The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread

[bwithers1]

Yeah, color me impressed as well.  I like what I'm hearing.  In regards to the quoted bus comments, just to clarify, there are a lot more bus riders in Chicago, but that's only because there are far more bus routes than EL lines, so it's just accessible to more people.  It doesn't really mean that given the choice, most people would prefer bus to train.

There is indeed truth to the statement that bus lines are more plentiful than train lines in Chicago.  But when I lived on the lakefront, which is an area that is comparatively heavily served by trains, the bus lines were full of folks commuting to/from work.  The bus lines were simply quite a bit more convenient for me than the trains, even though the trains were close by.  I could step outside my door and take any of four buses that would drop me off about two blocks from my office.  Whereas, I would have had to walk several blocks to the train station, climb stairs up the platform, and charge through a bunch of people to get on a train, and then repeat when I got downtown.  That's why I thought that the new MTA director's point about the bus service being more convenient than train service (at least in most cases) was accurate. 

Edited September 21, 2014 by bwithers1

[rookzie]

There is indeed truth to the statement that bus lines are more plentiful than train lines in Chicago.  But when I lived on the lakefront, which is an area that is comparatively heavily served by trains, the bus lines were full of folks commuting to/from work.  The bus lines were simply quite a bit more convenient for me than the trains, even though the trains were close by.  I could step outside my door and take any of four buses that would drop me off about two blocks from my office.  Whereas, I would have had to walk several blocks to the train station, climb stairs up the platform, and charge through a bunch of people to get on a train, and then repeat when I got downtown.  That's why I thought that the new MTA director's point about the bus service being more convenient than train service (at least in most cases) was accurate. 

 

Of course it depends somewhat on where you lived along the lake shore.  The particular trains that come primarily to mind in this case are the Metra IC Electric District (formerly Illinois Central RR) and the South Shore electrics (Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District - NICTD) which share those tracks alongside the Canadian National RR (all of which formerly had been Illinois Central - IC), from Randolph St to 63rd St.  You already know that the South Shore runs SE past 63rd to Hammond-Whiting, Gary, and points east south of the dunes to the South Bend Airport, and that the Metra Electric route runs SSW past 63rd to University Park, with a branch at Kensington-115th St. to Blue Island, and a second branch past 63rd SE to 93rd in So. Chicago.

 

These trains are considered as limited stop, railroad heavy commuter-train of the self-propelled type, and even happen to run at reduced frequency throughout the day during non-rush.  The South Shore benefits primarily those from northwestern Indiana, and the Metra Electric serves mainly those along the University Park and Blue Island route.  These lines have been in existence for nearly a hundred years in some form or fashion, long before their takeover by Metra and NICTD in the late '80s

 

I agree with you, in that unless I lived in one of those more distant locations not readily served by drop-off buses, it wouldn't make much sense for me to want to ride the trains in, even if they did serve my travel destination to some extent.  Plus in your case, the trains likely cost more to ride, single fare for sure, if not perhaps much cheaper by 25-multi-ride or monthly pass.  I also think that as a whole, the lake shore is not well served by rail or rapid, as are points more "inland".  The east side of those tracks seems best served by buses, IMO, since the pedestrian approaches to those tracks mean that you will be doing some up and down footwork.

 

By definition, the primary purpose of commuter trains is to serve the more distant suburban areas, however that may be defined, as opposed to those covered by the local core services, which in your case would be the CTA EL-subway, if it were to have served the lakefront (which it never even came close to doing).  If the RTA ever were to run a Gallatin commuter train, then while it might serve Madison at one stop (say, at Edenwold Rd. and maybe at Walton Ln, if the K-Mart ever closed and got torn down), it wouldn't be able to serve Madison as a whole, but rather those who could easily get to a park/kiss-and-ride at those points, or maybe by connecting bus or BRT along feeders from underserved (or yet unserved) routes like Old-Hickory and extreme north Dickerson Pk.  Even though Chicagoland has by far more trains than Metro Nashville ever will (unless the Great Lakes decide to shift south), Chicago, just as with any other city, still has issues with transit voids and "deserts" to be dealt with, much of which likely would be end up being handled with some kind of bus service (or "coach-liner" transport, if that sounds better).

 

-==-

Edited September 22, 2014 by rookzie

[Nathan_in_DC]

What are the plans for terminal expansion, if MCS service ever is expanded beyond its single line? They currently have build themselves into a corner, with a station that can handle only a very limited number of trains (literally one at a time).  It looks like it'd be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to dual track into the existing station. If another line is ever built, it will have to either have a different terminal station, or the existing line will have to be re-routed, leaving us with an unused (or special-train-only) station on the waterfront.  I understand that CSX didn't want to have lines clogging up the rail yard at the old Union Station, but that would have been the ideal location for a terminal.

[nashvillwill]

^^^ Perhaps rookzie or someone could give a better answer, but this is the way I've always understood it. The current route of the MCS line doesn't connect with the Gulch rail yard (at least not without a very indirect route around the fairgrounds). That's why they put the station on riverfront. The only other feasible option would have been down 1st by the MTA service yard. Any other lines (Franklin, Murfreesboro, Clarksville, etc) would have a very direct connection into the Gulch rail yard, and therefore would need a main station somewhere in the gulch area.

