The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread

[UTgrad09]

If we let the West Enders and Shelbyvillers of the world have their way we will never get a real mass transit system in place.  I like how their plan B only showed up after the AMP. 

 

I think a distinction needs to be made, though. West Enders want a Plan B, which is, at least, a plan. The latter wants no plan whatsoever.

[nashmoney]

Commentary from the governor regarding the AMP. Even though he didn't take a position on the issue, let's see how this plays out.

 

Haslam: Stopping The Amp Via Legislature Not A Great Solution

 

http://www.nashvillescene.com/pitw/archives/2014/03/11/haslam-stopping-the-amp-via-legislature-not-a-great-solution

[timmay143]

I posted this in the original thread where I quoted from "nashmoney." Though MT discussion should go here.

 

 

Apartment boom puts Nashville on the map

 

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20140311/BUSINESS02/303110035

I have to share the comments (so far) from the article.

 

A beautiful city on the river to start with, job growth, crime in check, 3 major interstate highways to access it, fairly good government, Opry Mills Mall, an entertainment mecca....what else does a city need for growth......Now if they could just work on that 5:00 rush hour.

yes rush hour is getting worse...starting at about 3:45-4:00 now

The Gulch was a golden opportunity to do something special. Too bad the developers filled it with subpar materials. Compare the wood and stucco construction to the steel and glass of places like Kansas City and others and the architectural value is 20 years behind. Afraid it will age poorly. And yes the afternoon traffic on I=440 has become impossible. About time Nashville embrassed the music industry as a plus instead of an embarrassement. But would still like to see a blend of Athens of the South tag blended with some modern architecture.

Paul Robertson I rented an apartment in the Gulch and I too was not impressed by the lack of quality construction. I paid nearly $1700 per month for faux wood floors, shower inserts and mediocre appliances. I visited friends in Miami during the New Year and they paid roughly the same, but their apartment had upgraded appliances, oversized glass showers and great concierge services and most importantly big box shopping ie..Publix, Target and Best buy in walking distance. I love what Nashville is doing but it seems the developers are building these apartments on the cheap and asking for premium prices.

That one person should be "embarrassed" by their spelling...harharhar. Nah, j/k. The main things why I wanted to share and what I got from them is that:

1) We need some sort of major mass transit overhaul. We will prob need a local and regional dedicated funds in some sort of tax. I think NC and Charlotte have something in place. Might be the only way to get some coop from CSX and others opposed to "state" funding. I see it as we need a multimode effort. Different types of transit per need and location.

2) Is the Gulch really that "bad?" I rarely spend time in Nashville anymore, let alone the Gulch, others' opinions on this?

I will post this in the mass transit thread (maybe Gulch thread too) for proper discussion areas.

Edited March 11, 2014 by timmay143

[rookzie]

I posted this in the original thread where I quoted from "nashmoney." Though MT discussion should go here.

 

 

 

"...The Gulch was a golden opportunity to do something special. Too bad the developers filled it with subpar materials. Compare the wood and stucco construction to the steel and glass of places like Kansas City and others and the architectural value is 20 years behind...."

 

I second the bit about the construction.  This appears perverse throughout the region, as what is allowed by building codes and the planning commission, although admittedly, I am the first to not know much about the two, and the governance of types of construction in targeted zoned property.

 

Everywhere I see multiple-unit dwelling pop up ─ whether it be in Melrose, East Nashville, or the Gulch ─ I always (rather, nearly always) have witnessed wood-, as opposed to steel framing members.  This ramifies into a major constraint on what materials can be utilized both for exterior cladding and for interior offerings, in part by the design limitations with load-bearing characteristics of the choice of construction.  There is little doubt that this also is related (perhaps foremost) to developers' latitude to comply with this the requirements, such that being granted this sense of autonomy enables them to maximize their profits (phat-cat style) in targeting occupancy with affordability.  This latter, however, becomes even more disconcerting, when it becomes known with similarly leased and sold property in other, distant locales that a substantially higher quality and overall appeal can be recognized.

 

-=rr=-

Edited March 11, 2014 by rookzie

[nashvillwill]

Interesting.

"Nymbus Nashville"

Looks like an eastsider is trying to raise crowd source funding for a private bus system for East Nashville.

