The "Nashville UrbanPlanet Solves Transit" Thread

[ruraljuror]

Just now, nashvylle said:

I agree with your point, but approving toll roads in Tennessee is a death sentence for a politician.

Yes it is redundant, but it is the loophole needed to allow dedicated lanes in the first place, given current state law. 

Fair enough, though it's a shame that a toll road is more politically hazardous than passing the same toll through a private entity that can skim even more off the top.  Uber or not, I don't think a toll road is the solution we need, but I do appreciate your effort to find a practical loophole in the ridiculous state law banning dedicated lanes.

[12Mouth]

21 minutes ago, ruraljuror said:

Fair enough, though it's a shame that a toll road is more politically hazardous than passing the same toll through a private entity that can skim even more off the top.  Uber or not, I don't think a toll road is the solution we need, but I do appreciate your effort to find a practical loophole in the ridiculous state law banning dedicated lanes.

So, as the creator of this crazy idea, I don't think it is completely redundant. Regardless of Uber's future, there is clearly a market demand for shared carpooling which will be even more affordable when we have autonomous vehicles. If we are running buses every 10 minutes, that means that more than 9 out of every 10 minutes, the lane in any given area is completely empty, which is a highly inefficient use of space. There are individuals who want the cheapest option - walk/bike to public transit, take public transit. There are people who are willing to pay to take a rideshare to public transit and get on board. There are others who are willing to pay a bit more to not have to transfer to public transit and will go door to door. If there are multiple passengers in the vehicle (which would be required), they are still potentially taking vehicles off of the road, while subsidizing the bus riders who can now pay even less. Depending on right of way, buses could potentially pull in to their stops, allowing rideshare to go around them. 

[nashvylle]

would the dedicated lanes be in the middle or the right sides of the road? I remember people having an issue with The Amp because they couldn't turn left. Maybe having the dedicated lanes in the right sides of the road will prevent any issues. 

[Bos2Nash]

2 hours ago, nashvylle said:

Lyft/Uberpool to pay to use the dedicated lanes.  More money for metro. 

Lyft/Uberpool could get out of the dedicated lanes if the bus is delaying them. 

Money to metro is good, presuming there is money there from these companies. To gain that cash flow would they just have to bank on more investors or would they have to pass those fess on to users?

For a dedicated lane to be most efficient, wouldn't there be a hard barrier (curb, traffic divider etc.) that keeps the general public out of the lane? Otherwise, human nature will be for some jackass to fly up the lane and cut off the traffic lane, thus creating more traffic.  

58 minutes ago, 12Mouth said:

So, as the creator of this crazy idea, I don't think it is completely redundant. Regardless of Uber's future, there is clearly a market demand for shared carpooling which will be even more affordable when we have autonomous vehicles. If we are running buses every 10 minutes, that means that more than 9 out of every 10 minutes, the lane in any given area is completely empty, which is a highly inefficient use of space. There are individuals who want the cheapest option - walk/bike to public transit, take public transit. There are people who are willing to pay to take a rideshare to public transit and get on board. There are others who are willing to pay a bit more to not have to transfer to public transit and will go door to door. If there are multiple passengers in the vehicle (which would be required), they are still potentially taking vehicles off of the road, while subsidizing the bus riders who can now pay even less. Depending on right of way, buses could potentially pull in to their stops, allowing rideshare to go around them. 

The idea of the people going door-to-door on the service subsidizing the public transit user, while noble, seems a bit idealistic.  Granted that would probably end up being buried in code of how the fares are calculated. For example, for every mass transit stop the rideshare passes it takes on a quarter or something?

As far as "pulling" into a bus stop, these lanes would be kept to a minimum in width so I would presume that the buses just stop in the lane. 

These lanes could also double as a bike corridor too?

8 minutes ago, nashvylle said:

would the dedicated lanes be in the middle or the right sides of the road? I remember people having an issue with The Amp because they couldn't turn left. Maybe having the dedicated lanes in the right sides of the road will prevent any issues. 

I would think the right hand side of the road makes most sense. Bus stops should generally at intersections anyways so it would still allow cars to do right on reds, and when a bus pulls up to the stop they would ideally trigger a shorter light cycle with prioritization. 

[PruneTracy]

Couple of thoughts re: ridesharing and tolling.