Edited September 22, 2014 by nashvillwill

[rookzie]

What are the plans for terminal expansion, if MCS service ever is expanded beyond its single line? They currently have build themselves into a corner, with a station that can handle only a very limited number of trains (literally one at a time).  It looks like it'd be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to dual track into the existing station. If another line is ever built, it will have to either have a different terminal station, or the existing line will have to be re-routed, leaving us with an unused (or special-train-only) station on the waterfront.  I understand that CSX didn't want to have lines clogging up the rail yard at the old Union Station, but that would have been the ideal location for a terminal.

 

 

^^^ Perhaps rookzie or someone could give a better answer, but this is the way I've always understood it. The current route of the MCS line doesn't connect with the Gulch rail yard (at least not without a very indirect route around the fairgrounds). That's why they put the station on riverfront. The only other feasible option would have been down 1st by the MTA service yard. Any other lines (Franklin, Murfreesboro, Clarksville, etc) would have a very direct connection into the Gulch rail yard, and therefore would need a main station somewhere in the gulch area.

 

 

You both raise the issue of yet another imminent default by Metro on matter of the MCS terminal expansion.  I posted on exactly that concern last August and September, when I joined this topic.  You can flip back and follow the entire context of those dialogs, although I quote some of it here.

 

 

-==-, on 27 Aug 2013 - 02:33 AM, said:

There will be a point in time when the entire route will have to be double-tracked (also with sidings) to scale and to maximize the capacity and operation of the route.  And yes, a point was posted by UTgrad09 (27 February 2013) that the Riverfront station would be orphaned, if all MCS routes of the regional RTA "spokes" come to fruition.  The Riverfront station, in a prime, activity-centric location, cannot practically serve a comprehensive and scalable [sic] heavy-rail [commuter-rail] network or corridors for a medium-sized extended metro area as mid-state Tenn....

 

...Historically, on a much smaller scale than Chicago, Nashville did have two separately passenger stations - the former Tennessee Central Railway station (TC, now part of the Nashville and Eastern [N&E]), which had been located on 1st Ave. just south of the current Riverfront station, and south of the Shelby Street bridge (the site of the former Thermal Transfer plant used to be a passenger coach yard and freight combined); and Union Station at 10th Ave. and Broadway, which (as you "elder" natives recall) served the Louisville & Nashville (L&N) and the Nashville Chattanooga, and St. Louis Railway (NC&St.L), now all part of CSX. (see http://www.abandoned...entral_Railroad for historic account of the TC)  Passenger service on the TC ran from Nashville to Harriman, TN (via Lebanon, Cookeville, and Crossville) until 1955.  Passenger service though Union Station (branch routes having been cut back steadily from Korean War days through 1971) lasted until Oct. 1979).  Unfortunately, I foresee logistically the necessary use, for quite some time into the distant future, of both Riverfront and some other larger terminal, either at or near Union Station, for all MCS future service, because no direct connection exists between the former TC (now N&E) and the CSX rights of way.

 

Even if the RTA or some yet unborn agency were to acquire full control of most city terminal trackage and the leads to it, in order to reroute trains from Riverfront, it would have to use the what is referred to as the "Southern Junction" a semi-circular "sector" of trackage, extending from the N&E MCS passenger route from a point near Lebanon Pike and Fessler Lane across Lafayette St, along the western border of Trevecca Nazarane University, across Nolensville Rd., along the south edge of Craighead Ave. (across from the state fairgounds) and joining the CSX main with a north-trailing switch (converging toward the south, and away from the city) just behind the Melrose Post Office (at the northeast corner of the I-440/I65 confluence).  This branch connector could be used to convey current eastern branch commuter service to a "main" leading to a central passenger terminal at, say, the Gulch area, but if you follow this on the map, you'd see that the Southern Junction connection is "way" out of the way to bring eastern branch trains to the "new" main.  Commuter-rail and even any other type of service, passenger or freight for that matter, rarely follows a new right-of-way, not currently close to an existing right-of-way.  In practice, right-of-way is often abandoned, often never to be reclaimed, unless "railbanking" provisions are established by agencies to preserve and to recover little used or rail corridors temporarily converted to trails or to other non-rail use.  This is another reason that I say that it would likely be impractical to pool all MCS routes into a single common station terminal at Nashville.  It would be highly improbable that a swath of land could be acquired (by imminent domain or otherwise), to "bridge" the Lebanon route to a new "main". The existing and remaining infrastructure base was built long before any of us guys (or even our grandparents) were around, or conceived.  We are lucky that even the lead to Riverfront was left intact, when it almost was completely abandoned during around 1986 or so.  In 1980 there still even was an in-service live freight track, leading from behind the Thermal Transfer Plant, clear up the cobblestone on 1st Ave. North to Commerce Street (back when the 2nd Ave district had just begun to take on an "historic" flavor a few years earlier).  That's all ripped up now, or paved over ….

