saw the officer handcuff the man. I have no idea what he did, but it was surprisingly not scary. I can also add that in the nicer areas, it was extremely rare to see anyone enter or exit the bus at any of the many residential area stops. So the idea to me that a bus route into a nicer area would lead to a higher crime rate is, to me, is hard to believe. People looking to commit crimes are often trying to get away with those crimes...so it wouldn't really make sense to use public transit -- where you often have to wait for 10-15 minutes or more -- to escape. Perhaps that would be more common in the high frequency routes and in commercial areas, but not so much in residential neighborhoods. I would not contest that there have probably been some isolated incidents, but a bus route running through a neighborhood alone would not appear to be a matter of concern to me.

 

Lastly, being a 'younger' person on this board, and closer to my school years than most of you, I generally dislike the stereotype that the youth get stuck with -- but in this case, I would say I would be more concerned with a concentration of young people -- on school buses -- than I would be with the mix you normally see on a city bus. I have seen quite a number of youtube videos over the years that display violent incidents on a variety of public transit locations, but that was not my experience when I rode. I am not say it never happens -- just that I think the stigma that plagues other cities should not be universally applied. As a white male living in a middle class suburban area that is far removed from the realm of public transit, my view of public transit in Nashville is that it is reasonably safe, and not deserving of any stigma that might be applied to public transit in some other locales.

[12Mouth]

While admittedly an Amp supporter, I have many friends in the Richland neighborhood and can certainly sympathize with some of their concerns (particularly any parking issues that may arise and the Aquinas exit issue). My family also owns a condo directly on West End near 440. I also understand the strong impact that anecdotal evidence can have on large groups of people (i.e. "I see empty buses all the time"). I do think, however, that it is important to view anecdotal evidence as what it is (often a very specific snapshot with no context) and to make larger generalizations based on empirical data. I would argue that there is fairly strong recent evidence to suggest:

 

1. Public transportation systems often decrease crime and increase economic development. This study is particularly interesting because it looks at Charlotte, one of our supposed peer cities.

 

2. Reallocation of road space to other uses (public transportation, bike lanes) has very little (if any) negative impact on traffic and often reduces it. See this study. 

 

I think that the AMP folks are doing a very poor job in communicating this sort of information and have already ceded these points to the opposition. Taking away the ability to make left turns is really annoying, but it will also likely have a great impact on traffic flow. I think these are the sorts of important discussions we should be having in public forums.

[Guest]

@12M Thanks for posting.

I attempted to access you crime study but hit a paywall. I did find a report on said study and found the conclusions specious at best. The study takes the following crime statistics and attributes (1) a drop in crime, 3 years before construction even begins (1998-2001), on the  LRT station. (2) Then crime goes up during buildout (2001-2008), and (3) then crime drops again after the station opens (2008-2009). It is hard to take seriously the initial claim that crime trended down for the initial 3 years due to a transit station, construction of which had yet to begin. If you take the new baseline once construction did start you see the acknowledged increase in the crime rate for 7 years. This increase in the crime rate continues after the station is open and the drops. 

All in all a very limited sample but even if we have confidence in these numbers you must compare them to the trends in the overall crime rate within Charlotte to see if crime overall was rising or falling. As you can see by the charts below (link), crime throughout Charlotte-Macklenburg experienced an even greater reduction of crime between 1998 and 2010 with property crime being reduced by 40% and violent crime by 50%.  

So the question really is would the study's crime rate around the station have been even lower if there had been no station?(like the rest of Charlotte-Macklenburg) 

As an aside, I will note that the study itself attributes increase security measures as playing a role in helping the crime rate not spike as much, "Transit stations are also usually equipped with security cameras or even a small police presence to deter crime." 
In my previous post I posed the question as to why the Dean/MTA/AMP coalition had been silent on these details.








http://m.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2012/01/transit-stations-may-actually-cut-down-crime/916/









http://www.cityrating.com/crime-statistics/north-carolina/charlotte-mecklenburg.html#.UwOjTUJdVFk




As to your second point, I am not sure there is any disagreement about the effect reducing road capacity for dedicated BRT lanes will have on traffic. Only 2 outcomes are possible.... 1) The traffic congestion increases due to reduced capacity  or 2) The increase in traffic congestion reaches a point where traffic is actually reduced because drivers seek alternate routes to avoid said congestion. From the study you referenced, "The second main finding from the original research was that taking away roadspace from general traffic can cause overall traffic levels to reduce. Analysis of the twelve new case studies supports this conclusion, and over 90% of transport experts responding to the questionnaire agreed with the statement that, ‘in some circumstances, overall traffic levels{ in a local area may reduce following a roadspace reallocation’. 