• Ultimately, the goal of implementing dedicated transit lanes is to increase passenger throughput, not to decrease travel time. That is to say, the scenario when it becomes a preferred alternative over other measures that decrease travel time for all vehicular users is on a roadway that has reached its maximum throughput with no lane restrictions. So allowing low-capacity transit vehicles (e.g., ridesharing services) in a transit lane is decreasing the effectiveness of the lane, particularly as drivers for those services are typically untrained and can't communicate with other vehicles in the sense that transit drivers can. (Of course, this assumes that the lane is operating at or near capacity; however, if it's not, then it shouldn't be implemented in the first place.)
• The political impact of a facility where only certain lanes or vehicles are tolled is not the same as that of a facility where all traffic is tolled. HOT lanes and similar treatments aren't necessarily popular (which is how they acquired the moniker of "Lexus Lanes") but it's still a far cry from the types of facilities seen in the northeast. However, what you want to avoid is a situation where tolls are implemented based on certain classifications or qualities. Setting aside the political implications and the technical limitations of enforcement, you want to be able to manage the flow of traffic in the tolled lane, again to maximize throughput.

If you want to go down this route, the most effective solution would be to designate a couple of lanes on a facility for tolls with dynamic pricing. This works especially well on freeways. The amount of the toll changes based on the real-time demand and is managed such that the lanes are always moving at the optimal speed to maximize throughput.

Some agencies offer discounts to HOV or transit, but in theory this should be unnecessary. Vehicles with a higher passenger density would already pay less on a per-passenger basis, since they take up less space on the roadway. (And of course they should not have free access for the reasons mentioned above.) So you get the travel time benefit the public tends to associate with a dedicated transit lane, but for all users, including private services such as Uber and Lyft. No backroom deals necessary.

The only question then is how to incorporate transit infrastructure, such as stops, stations, and terminals, and it would be relatively trivial to include turnouts or other measures to allow transit vehicles to stop without impeding the flow of the managed lanes. Just a matter of right-of-way width, but the same is true for dedicated transit lanes.

[MLBrumby]

Three things I think this referendum showed.... 

1. Dedicated lanes/tracks need to be on less-traveled roads, but (yes) to the most densely nodes. For example, instead of down West End/B'way or Division or even Charlotte, it needs to go down Hayes or Patterson or Jo Johnson. And needs to be a loop.

2. Less ambitious than the $5.4 billion with a certain self-funding component. 

3. Commuter rail down Interstate median would be evidence to suburbanites that they are being served too. 

[smeagolsfree]

One thing that has not been discussed is the possibility of using reversible lanes on some of the major arterial roads coming into downtown. Much the same way that Hermitage Ave is,but on a much larger scale.

These lane would be extended tot he county line in all directions.  Sync all the traffic lights, allow limited left turns from the other direction. I do think that Metro needs to work with the state to repeal the BRT dedicated lane rule. The state needs to be a partner instead of a detriment to the solution. 

You could do this effectively by expanding some of the roads, such as Gallatin Pike, Charlotte, Ave and Nolensville Rd. If you embrace the idea that you are car centric in nature, then do what it takes to move cars efficiently.

[Bos2Nash]

2 hours ago, smeagolsfree said:

One thing that has not been discussed is the possibility of using reversible lanes on some of the major arterial roads coming into downtown. Much the same way that Hermitage Ave is,but on a much larger scale.

These lane would be extended tot he county line in all directions.  Sync all the traffic lights, allow limited left turns from the other direction. I do think that Metro needs to work with the state to repeal the BRT dedicated lane rule. The state needs to be a partner instead of a detriment to the solution. 

You could do this effectively by expanding some of the roads, such as Gallatin Pike, Charlotte, Ave and Nolensville Rd. If you embrace the idea that you are car centric in nature, then do what it takes to move cars efficiently.

The idea of increasing the reversal lanes (Hermitage) in the city is quite scary to me. In a way I understand these roads, but the risk of head on collisions is just too large to continue the practice - IMO

That all being said, the use of a reversible lane on the interstates is a fairly effective way to increase road volume to work with directional traffic. Both San Francisco and Boston utilize "zipper-lanes" to add a lane of traffic moving in or out of the cities to work with traffic, with the intention of moving vehicles while also limiting the traffic flow on the city streets. Maybe even limiting traffic enough where instead of adding more volume for cars, more volume can then be added for bikes and more walkable space.  Or if the state ever pulls their head out of the sand and allows dedicated lanes...

 

[12Mouth]

17 hours ago, PruneTracy said:

Couple of thoughts re: ridesharing and tolling.