 

 

 

 

-==-, on 20 September 2013 - 10:47 PM, said:

...If the Metro Davidson and Wilson Counties maintain a blind eye and do nothing to keep developments in check along the Nashville and Eastern Railroad (NERR) from Riverfront to Lebanon, then the MCS suburban commuter route risks becoming never being able to gain double track and terminal trackage where assuredly it WILL be needed in time.  Particularly, this danger looms at the site of the old Thermal Transfer Plant.  Metro seems only concerned with what it can to for spurring development, and not what it can do expand on and to repurpose ROW for impending transit needs.  We already lost the gulch property – along the CSX between Charlotte Ave and Division St. in favor of Eleven North, Velocity and the Icon. (I pray that the Station Inn never gets swallowed up!) Nashville should have capitalized on the availability of the Clement LandPort, while they might have had a chance, and/or some of the strip of land along 11th ave. Industrial (no longer industrial) at the CSX Kayne Ave. Yard between Church St. and 8th Ave S. at Gleaves and Magazine Streets.

…

 

 

I also recently concluded that a number of assets potential to repurposing for expansion of rail transit in general are no longer extant or are on the brink of vanishing, as the city continues to not recognize these details by pre-empting them from extinction. (me on 04 September 2014 - 01:57 PM)

 

So with what's currently planned at the site of the old Thermal Tranfer Plant, an expansion of the Riverfront Park facility, Metro is on the verge of losing even the capacity to run more frequent trains and to provide standby trackage (for layovers) to enhance the existing MCS, on a site which once had been a full-service (but smallish) railroad yard some 50 years ago.  And the way they are going as a whole, there won't be any land parcel left to create any central terminal for any future commuter or light-rail routes.

 

Although it would be extremely costly and very well could be the makings of a consortium of private investment and govt on both municipal and state levels, ideally they should take back Union Station and its surrounding property and bring as much as can be brought in under one roof, so to speak ─ Amtrak, MCS (or some other marketing brand for commuter-rail, and LRT ─ into the remaining gulch area, sort of like what Dallas Union Terminal has done with its passenger station (a somewhat newer structure than is Nashville Union Station).  All three rail services ─ DART Light Rail, Trinity Railway Express commuter rail, and Amtrak intercity rail ─ are hosted at the Dallas terminal.

 

-==-

Edited September 23, 2014 by rookzie

[rookzie]

Proposal for Locally Preferred Alternative – Northwest  Corridor Feasibility Study

                                  Commuter Rail Nashville to Clarksville, TN

 

Preferred Alternative

Nashville and Western Railroad, via Bordeaux, Ashland City, Henrietta – selected as contextually most adaptive to the local culture of the intermediate communities served along the selected route.

 

Rolling stock vehicles would be acquired pre-owned, as was done for the2006 Music City Star start-up project on the East Corridor (Nashville to Lebanon).   A different approach for the Northwest corridor initially would utilize self-propelled vehicles, designed along more minimalistic lines, to minimize the duration of the learning cycle by reducing requirements for the high technology of maintenance and operation.

 

Passenger interchange would be handled at facilities conferring a high degree of environmental ambience, without the need to acquire large land parcels along the preferred route.

 

Equipment:

The included photos of the proposed passenger equipment depict a high level of diversity in selection.  This more aptly is amenable to passenger load demand changes than standard locomotive-hauled passenger trains, while allowing significant costs savings in passenger fuel miles.   Procurement transactions would be arranged with various agencies throughout the U.S., in a manner similar to that for the purchase of MCS equipment from Metra (Chicago) and VRE (Northern Virginia).

 

Patrons enjoy an open-air jaunt, without the obtrusive clash of postmodernism.

 

 

Commuter (rather, community) rail passing along existing close clearances.

 

 

Passengers feel “at home” during their commute.

 

 

Facilities - Maintenance:

Mechanics from a local filling station are but a text message away.

 

 

A unit well suited for off-peak demands [you think?]

 

 

Meet the -=raiL-PuG=-

A stretch version (when a single unit just won’t do the job)

 

 

For phased upgrades, a Mack Railbus scales up service capacity

 

 

An off-peak version (the "Meet-loaf")

 

 

For the more contemporary-minded

 

 

Facilities - Stations:

A passenger loading platform (a local VFW)

 

 

Second Alternative

The alternatives analysis assessment evaluated a second proposed alternative, as a contingency to the preferred, in the event that the preferred alternative in practice might prove unsustainable (such as with equipment failures, lack of ridership, or a bull on the track).  If patrons fail to find an element of amusement in the daily commute, then this alternative should fulfill a corrective need with almost unwavering certainty.

 

Simulation for this alternative is easily enacted with a commercially utility.  With minimum familiarity, modeling the functionality of this alternative can all but ensure a seamless transition to the implementation plan to a “permanent” solution:

 

http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/gallery/image/3406-hornbly-replacement-bus-kit/

 

 

A transitional solution in action

http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/gallery/image/3407-rail-replacement-bus/

 

 

The solution virtually already deployed in other Nashville regional corridors (standard RTA-Gray Line coaches in disguise).