They have a pretty hefty financial goal, but you never know.

http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nymbus-nashville

[Neigeville2]

"...The Gulch was a golden opportunity to do something special. Too bad the developers filled it with subpar materials. Compare the wood and stucco construction to the steel and glass of places like Kansas City and others and the architectural value is 20 years behind...."

 

I second the bit about the construction.  This appears perverse throughout the region, as what is allowed by building codes and the planning commission, although admittedly, I am the first to not know much about the two, and the governance of types of construction in targeted zoned property.

 

Everywhere I see multiple-unit dwelling pop up ─ whether it be in Melrose, East Nashville, or the Gulch ─ I always (rather, nearly always) have witnessed wood-, as opposed to steel framing members.  This ramifies into a major constraint on what materials can be utilized both for exterior cladding and for interior offerings, in part by the design limitations with load-bearing characteristics of the choice of construction.  There is little doubt that this also is related (perhaps foremost) to developers' latitude to comply with this the requirements, such that being granted this sense of autonomy enables them to maximize their profits (phat-cat style) in targeting occupancy with affordability.  This latter, however, becomes even more disconcerting, when it becomes known with similarly leased and sold property in other, distant locales that a substantially higher quality and overall appeal can be recognized.

 

-=rr=-

 

I also think a factor is that there is so much pent up demand, the apartments/condos don't have to be that good to command crazy rents because they don' t have much to compete with.  If urban multifamily here ever comes remotely in balance with demand, places like Pine St Flats may move down market pretty quick.

Edited March 11, 2014 by Neigeville2

[Guest]

Ha, well so far only it is only the AMP supporters that have gotten shoved......

To the determent of both camps IMO.

A rational discussion is needed not a signed-sealed-delivered (but not funded) mass-transit plan that only pays lips-service to questions and concerns. It is amazing to me that even the most virulent AMP cheerleaders qualify their support with variations of your, "I do understand the shortcomings of AMP..." meme, yet continue to push for a flawed plan...not solution...just to do 'something'. 



 

 

 I'll echo the sentiment of another poster - let's shove AMP down West End's throat and watch them squirm.

Edited March 11, 2014 by Guest

[FrankNash]

I support the AMP project completely! The cost and the route. BRT IMO is the future of mass transit.

[rookzie]

Article from the NBJ on "Public-transit ridership down in Tennessee"

 http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/morning_call/2014/03/public-transit-ridership-down-in-tennessee.html

 

and companion publishing "Record numbers of Americans using public transit"

 http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/morning_call/2014/03/record-numbers-of-americans-using-public-transit.html

 

Both are brief and neither discussion provides an authority on the data research and data analysis criteria.  The reference to Nashville:

 

In the Nashville area, the Regional Transportation Authority — which operates the Music City Star train and regional buses — reported a 5.3 percent decrease in ridership. The Metropolitan Transit Authority, meanwhile, saw ridership increase by 1.7 percent.

reinforces the critical need to coordinate efforts on a regional basis, to address the shortcomings of the greater Metro area as a whole, even though this requires clearly identified and defined progressions (rather than a quilting, piece-meal or an all-or-nothing approach).  Not only does this recap what most of us feel about the need for a major overhaul of "circulation" transit to move people through and among the sub-communities within the corporation limits of Metro, but it also (and especially) is a telltale indication of the compelling need to address what the one article appears to show as dwindling patronage, in percentage or in numbers, of rapid and mass movement of regional travelers into and away from of the city core.

 

The transit vision of the MPO (nashvillempo.org) is a reasonably good beginning and has been around in stages for less than 10 years, although as with any other planning and implementation, neither one is much good without the other.

 

-=rr=-

[timmay143]

Rally for the Amp Coalition at the Capitol today, 12:30 pm.  The rally goes much deeper than supporting the AMP.  To me, it's more against boneheaded legislation.

[MTFAN]

Senator Ketron from Murfreesboro wants a study completed for monorail up I24 from Murfreesboro to Nashville.  

 

http://www.dnj.com/article/20140312/news05/303120044/sen-ketron-seeks-study-24-monorail

[rookzie]

Rally for the Amp Coalition at the Capitol today, 12:30 pm.  The rally goes much deeper than supporting the AMP.  To me, it's more against boneheaded legislation.