• Ultimately, the goal of implementing dedicated transit lanes is to increase passenger throughput, not to decrease travel time. That is to say, the scenario when it becomes a preferred alternative over other measures that decrease travel time for all vehicular users is on a roadway that has reached its maximum throughput with no lane restrictions. So allowing low-capacity transit vehicles (e.g., ridesharing services) in a transit lane is decreasing the effectiveness of the lane, particularly as drivers for those services are typically untrained and can't communicate with other vehicles in the sense that transit drivers can. (Of course, this assumes that the lane is operating at or near capacity; however, if it's not, then it shouldn't be implemented in the first place.)
• The political impact of a facility where only certain lanes or vehicles are tolled is not the same as that of a facility where all traffic is tolled. HOT lanes and similar treatments aren't necessarily popular (which is how they acquired the moniker of "Lexus Lanes") but it's still a far cry from the types of facilities seen in the northeast. However, what you want to avoid is a situation where tolls are implemented based on certain classifications or qualities. Setting aside the political implications and the technical limitations of enforcement, you want to be able to manage the flow of traffic in the tolled lane, again to maximize throughput.

If you want to go down this route, the most effective solution would be to designate a couple of lanes on a facility for tolls with dynamic pricing. This works especially well on freeways. The amount of the toll changes based on the real-time demand and is managed such that the lanes are always moving at the optimal speed to maximize throughput.

Some agencies offer discounts to HOV or transit, but in theory this should be unnecessary. Vehicles with a higher passenger density would already pay less on a per-passenger basis, since they take up less space on the roadway. (And of course they should not have free access for the reasons mentioned above.) So you get the travel time benefit the public tends to associate with a dedicated transit lane, but for all users, including private services such as Uber and Lyft. No backroom deals necessary.

The only question then is how to incorporate transit infrastructure, such as stops, stations, and terminals, and it would be relatively trivial to include turnouts or other measures to allow transit vehicles to stop without impeding the flow of the managed lanes. Just a matter of right-of-way width, but the same is true for dedicated transit lanes.

I don't really disagree with anything you are saying, but this all started with a discussion of how we could do BRT on state owned non-interstates (i.e. West End, Charlotte, Gallatin, Nolensville, etc.). The goal (in my mind) was, how can we keep the state from interfering if we wanted to do dedicated lane BRT on these roads. Having a relatively small fleet of commercial carpool vehicles also using the lanes seems like a fairly minor trade-off and has numerous political and financial wins (I think?). It is way easier to regulate a few companies than the general population, and these fleets will also presumably be automated well before the general population of cars. The drivers are also following company-given driving instructions, so they could only be instructed to get in these lanes if, for instance, their destination was downtown and they were making no turns for a couple of miles.

There is no way that we can just start tolling lanes on West End or implementing congestion pricing without the state shutting it down immediately, which was the point of the initial BRT discussion. 

[Flatrock]

Oh dear, that didn't take long. Bird Scooter issued a 'cease and desist' from Metro.

https://www.tennessean.com/story/money/2018/05/09/nashville-tells-bird-scooter-service-cease-and-desist-after-two-days/594466002/

 

Sorry, didn't see Smeagolsfree post on Bits & Pieces thread a few minutes before mine....

[PruneTracy]

35 minutes ago, 12Mouth said:

There is no way that we can just start tolling lanes on West End or implementing congestion pricing without the state shutting it down immediately, which was the point of the initial BRT discussion. 

I believe the General Assembly would be more receptive of tolled managed lanes (as opposed to entire facilities) than one would expect. TDOT as well as the MPOs have been kicking the tires on this option for some time. States demographically similar to Tennessee have put implementations on the ground; Virginia and Georgia have managed lanes, and Alabama and both Carolinas have fully tolled facilities. The IMPROVE Act (raising the gas tax, albeit at the expense of other taxes) got passed last year as well.

Tennessee has a gubernatorial election this year, which most likely also means a change in TDOT leadership. If the new governor and TDOT commissioner want to make this a priority, and they can negotiate a reduction in the gas tax to offset the toll revenue, I think they could get the green light for tolled managed lanes. Again, the revenue, while opening up new possibilities for financing construction, is not the primary goal. The primary goal is increasing TDOT's ability to manage traffic flow.

My preferred option would be to repeal the anti-BRT law, but if we're looking for a backdoor that enables it on state routes, this is it.

1 hour ago, Bos2Nash said:

The idea of increasing the reversal lanes (Hermitage) in the city is quite scary to me. In a way I understand these roads, but the risk of head on collisions is just too large to continue the practice - IMO

The data for the overall crash rate on facilities with reversible lanes is mixed, but head-on crashes in general only account for a small fraction of fatalities on urban arterials. I forget what it is, something like 5-10%.