 

A Permanent solution

http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/gallery/image/3408-rail-replacement-a-full-resolution/

 

 

-=...hope you have enjoyed this spoof=-

Edited September 27, 2014 by rookzie

[Mardi Gras Chicken]

Years down the road, when Nashville eventually creates a regional rail network, it will not be a big deal to move the Lebanon Line endpoint to a future main terminal in the Gulch.  Just need to preserve an easement for a future connection to the CSX Murfreesboro line northeast of the fairgrounds, and by that time there will probably be redevelopment and streetcar/light rail/BRT at worst potential for a transfer station at either Murfreesboro Pike or around Fesslers between the river and Lebanon Pike.  The industrial area along the river will eventually be redeveloped east to at least there.

 

Double tracking is not necessary for a nearly passenger only line with only a few local freights per day and virtually no potential to be resurrected as a through route (thus highly unlikely this line will ever see many freight trains per day.)  Single track commuter rail lines can easily handle 20-minute headways bidirectionally, which would be sufficient capacity in Nashville for the rest of our lifetimes and beyond.  You can also run on shorter headways with mostly double track but just a few short choke points where required.  Look at how many trains per hour MBTA funnels through the single track JFK/U.Mass section, fed by 3 different MBTA lines.

 

And unless our growth rate triples, we won't really need a commuter rail network for another 15-20 years.  Buses are the way to go for now, while planning and preserving property for an eventual regional rail network.  

Edited September 30, 2014 by Mardi Gras Chicken

[grilled_cheese]

Will the Amp make the West End commute better? Engineers say so

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/blog/2014/09/will-the-amp-make-the-west-end-commute-better.html

[rookzie]

Years down the road, when Nashville eventually creates a regional rail network, it will not be a big deal to move the Lebanon Line endpoint to a future main terminal in the Gulch.  Just need to preserve an easement for a future connection to the CSX Murfreesboro line northeast of the fairgrounds, and by that time there will probably be redevelopment and streetcar/light rail/BRT at worst potential for a transfer station at either Murfreesboro Pike or around Fesslers between the river and Lebanon Pike.  The industrial area along the river will eventually be redeveloped east to at least there.

 

Double tracking is not necessary for a nearly passenger only line with only a few local freights per day and virtually no potential to be resurrected as a through route (thus highly unlikely this line will ever see many freight trains per day.)  Single track commuter rail lines can easily handle 20-minute headways bidirectionally, which would be sufficient capacity in Nashville for the rest of our lifetimes and beyond.  You can also run on shorter headways with mostly double track but just a few short choke points where required.  Look at how many trains per hour MBTA funnels through the single track JFK/U.Mass section, fed by 3 different MBTA lines.

 

And unless our growth rate triples, we won't really need a commuter rail network for another 15-20 years.  Buses are the way to go for now, while planning and preserving property for an eventual regional rail network.  

 

I somewhat agree to an extent conditionally.  As far as an easement is concerned, allowing (preferably a seamless) interchange between the NERR and the CSX in the vicinity at the current grade separation of the two (along the Southern Junction, there still would be some serious physical challenges to be surmounted to allow for a connection at that point, let alone taking land by eminent domain possibly, the same type of civic issues on hand in dealing with the Northwest corridor alternative proposed to bring that line along the NWRR close to downtown.  Just "preserving" an easement is not as simple as delegating it, without some serious civic issues concerning redevelopment issues in the sections of those districts directly affected by those easements, especially the embattled Fisk-Meharry (Herman, Hermosa Streets) and Southside (Hart, Lewis Streets), even though those areas may contain a lot of blight.  With your suggestion, the Southside region would as expendable as the Fisk-Meharry tract would be for the NW corridor proposal via Ashland-City.  I'm not saying that a connection cannot or will not happen, but I seriously doubt that in early preparation for such a connection, it cannot be a guaranteed available asset by electing to pre-empt land parcels, given the fact that nothing to date has been discussed publicly toward earmarking any rail-bound passage through any neighborhoods.  All we have now (and have been having), is a set of peridiocally updated multiple proposal alternatives within a comprehensive long-range transportation plan.

 

And as far as double-tracking is concerned, let alone any freight movements along the NERR or the NWRR, you still have to plan for the optimal level of frequency for minimal disruptive conflicting movements of even passenger commuter rail, as infrequent as it is compared to LRT or BRT.  None of us rightfully can say that after we're deep-sixed in our graves, the then current capacity of service using sidings will never be exceeded.  When you're dealing with scheduling flexibility and scalability, whether light-, heavy-, comm-rail, or BRT, you can never say that single-track (or busway) alone will suffice for all future capacity.  While that is not so critical with commuter rail, nevertheless we already could use a second track for the MCS, while it is not absolutely necessary for the current levels of congestion.  Even though the RTA has proposed (as early as a year ago or more) the concept for an additional siding, to permit peak-period operation of complete round-trips between Lebanon and Riverfront, years down the road that second siding may have become outgrown by the need for a second track.