I am sorry but this is one of the major reasons the opposition cite for opposing the AMP..... the traffic from Harding will select Whitland/Richland/Central et al as route to avoid the increased congestion....

Edited February 19, 2014 by Guest

[rookzie]

While admittedly an Amp supporter, I have many friends in the Richland neighborhood and can certainly sympathize with some of their concerns (particularly any parking issues that may arise and the Aquinas exit issue). My family also owns a condo directly on West End near 440. I also understand the strong impact that anecdotal evidence can have on large groups of people (i.e. "I see empty buses all the time"). I do think, however, that it is important to view anecdotal evidence as what it is (often a very specific snapshot with no context) and to make larger generalizations based on empirical data. I would argue that there is fairly strong recent evidence to suggest:

 

1. Public transportation systems often decrease crime and increase economic development. This study is particularly interesting because it looks at Charlotte, one of our supposed peer cities.

 

2. Reallocation of road space to other uses (public transportation, bike lanes) has very little (if any) negative impact on traffic and often reduces it. See this study. 

 

I think that the AMP folks are doing a very poor job in communicating this sort of information and have already ceded these points to the opposition. Taking away the ability to make left turns is really annoying, but it will also likely have a great impact on traffic flow. I think these are the sorts of important discussions we should be having in public forums.

 

12Mouth, where can you be seen?

 

What I really want to say is that a Nashv'l Forum general discussion is arranged as a house meet each first Saturday, for now at Provence downtown (Library), at a couple of tables in the corner (with butt-hard benches).  You may know this already, but I'm just bringing it up, because I don't know whether or not you currently subscribe to that other forum where these gatherings normally are announced as that time approaches (1^st Saturday, monthly, 10:00 hrs.).  Unless I saw you last 1^st Saturday and didn't know it, then I and those of us who do attend at least would be able to put a face with a mouth (a 12Mouth, that is ).

 

-=ricky-roox=-

[Guest]

I agree those would be interesting statistics to see....
 

Not responding to anyone in particular, just giving my 2 cents.

 

I can recall when Dean pitched the idea to create the 28th Ave connector and there were comments residents that crime would increase in the West End area due to North Nashville residents coming over, committing a crime on the West side, then having quicker access to "book it" back to the north side without anyone knowing.

 

The 28th Ave connector is open and I have not heard or seen of stats discussing crime increases in the West End/Centennial Park area as result. The MTA University connector bus is on this route.

 

I think a lot of it is fear of change and the idea that those who use public transportation are low income, uneducated, crime committing people. Nashvillians have to get over this stigma before we can get anywhere on mass transit, especially in the urban areas.

[Guest]

"Transit crime is a well known, but underreported trend in urban centers. Criminologists agree that public transit tends to frame opportunities for crime, as it moves large proportions of high-risk populations around the city, along a limited number of paths and destination points (Brantigham et al., 1991).  "

http://www.uctc.net/papers/550.pdf
 

 

 

I am sure the same is true for marauding sailboats.

Edited February 19, 2014 by Guest

[rookzie]

...In my previous post I posed the question as to why the Dean/MTA/AMP coalition had been silent on these details.

...

...

...

I am sorry but this is one of the major reasons the opposition cite for opposing the AMP..... the traffic from Harding will select Whitland/Richland/Central et al as route to avoid the increased congestion....

 

 

 

1) ..."I posed the question as to why the Dean/MTA/AMP coalition had been silent on these details."[nashville_bound]

 

Thank you, thank you!!

 

2) "..et al as route to avoid the increased congestion..."