 

I got hung up in a damn meeting today in my building (Rachel JaX), when all that was going on, right outside my window!

 

-=rr=-

[nashvillwill]

So was there a vote on this bill today?

[MidTenn1]

Senator Ketron from Murfreesboro wants a study completed for monorail up I24 from Murfreesboro to Nashville.  

 

http://www.dnj.com/article/20140312/news05/303120044/sen-ketron-seeks-study-24-monorail

 There is a report in a file cabinet somewhere at TDOT that recommends a two-lane reversible HOV lane in the median that would allow free flow BRT. It would be a lot cheaper and just as efficient.

[nashvylle]

So was there a vote on this bill today?

 

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20140312/NEWS02/303120172/State-lawmakers-drop-one-Amp-requirement-add-another

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/blog/2014/03/lawmakers-modify-stance-on-amp-bills-butroadblocks.html

 

I'm not sure what to think of the verdict. I am not opposed to having the lanes not in the center, but does the state still have to approve?

[smeagolsfree]

Proposal for monorail between the Boro and DT Nashville.

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20140312/NEWS0201/303120183/Murfreesboro-Nashville-monorail-study-approved-by-Senate-panel

[titanhog]

Here's my question...

 

How much does it help to have mass transit from the suburbs to the DT inner core if the inner core really doesn't have much of a local mass transit option, other than buses and taxis?  I know every little bit helps...but it seems the first thing we need to do is improve the inner core MT...then develop the suburban MT.

 

Am I wrong in that?

[Neigeville2]

Proposal for monorail between the Boro and DT Nashville.

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20140312/NEWS0201/303120183/Murfreesboro-Nashville-monorail-study-approved-by-Senate-panel

 

If we can afford to build monorails why are we struggling to put together a cheap little BRT line?

Personally I'm opposed to using wide freeway ROW's for rail lines, because when you get off the train it's already 1/2 mile to the nearest possible destination, but I suppose if it's just park N rides for suburban commuters it's not that bad.

[nashvylle]

I hope Vince Dean and Beth Harwell don't create an amendment saying "rail shall not be allowed in the state of Tennessee. However, if you want to take a bus in a non-dedicated lane, you can".

[nashvillwill]

Fu€king ridiculous.

If I wanted to live in Shelbyville, I'd buy a trailer to screw my sister in.

Hey, at least now we don't have to share any of the road budget. Make 'me wider boys! I said WIDER!!

[Neigeville2]

Here's my question...

 

How much does it help to have mass transit from the suburbs to the DT inner core if the inner core really doesn't have much of a local mass transit option, other than buses and taxis?  I know every little bit helps...but it seems the first thing we need to do is improve the inner core MT...then develop the suburban MT.

 

Am I wrong in that?

On the other hand, building the suburban commuter lines can create more people with an interest in building up a denser and more frequent network in the core.  Maybe the two need to develop in tandem.

 

I was on a website of visitor's reviews of Nashville the other day and it seemed the number one complaint of visitors from other cities was the lack of transit (number one complaint of visitors from small towns was cost of parking, I suspect most of those people have never been anyplace bigger than East Ridge).  It should be way easier to use transit to get around 3-4 miles from DT.

[MidTenn1]

I really liked the Chattanooga electric downtown circulator. Free, easy off and on, very regular, frequent and prompt and small (which was good - no long narrow aisles). I know they have a downtown circulator in Nashville, but it is not very recognizable as to its purpose. And loading points are not well identified.

 

I'm not saying the city ditches the AMP, but a Chattanooga model would work well as a second level distribution system.

 

Edited March 12, 2014 by PHofKS

[rookzie]

 There is a report in a file cabinet somewhere at TDOT that recommends a two-lane reversible HOV lane in the median that would allow free flow BRT. It would be a lot cheaper and just as efficient.

 

Yes, it could be cheaper to build a BRT along the medians, but not necessarily as efficient in the long run.  Even in the short- and medium run, the median BRT would still have to have stations built somewhere, whether at interchanges or at locations between these, while evaluating-planning-building for park- or kiss-in-ride facilities and feeder shuttles needed to serve, say, between The Crossings at Hickory Hollow and Old Hickory, Old Hickory and Waldron, and most likely between any two existing exists.  In any event, they would have to plan the BRT not unlike LRT, to expect it to perform as if it were an LRT.   Otherwise, running artic buses along dedicated median busways amounts to nothing more than express bus service.