 

By that time, even if a connection eventually is implemented for all "spoke" corridors to a common station terminal (including yard limit, depot, etc.) ─ something indeed even I would dream of ─ then there would be no need for parallel terminal trackage at Riverfront.  But there always should be a provision for r.o.w. expansion to no fewer than 2 through (main) tracks, to accommodate the kids in the next generation, even along the remainder of the route.  I remember just 20 years ago, on boarding an American Airlines flight at NOLA Louis Armstrong, a fellow passenger claiming that he never would buy a serial modem faster than 57.6 mbs (megabits per second) for the Internet, because the (then) higher DTE (Data Terminal Equip.) speeds of the newest modems of 115.2 mbs would never be realized.  The truth is, by the end of the 1990s the defacto standard indeed had become just that higher 115.2 DTE speed, although devices for even higher rates had been developed and sold (but rates of which were not necessarily achievable because of hardware limitations).  Of course then came broadband during the late '90s, which has all but obviated a need for further serial modem enhancement.

 

I acknowledge that you did state "...unless our growth rate triples...", and this account for conditionality.  My point in saying all this is as a mere analogy to testimony, that, even with regional expansion there are a number of often unforeseen parameters that can all but derail forecasts and predictions about distant future collateral needs of transportation and other utilities.  That's the reason that a second track always should be planned for, even if it is never actually built, especially at stub terminals like Riverfront (with stub- rather than through-tracks).  It's even more critical to have parallel tracks at terminals, more than it is to have them along the main, to start off with.  That the real estate is more scarce at terminals makes it more critical to preserve an easement at those locations, while the land is still available.  You then can allow or sell air rights all you wish.

 

-==-

[rookzie]

Will the Amp make the West End commute better? Engineers say so

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/blog/2014/09/will-the-amp-make-the-west-end-commute-better.html

 

 

Saw it on the evening news.  Looks as if we're back to ground zero on that discussion, especially given the fact that the opposition has just geared up at a meeting this same evening concerning the same.

 

I wonder how that conclusion will reconcile with the general declarative that the new CEO gave in the Ledger recently.  Oh well, it's back to the court ─ the volleyball one, that is.

 

-==-

[nashvillwill]

This project has seemed to seriously stalled. Is anything being done to move it forward, or is it now just a pie in the sky?

[nashvylle]

I am hoping that the proponents and opponents of this project come to a true... COMPROMISE and get something done. 

[BrandonTO416]

Why would AMP be going back to the drawing board just because expected protests show up at a meeting? Federal funding is all but complete, the General Assembly didn't get what it wanted (in terms of a ban) since there was a deal with the Senate and Haslam back in the spring.

 

I understand some protest is normal, but leaders need to stand up to it and get the job done. AMP isn't half-assed, it has been studied and talked about for 20 years. The original proposal was for LRT and there are maps dating back to the mid 90's for this exact route. Just because the mode switched from using light rail vehicles to using light-rail like articulated buses doesn't mean it hasn't been studied. I believe the MTA also had a PDF news release recently that the latest engineering study spent a full year just studying the traffic pattern effects of going up 4th as opposed to 5th avenue for the east bound trip.

 

There's been enough talk, debate, and inaction on this and the time to build is now. The few community activists - as loud as some of them may be - have had their chance to be heard, and their voices have been listened to. The arguments they put forth aren't convincing enough, its basically people concerned more with turning their Escalade's and Volvo X90's and Tahoe's left on West End Avenue and not having a dedicated bus lane block them. They are selfish and short-sighted given that West End is the premiere street in Nashville's core leading into downtown. Despite this, the Dean administration listened and responded and now has no plans to make dedicated lanes past I-440 to alleviate the concerns of some of the people and organizations along the route.

 

Democracy had its day, the government has responded with a kind accommodation, and now the time is to build. You won't get a professional grade, frequent, rapid transit system any cheaper than Nashville has planned. With each new year the costs will only rise even for this project, and the densification of the central core of the city will become gridlocked without any rapid transport system.

 

This AMP situation is beyond the pale, Memphis had a trolley system constructed and running in 1992 when I was a kid. Here it is 22 years later and Nashville is still fighting over whether a central city circulator should be built at all. Nashville isn't exactly the boomtown it wants to be at times, and this is a frustrating example of that. Dallas, Houston, Atlanta and all the other cities in this region will forever be light years ahead of Nashville if this infighting doesn't stop. The city has an impressive building boom going on after years of virtually no downtown residential at all, but if it can't get this transportation issue settled then it'll still look like a town with low ambition. Building a proper transit system in the core is just as important as building another condo or skyscraper downtown, and this area is one where Nashville lags other cities terribly.

Edited October 17, 2014 by BrandonTO416

[Vrtigo]

[BrandonTO416]

ANTI-AMP activists need to appreciate what has been given to them, you rarely get 100% of what you want. The planners most certainly didn't want to give up dedicated lanes since it'll make the service less reliable and slower, but its been done. There's nothing else left to negotiate. BRT was already chosen over LRT for cost cutting to make this super affordable, now that it won't be in dedicated lanes there is literally nothing else to appease people. Hence why its time to get shovels in the ground and get it done.

Edited October 18, 2014 by BrandonTO416

[BnaBreaker]

ANTI-AMP activists need to appreciate what has been given to them, you rarely get 100% of what you want. The planners most certainly didn't want to give up dedicated lanes since it'll make the service less reliable and slower, but its been done. There's nothing else left to negotiate. BRT was already chosen over LRT for cost cutting to make this super affordable, now that it won't be in dedicated lanes there is literally nothing else to appease people. Hence why its time to get shovels in the ground and get it done.