Part of the problem is that non-freeway reversible lanes in general are a rare treatment, and there's even fewer conversions to reversible lanes (that would allow for comparison studies on the same facility, which is the gold standard for safety analyses).

The primary drawback isn't safety so much as the infrastructure required to manage the reversible lanes. It's not a cheap install and if you have a large volume of turning traffic then the capacity benefits are pretty much negated. It's basically like a reverse road diet.

[12Mouth]

1 hour ago, PruneTracy said:

I believe the General Assembly would be more receptive of tolled managed lanes (as opposed to entire facilities) than one would expect. TDOT as well as the MPOs have been kicking the tires on this option for some time. States demographically similar to Tennessee have put implementations on the ground; Virginia and Georgia have managed lanes, and Alabama and both Carolinas have fully tolled facilities. The IMPROVE Act (raising the gas tax, albeit at the expense of other taxes) got passed last year as well.

But I'm assuming you are talking about managed toll lanes on the interstate, correct? You think that they would actually approve managed toll lanes running down urban corridors like West End?

[PruneTracy]

17 minutes ago, 12Mouth said:

But I'm assuming you are talking about managed toll lanes on the interstate, correct? You think that they would actually approve managed toll lanes running down urban corridors like West End?

Managed toll lanes on arterials in general would be difficult to implement from a practical perspective, but the political issues are about the same. The big difference is the input of stakeholders along the routes. It would be interesting to see if there would be pushback from Beaman et al. considering the assumption that they only opposed the Amp because of the transit factor. Would they also oppose a project similar in construction scope, that would effectively remove two general-purpose lanes on West End, but is intended to facilitate automobile traffic?

In any case, circling back around to the thread topic, ultimately the state is going to have to trust its agency (i.e., TDOT) to manage the state's roadways if Nashville is to get improved transit. TDOT is not a transit agency, nor is their focus solely on Nashville, but on the other hand, they are not simply a roadway agency. That's why it's called the Tennessee Department of Transportation and not, as it was formerly known, the Department of Highways and Public Works. TDOT has been open to transit projects on its roadways, they supported the Amp (if tepidly) and of course transit agencies all over Tennessee run routes on state roadways. It seems asinine for lawmakers to overstep their own agency to make these decisions on their behalf, but then I guess if they didn't they wouldn't be politicians.

[markhollin]

4 excellent tech ideas to help with easing traffic issues in Nashville:

1)  A.I. enabled trafifc lights
2)  Telecommuting tax incentive program
3)  Braking optimization app
4) Parking spot finder

More here:

https://www.tennessean.com/story/money/tech/2018/05/11/4-ways-technology-could-ease-nashvilles-traffic-crunch/600288002/

[smeagolsfree]

One thing that needs to be discussed is the changing of the street grid in downtown back to a series of one way streets. This is a much more efficient way to move cars and buses around downtown. I have traveled to many of our peer cities and they have numerous one way streets. 

I have always though that Karl Dean screwed up changing 5th to two way and what should have been done is a one way from Lafayette to at least James Robertson if not all the way in to Salemtown. Third needs to be one way going south since 2nd is going north and 5th needs to be going north since fourth is going south and cut the two way in front of the Symphony back to one way.

We could probably change some of the east west streets such as Church back to one way as well.

Sorry to all the drunk tourist that go the wrong way. You need to get a ticket.

 

I could work on a grid map to make it a lot easier to understand when I have the time. 

 

Thoughts?????

[BnaBreaker]

2 minutes ago, smeagolsfree said:

One thing that needs to be discussed is the changing of the street grid in downtown back to a series of one way streets. This is a much more efficient way to move cars and buses around downtown. I have traveled to many of our peer cities and they have numerous one way streets. 

I have always though that Karl Dean screwed up changing 5th to two way and what should have been done is a one way from Lafayette to at least James Robertson if not all the way in to Salemtown. Third needs to be one way going south since 2nd is going north and 5th needs to be going north since fourth is going south and cut the two way in front of the Symphony back to one way.

We could probably change some of the east west streets such as Church back to one way as well.

Sorry to all the drunk tourist that go the wrong way. You need to get a ticket.

 

I could work on a grid map to make it a lot easier to understand when I have the time. 

 

Thoughts?????

Well, I admittedly have much to learn in regards to the one way street vs two way street debate, so by all means set me straight where needed.  But part of the reasoning I have heard for converting one ways into two ways is that it tends to slow traffic down which makes for a safer pedestrian environment, which seems like a worth while pursuit to me.  One way streets do tend to have a highway effect at times.  My parent's city of South Bend, IN recently converted their one way downtown streets and it has had a profound effect on the liveliness of downtown, not that Nashville needs any help in that regard, but still worth mentioning I think.