 

And one of those "et.al" 's that I intend to use would be Oaklawn, Compton, Sharondale, Elmington, the Richardson Ave. bridge (overpass), or a combination of these ,....  Depending on where I might be, I'd probably avoid Aquinas and Cherokee altogether and just do Acklen Park Terrace to 37th or Murphy Rd to 46th and just go way, way around it, given that everyone else probably will be on the same page.  The fact is, with little (if any) latitude for a reasonably parallel detour from the US-70S "grand trunk", you can almost all but swear that the displaced traffic will not just go down the drain.  Motorists likely will take on newfound cab-driver mentality, because they're going to find back roads and cut-offs that they never previously knew even existed.

 

 

You can count on nearly every roadway within 1.5 miles on either flank of West End - Harding affected by the construction and then the opening of the AMP, because for the "much" part, these are not locals, but rather, "distance" motorists, who use the main designates (numbered federal and interstate roadway system) to get into town rather than through it (except for some Saint Thomas visitors and staffing.  Many if not most use 70S to gain entry to the heart of town from the due west along the surface, as opposed to the interstate, and then often hopping onto I-440 to "hurl" themselves around town further.  If you ever try I-40 eastbound from the due west, then you'd see why they choose to do this.  I-40 on the near-west was "upgraded" just a few years ago, replete additional lanes and new interchange flyovers at White Bridge, Briley Parkway, and yet it almost has reached its capacity already on the west side.

 

Belle Meade police are in for a wolf's feast on windfall revenue from traffic citations to unsuspecting "intruder" motorists cutting through Lynnwood Blvd in an attempt to bypass traffic.  And I say all this because there is no measure planned in the long run to accommodate mounting and displaced traffic.  As a proponont of the AMP myself, I see no tangible benefit for the high percentage of those who are "distant" commuters to or from the "out" west.  If in time the AMP gets transitioned to some of hybrid LRT and is extended to Bellevue, then perhaps a new "raison d'être" for the enhanced provision would start to be realized.

 

That time may come, but until then, I, too,  just cannot see an abatement of motor traffic on that segment, in the big picture, although it may stand to reason that I could have over-dramatized the projected impact upon the side roads (to an extent).  But I do have decades of experience on those roads (and even alleys when I find 'em) and have done them since 1967.

Edited February 18, 2014 by rookzie

[12Mouth]

Nashville bound - thanks for responding. I think you make some very valid points about the Charlotte study. Sorry about the paywall - I bet Vanderbilt's edu network automatically gets past it (so I didn't even know it was there). I also completely agree with you about security cameras/other deterrents in stations and don't understand why they wouldn't address that. It seems like a very minor expense that could do a lot of good.

 

That article was really interesting, but I don't think that the quote you added is representative of the whole article. They were also asking a different question - what is the incidence of crime near stations. As I understand them, their findings were that crime rates at stations correlate with the already existing crime rates in a given neighborhood (and secondarily that transit crime rates are under-reported). 

 

That same group of academics (the exact same authors as your link above) authored another paper on the exact same green line in Los Angeles and asked the exact same question that we seem to be interested in with the AMP: what effects did the implementation of the green line have on crime down the line. Does building a connecting transit line from a high crime rate area to a low crime rate area increase the crime rate in the high income/low crime area? The green line is interesting because it travels through some high crime areas and ends up in a very affluent neighborhood. Link to the whole article is here. Abstract is below:

 

Edited February 19, 2014 by 12Mouth

[rookzie]

Nashville bound - thanks for responding. I think you make some very valid points about the Charlotte study. Sorry about the paywall - I bet Vanderbilt's edu network automatically gets past it (so I didn't even know it was there). I also completely agree with you about security cameras/other deterrents in stations and don't understand why they wouldn't address that. It seems like a very minor expense that could do a lot of good.

 

...As I understand them, their findings were that crime rates at stations correlate with the already existing crime rates in a given neighborhood (and secondarily that transit crime rates are under-reported). 

 

As is typical for faculty and students at a university, Vanderbilt' library system likely subscribes to John Wiley (under an annual payment contract) and to other online agglomerate publishing services.  Access to these services appears seamless to those having NetID's or some other form of campus authentication.  Without a network proxy, non-VU access would require pay.

 

Since you got me and nashville_bound interested, then If I get around to it, I may see whether or not I can use my account at UIUC (Illinois at Urbana-Champaign) to get a hold of it.