 

Couldn't agree more.  Relative to where this whole thing started, this is just about as close to a 50/50 proposition as we could possibly get.  What the hell are the anti-AMP people still complaining about? 

[farm_boy]

Or hopefully Karl's Jr. milli-amp will go away and the RTA can design and implement a real mass transit plan. This is just another Dean Wormer pet project to put his name on. The sooner he is out and amp dies, then we can move forward. And the sooner, the better

 

Just another progressive opinion ......

[BnaBreaker]

Or hopefully Karl's Jr. milli-amp will go away and the RTA can design and implement a real mass transit plan. This is just another Dean Wormer pet project to put his name on. The sooner he is out and amp dies, then we can move forward. And the sooner, the better

 

Just another progressive opinion ......

 

 

I'm all for that if there were a real possibility of getting a comprehensive light rail system or something along those lines, but I really don't get the impression that most Nashvillians are ready for that kind of thing.  Am I wrong?

[BrandonTO416]

Most people don't understand light rail, it is the most complicated mode of transit around. You can have it in the form of a streetcar/tram/trolley, you can have it in the form of articulated vehicles that run in the street (but are usually separated in dedicated lanes), you can have it in its own right of way so that it acts subway-like and has the performance of true rapid transit instead of local transit. If we want to get super technical, none of the proposals over the years have been rapid transit in the true definition. Whether LRT or BRT (the mode is irrelevant), this line has always been designed to go in-street down West End into downtown and East Nashville. As such, its really a local transit system as opposed to rapid transit.

 

If Nashville were a city like San Francisco, I'd say go for heavy rail if one wasn't built. But if you look at SF, you must realize that even they started transport in stages. For many decades MUNI was just running trolleys and streetcars, the heavy rail BART didn't come until the 1970's. And this is a dense city where people actually utilize public transit services.

 

However lets get back to this BRT and LRT comparison, because this is what faces Nashville. Nashville is a city that is not keen on public transport; however, in order for the central city to continue its ascent as an urban environment there needs to be a starter system of some kind.

 

LRT offers more capacity than BRT. A large, articulated BRT vehicle may be able to carry 40-80 people depending on if all seats are taken and if you pack people in standing. A large, articulated light rail vehicle may be able to hold double that, or even quadriple that if the vehicles are large and another set is added on (Minneapolis uses 6 cars for its system).

 

HOWEVER, there is a drawback that anyone who has used these systems know. LRT does cost a lot to operate, as such the added capacity usually means if ridership isn't very high (when I say high, I mean 100,000 people a day utilizing the line) most transit agencies only run one train every 15 to 30 minutes. And if you're going to operate LRT in the middle of the street, even if it has dedicated lanes, its going to be just as slow as a bus.

 

BRT is cheap enough to operate that you can run buses every 5-10 minutes for a city with the demand Nashville has potential for. BRT is actually a better solution for Nashville's unique setup and situation. I'm a rail enthusiast, I just used Minneapolis' new Green line system a few weeks ago, I lived in Pittsburgh and Portland and used both the MAX and T service one year each as my primary mode of transport to get to work daily. Just because its rail doesn't mean its automatically better.

 

I've also been to Cleveland many, many times and ridden their HealthLine BRT system, which is what AMP will be like in the core. For a budget constrained transit agency (and MTA certainly meets this qualification), it will be much easier for AMP to operate every 5-15 mins throughout the entire day as opposed to every 15-30 minutes with higher capacity LRT trains. Personally, I'd rather have a BRT if its that frequent. It isn't a half-assed project.

 

Whenever I hear someone say AMP is half-assed, or say that they should drop it/start over, AND they are transit supporters I don't think they have a lot of experience with using transit or transit issues. Just because a vehicle is a rail based vehicle doesn't make it a better solution by the mere fact that it has steel wheels that make contact with rail. Too much attention has been paid to the mode of transport. Heck, Montreal has such a unique system you could say they operate an underground bus subway since their vehicles use rubber wheels. LOL I really don't give a crap what technology is used as long as it works best for its environment.

 

If we all got what we wanted, I'd rather Nashville scrap everything and build a Vancouver-like Skytrain that doesn't cross any intersections and is quick. But where is the conservative Middle Tennessee population that would support a multi-billion investment in transit in the year 2014?

 

At a certain point you just have to compromise and understand what works best, and a professional grade BRT (not like BRT lite) similar to the Cleveland HealthLine is more than ample for Nashville's needs. And again, what Nashvillians don't understand often is that BRT actually can be better, because you can run the buses with higher frequency than LRT.

 

Would you really rather have LRT just so you can wait every 15-30 minutes for the train that doesn't get from point A to point B any faster, since both options are running in the street? Really think on it, and BRT actually becomes the preferred option.

 

If you're going to invest into LRT, it needs to be in its own right of way, not down West End Ave. And since there's no room, a Skytrain elevated track option would be best. And if you want Nashville to have no transit for 20 more years while that is debated out, go right ahead...