[bigeasy]

I really think removing as much decision making from the driver is really the only way to truly solve traffic. Just think of the movie iRobot or whatever that Will Smith movie was called. I swear half of the gridlocks I run into are simply due to poor driving or poor decision making by people. Traffic would flow much better if people were to merge into the right lane in advance, give ample amount of space between vehicles for braking or other cars changing lanes, etc.  But people are selfish a$$holes, so here we are. 

One area I used to see this daily on was the i40 to I-440W section. You have the right lane going to 440 and the left going to i24. If people would get into the right lane before the turn it would help drastically.  Instead they drive in the left lane to pass the slower traffic and then merge at the last second. This causes  not only the i24 to slow down but the people already in the i404 lane to heavily brake.  

https://phys.org/news/2007-12-traffic-mystery-mathematicians.html

[smeagolsfree]

I visit so many of our p÷r cities and get spoiled as far as ease of navigation in many of them and most of the time it stems from one way streets. The probllem in Nashville is the downtown streets are so narrow two wysdo not work very well and things get gridlocked in a heartbeat.

If Metro started enforcing jay walking then fewer pecestrians would get hit here. In NYC the cops cary a computer and write tickets on sight and takes all of a minute. Swipe the ID , ticket spits out your on your way.

[Neigeville2]

2 hours ago, smeagolsfree said:

I visit so many of our p÷r cities and get spoiled as far as ease of navigation in many of them and most of the time it stems from one way streets. The probllem in Nashville is the downtown streets are so narrow two wysdo not work very well and things get gridlocked in a heartbeat.

If Metro started enforcing jay walking then fewer pecestrians would get hit here. In NYC the cops cary a computer and write tickets on sight and takes all of a minute. Swipe the ID , ticket spits out your on your way.

I'm pretty sure the research shows enforcing jaywalking laws increases the number of people hit by cars.  One reason is, for the convenience of drivers, pedestrians are forced to cross at the corner, by far the most dangerous place since it is mostly turning cars that hit people.  Another is the threat of someone stepping into the street makes drivers pay attention.

Same thing with one way streets, "Hey now I can drive fast and not pay attention!"  I want to do everything possible to make drivers nervous, and frankly I don't care how long it takes you to traverse the few blocks from the interstate to your downtown location.

Also I wonder to what extent the additional driving caused by one way streets, with the circuitous routes and lost drivers they create, undoes the "benefit" of the speed-racer behavior they promote.

[LA_TN]

1 hour ago, Neigeville2 said:

... One reason is, for the convenience of drivers, pedestrians are forced to cross at the corner, by far the most dangerous place since it is mostly turning cars that hit people.  Another is the threat of someone stepping into the street makes drivers pay attention.... 

But when I explain this to people here, they think I'm crazy. Even got a council member mad at me when I suggested that for a project near my house

Crossing in the middle of the block is MUCH safer than crossing at the corner

[smeagolsfree]

Jay walking is also crossing against the light at the intersection. Most of the country bumkins that visit wee the light is green but don't know what don't walk means. I've seen a few close calls and many of them need to be educated, but hopefully not the fatal way.

[Guest]

I jaywalk constantly .... literally dozens of times each day. I have yet to have a close encounter with a vehicle jaywalking. However,  Crossing legally (with the pedestrian light or with well-marked crosswalks) has resulted in countless close calls...and even a few timed where jerks try and teach you a lesson when in a crosswalk. Never really sure what they are thinking....they must not read the yellow stop for pedestrians signs nor the yellow blinking lights...ha.

[smeagolsfree]

Im with you Todd. Yes I jay walk too, but normally when there are no cars and my closest calls have been at intersections where I have the right of way and people flip me off for crossing . One of the huge problems is all of the tourist that come here and are so distracted, they end up leaving what ever brain they had in Bucksnort. 

[AronG]

The whole idea of trying to engineer downtown streets to maximize car throughput is completely detrimental to the real goal here, which is to help more *people* get around the city. Sidewalks, bike lanes, and transit can move orders of magnitude more people in the same space as a lane of cars, no matter how it's configured. It follows that our number one priority should be encouraging people to walk, bike, or take transit. Unfortunately, increasing the number and/or speed of cars on the streets does the exact opposite of that.

https://nacto.org/publication/transit-street-design-guide/introduction/why/designing-move-people/