 

They'd also have to consider the dynamics of safety in running a BRT along a high-speed median as such.  I have not done any research on any existing BRT implementations incorporating high-speeds.  Although artic (articulated) bus design has been greatly improved over the those of 4 decades ago (even being much better than those of the 1990s a few of which remain in service with the MTA, [Transliner Model AN460 built by the no-longer extant Neoplan USA]), most dedicated BRTs operate with low to medium roadway speed, and as such, BRT is generally employed as urban transit, rather than as regional high-speed transit.  You have to consider the operating risks of running large, extended-length rubber-tired passenger coaches within the boundaries of opposing busway lanes.  In addition, the movements of all vehicles would need to be governed by use of some stationary wayside and on-board transponder signaling system for the practice of operating such vehicles at speed, just as if they were light-railway vehicles (LRV).

 

I'm not saying that BRT would not work in lieu of rail (although, but to make it do so, it would not be as cheap as one might imagine.  For the current density of that corridor and projected capacity needs of the near future, such an undertaking with a BRT would not be scalable sufficiently to accommodate increasingly higher capacities, as would be with its rail-bound counterparts.  As I had discussed about 6 months ago, eventually even a successful BRT operation would reach a point of diminishing ROI, in serving steadily increasing capacity needs, especially with respect to crew cost per passenger mile and vehicle maintenance per passenger mile.

 

That corridor might be a long-long way from attracting sufficient ridership to fill up a four-car LRV (or any similar or equivalent fixed-guideway vehicle) ─ maybe even being beyond my own remaining expected life span of 20 years.

 

BTW, the suggestion by Bill Ketron of building a monorail per se is only one of glamor, as monorails generally are impractical for anything of performance, speed, or scalable capacity, with anything over 50 mph.  Why, monorails use rubber tires for engaging to their guideways, and to enable tractive effort practical for acceleration and deceleration.  The tires therefore are usually much smaller than those of standard roadway vehicles, and acceleration is achieved at the expense of speed.  For this reason, wheeled beam-guided vehicles (straddle-type monorails) are suitable for only short runs, such as Las Vegas' [NV] RTC, a relatively new but elaborately built straddle-type system.  Additionally, mechanical faults are not uncommon with such monorails, and moving a stranded vehicle of this type from fouling a mainway is not as simple as dialing for a AAA tow truck or as coasting to the side of the road to allow others to pass (even though beam switches could be built to allow emergency cross-over).  The only practical "higher-speed" monorails are the grossly expensive Mag-Levs such as those ultra-high-speed jobs of Japan and China, with top sustained speeds approaching 300 mph.  These use rubber tires for slow-speed "taxi", and the trains literally hover above the straddled beam as it tracks along at those high speeds.

 

Even the "cheesy" monorails cost much more per mile to construct than with LRT, and monorails generally must be electrically propelled, unlike with LRV which can be the more familiar electric (with overhead suspended single wire or mesh catenary) or the newer DMU (Diesel Multiple Unit), as seen in Escondido (CA), Denton (TX), and Camden (NJ).

 

-=ricky-roox=-

Edited March 13, 2014 by rookzie

[FrankNash]

The big four sent a letter to the Tennessee House and Senate Transportation Committees in support of the AMP. A quote from the letter. The Chattanooga, Knoxville, Memphis and Nashville regions collectively account for nearly 80% of Tennessee's gross domestic product and produced 91% of the job growth in the entire state during 2012-2013. Also I sat next to the Mayor of Franklin today in the House meeting he told me he and the Mayor of Clarksville are both for the AMP. They have also sent letters to the Governor, House and Senate. 

[volsfanwill]

when I saw this monorail proposal on facebook today, several of my friends enthusiastically shared it, I wanted to pull my hair out.  My understanding is that monorails are that they are very expensive, inefficient, and generally dont work.  that is why disney world only expanded theirs once, to epcott, but not to the other parks, and why one was dismantled in a city, i cant remember which one, in Australia. 

but what it did show me, from my friends posting and other peoples comments is that there is huge support for some type of rail from the boro to nashville.

as stated above though, dumping people downtown doesnt do much good if it is difficult for them to get to their final destination. there must be something running locally downtown as well