Edited October 18, 2014 by BrandonTO416

[BrandonTO416]

And something else I want to add, anyone who uses transit knows waiting is not fun, and waiting for buses or trains is a deterrent to public transit. 5 minutes doesn't sound like a lot of time, but when you're twiddling your thumbs waiting on a bus or rail vehicle, it feels long. When you need to get to the office or to an appointment, it IS a long time. If you just missed a bus or train and have to wait another 15-20 minutes, it can be very long. The goal of the AMP should be to reduce this as much as possible so you don't need to refer to a schedule. The entire point of the system is so that its reliable and you don't need a schedule, you just show up at a station and can expect it to come by soon.

 

To extrapolate on the math, here is the curve public transit agencies across the world have to grapple with.

 

BRT is a cheaper option to operate on a daily basis, but the vehicles carry fewer passengers. This means you can have more frequent service (better service levels) in mild to moderate ridership environments such as what you can expect in Nashville.

 

LRT is a more expensive option to operate on a daily basis, but the vehicles can be articulated and are typically able to carry 100-150 (or much more if you use 6 cars like Minneapolis) passengers per train.

 

The math curve this creates is as follows: if your line only has 15,000 to 40,000 riders a day (rough estimation), the BRT option is cheaper and better because you can afford to run buses every 7-10 minutes for the same cost. But ridership on the line can't really go far above 50,000 per day as you'd have to start running too many buses for it to be cheaper per mile of operation.

 

The curve changes into LRT's favor if you're talking about a heavy use line (like Calgary) and your LRT line has 75,000 or 100,000 riders. At this point, there are so many passengers, you'd have to run BRT buses every 2-3 minutes to keep up with capacity and BRT becomes more expensive to operate. Light rail becomes much cheaper to operate in higher capacity environments even though its more expensive to run each train.

 

This curve, when applied to Nashville, is pretty easy to understand. Even larger, more dense cities like Pittsburgh struggle to get 25,000 to 30,000 riders on their LRT systems. Charlotte averages 16,500 riders per day on LYNX light rail, which is a number Nashville can more likely look to matching. I'd say Nashville will have more riders because its a tourist oriented city.

 

LYNX also operates light rail less frequently, you can check the schedule for yourself:

http://charmeck.org/city/charlotte/cats/lynx/routes/pages/routesschedules.aspx

 

While they achieve every 10 minutes in rush hour, very quickly at 9am it drops back to every 15 minutes, and in the evening it drops to only 3 trains per hour at 7pm. BRT can easily double this frequency, you could have a bus every 5 minutes during rush hour, every 10-15 minutes during late periods where only 3 trains run per hour. Would you rather have 6 buses per hour, or only 3 trains per hour in off peak hours since that's what ridership could support?? I'm surprised Charlotte LYNX can offer as much service as it does on the lower ridership numbers, because the fewer people that utilize the service, the harder it is to maintain the service as fares do pay for a great deal of the daily operations. The difference between 15k riders and 25k riders in terms of revenues from fares is tremendous on an annual basis, so I hope Charlotte's usage goes up since it was such a huge investment.

 

Getting 20-30,000 riders out of their cars and off West End Ave is a huge success either way, but would you rather them have to wait every 15 minutes for a LRT vehicle, or would you rather have the 5-10 minute wait a BRT line can handle?

 

Compare LYNX to Cleveland's HealthLine BRT, which serves about 15,000 riders a day (about the same as Charlotte's LYNX).

http://www.riderta.com/routes/healthline/schedules/current

 

If you get right to the source with hard data, you can easily see how much more frequent service is. RTA is not a rich transit agency, they are cash strapped as much as anywhere. But they can afford to run 8 buses an hour as early as 6am on fare revenue from only 15,000 passengers a day. This is over double the service level of Charlotte's LYNX with similar passenger counts/fare revenue.

 

Frequency for the ridership expected actually makes BRT a better option for Nashville's environment. Maybe in 30 years when the city has intensified its urban core an elevated train of some type can be built later on... But right now, AMP actually is a better option. I'm not a fan of Light Rail in the street since its not quicker than a bus, and the trains are less frequent.

 

Frequency is a big issue, and LRT would indeed be less frequent if AMP were light rail, and I think it would be silly to invest $500 million or more into an articulated, dedicated lane light rail system when it still has to stop at stoplights and incur slowdowns (light rail can be a BAD option if implemented the wrong way, based on cost and the service level return you get). Also, for the anti-transit advocates out there who just want an easier trip by car, you cannot tell me or anyone else with a serious face that you believe taking 20,000 vehicle trips off West End Ave and East Nashville that it wouldn't positively affect automobile traffic. That's a dead argument, because congestion is only going to get worse with or without AMP for vehicles. This creates choices and does get many cars out of your way throughout the route.

 

Public transit isn't for everyone, but it does have an impact (positive impact) on car trips in a city core. This is why these arguments you hear from STOP AMP or other anti-transit advocates seem so petty and tiresome. It comes from a background of just not knowing, or not accepting Nashville's growth or how to deal with it.

 

Lastly, I invite Nashvillians interested in transit issues to travel about the country. Drive the 7 hours to Charlotte and utilize LYNX and its service level. Drive 8 hours up to Cleveland and ride the HealthLine one weekend, and don't ride them once, ride them several times. You might find that you appreciate HealthLine coming by twice as often with better service quality than LYNX since LYNX doesn't have the demand and cannot afford to run trains more frequently.

 

EDIT: My apologies for the lengthy responses, and the sometimes imperfect English of a quickly written document, but as you can tell I'm fairly passionate about these issues and feel there are a lot of things that aren't easily understood on these transportation issues. If AMP is completed now, as it has been planned for the past 20 years, Nashville can then move onto the next stage of development. The discussion after AMP BRT is built is how can Nashville eventually build a skytrain like service, and maybe in 20-25 years Nashville can start building the viaducts for an elevated train (which is more cost effective than subway tunnels in hard Nashville bedrock). Transit is an evolution, it takes stages to get where you want it to be, and AMP is perfect for Nashville's current stage of development. If AMP gets to the level where its servicing more than 50,000 riders a day, an elevated train will be the natural next step someday in the future. And this evolution is better than rushing a $500+ million light rail system in the middle of the street today.

Edited October 19, 2014 by BrandonTO416

[BrandonTO416]

Since a picture (or video) is worth a thousand words, check out a user's video of the HealthLine to be introduced to BRT since its easier than driving 8 hours.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRIvDvgBjqM

Edited October 18, 2014 by BrandonTO416

[BrandonTO416]

And Fox 17 also did a report by going up to Cleveland last year, of course they added in a skeptic so they could pretend to be fair and balanced, but overall a good report:

 

Edited October 18, 2014 by BrandonTO416

[BrandonTO416]

Surprised no one else has had a comment since my last several posts. I re-read the posts and need to further clarify that BRT is cheaper per vehicle to run (not "daily" as I said above), but only to a certain point if you start maxing out the individual vehicle capacity. That's when LRT becomes cheaper, because it has the higher capacity that you won't need to run extra trains to service the demand. This is the curve I was trying to explain, even if imperfect.

 

Also, you can see where the expensive LYNX system in Charlotte has raised their fares. With AMP being BRT its likely the MTA can keep fares lower, enticing more people to ride transit.

 

Charlotte CATS:

http://charmeck.org/city/charlotte/cats/fares/Pages/default.aspx

 

Single trips: $2.20

Express trips: $3.00

 

 

Nashville MTA:

http://www.nashvillemta-amp.org/Nashville-MTA-bus-fares.asp

 

Single trips (including BRT): $1.70

Express trips: $2.25

 

Anyone who thinks that implementing an expensive LRT line without higher ridership is not going to affect fares? Think again. MTA - as cash strapped as it is - is implementing several "BRT lite" services so that many corridors are getting frequent service: Gallatin, Murfreesboro, soon to be Charlotte and Nolensville Pikes are all getting faster, limited stop, frequent BRT like service for the same low fare. Granted the difference isn't extreme, but its worth noting that fares do change depending on how much it costs to operate.

Edited October 23, 2014 by BrandonTO416

[nashvillwill]

Can you explain how BRT is cheaper to run (up to a certain peak in ridership)? I was always under the impression that LRT (while more expensive upfront) was cheaper in operating costs. In the simplest form, it makes sense that it should be. Less fuel costs, less maintenance, fewer drivers. Even if more empty equipment is being run on a low demand route, I just don't see how it could be more expensive to operate.

I'm not saying your wrong, I'm just trying to wrap my head around it.

Edit; I guess I can disqualify one of my own criteria. On a theoretically empty line, it wouldn't be less drivers. In order to keep the same headway, it would still need to be X number of vehicles per hour, which means the same number of drivers. I guess the driver count would only be reduced on a heavy demand line where LRT can carry more passengers per vehicle.

Edited October 23, 2014 by nashvillwill

[MLBrumby]

I think the longer term appeal to BRT is its flexibility, especially where the market is in a great state of flux, as is true for Midtown Nashville.  If a LRT line had been proposed ten years ago, I venture West End would have been the clear choice for the route, but not so much now.  There is so much residential bleeding off the W.E. "spine", but looking at W.E. itself, there has not been much residential actually built along it.  In fact, I think the proposed route for the BRT down West End now is short-sighted (if not misguided).  I have laid out what I believe to be a better alternative (IMHO!!!) based on what I have used/needed/desired in my limited use of transit (bus/taxi) in Nashville as a student/visitor/business traveler over the past 25 years. In short, a long circuit route around and crossing W.E., but not running along that street.  I also think that would help answer/resolve much of the opposition to the present BRT route proposed. 

 

On another level altogether, I think it would be sweet justice for a transit line (BRT/LRT) down Charlotte/Church/Hayes to 21st, crossing West End, to Grand/Music Row, to Roundabout/Demonbreun or Division, back to the Music City Center, and back up 4th or 5th to the Transit Center... and the inevitable Transit Oriented Development... effectively circumnavigating Beaman's properties.  No doubt, they will always be valuable, but more so if a LRT line were ever brought up West End right next to his land.