rookzie

I commend you, "nshv'l_bnd", for the candor in your sentiment. This introspection, I strongly feel, is component to keeping us "on the trax" [intended pun], even if the generalized, qualified reference includes me. I have somewhat attempted to respond at least objectively, in my mostly unsolicited opinions and responses to the material presented in this forum topic, and the primary reason that I have elucidated, or rather, expressed in excess my vantages on some of the subtopics is that I strongly have felt that the mayor's administration, as well as the MTA-RTA alike, typically have undertaken civic decision-making exclusive of well-informed foresight. This applies, not only to the TCO of the actual choices of selections themselves, but also to the rationale underlying those choices. I have alluded indirectly to the matter on TCO in a discussion on the initial outlay and operating- and maintenance costs of rail vs. rubber-tired RT – not as an analysis, but just a general reference. It just seems almost without doubt that a decision was taken as somewhat ill-informed or at the very best "un"informed, in arriving at a conclusion. Figuratively speaking, the big picture was "cropped" in many aspects of planning and specification, with what appears to have been little diversity (if any) of input – NOT simply that derived from the professional consultants. A decision is a generally an expected resolve based on a conclusion or a set of weighted conclusions based upon a position, opinion, or judgment resulting from consideration of (hopefully ALL) information and data aligned to a comprehensive scope of interrelated but distinctly defined abstractions representing real-life situations and constraints. A conclusion is the thought and belief from the understanding of this information and very often results from an intuitive assumption, one directly perceived of facts and conditions, but which often is independent of otherwise perceived reasoning process. It's the element of perception underlying these rationalizations which often lead to self-identified disparity and (in this case) heated civil polarity. Nashville_bound, admittedly I am one of those thousands who remain tantalized nearly to death with testimonials and imagery from an ever-growing list of media journal sources on burgeoning or fledgling rail-based transit systems in North America. This is one, at least one time, that I probably am not adhering or yielding to "neutrality" and objectivity within my response. I will speak only for myself, but yes, I have basically acquiesced and have become "wussified" into quietly accepting the AMP as something that just is going to happen anyway (whether or not it actually does). In speaking for myself only, I feel betrayed, at least once, by the mayor's initial "commitment" (as it were) to transform the Gallatin Road BRT to a "REAL" BRT and then to a fixed guide-way system of some sort (as expressed by the mayor three years ago); and now again, in part by the "automatic" choice of BRT over streetcar for the AMP. In retrospect, perhaps in each separate case, no well-informed total analysis appears to have been based on the metro area's comprehensive needs, despite any detailed analysis undertaken. My unsolicited opinion of the AMP is that US 70S: Harding Rd/West End/Broadway (in particular, the first two) just might have to be considered as one of those arterials which simply cannot be fixed with a dedicated right-of-way transit mode. The mayor's strive to bolster and justify the inception of the AMP predicated on qualification of commercial density can end up being analogous to the conceiving of urban routing and access of the Interstate system. It potentially can make "steady" moves of people into and out of a portion of the targeted area, but at the elimination of or disruption of something else. That corridor indeed is one of the most congested surface roadways in the region. I've already stated in an earlier post that, given the current circumstances with absence of any sustainable financing early on, the best remaining option for the AMP itself is as a BRT, but not necessarily in the "golden" form of BRT implementation, using a dedicated segment, and I say this because of the expected irrevocable harm in through-put capacity, along the western and middle portions. We're in a hub and spoke layout here, in a town with a relatively small central grid system, compared to many larger cities, and former pikes turned into public thoroughfares leading radially, rather than parallel, from the core. Time and time over, this has translated to increasingly clogged arterials, with driving alternatives being haphazard, out-of-the-way cut-throughs with unintelligent traffic control and compounding (and confounding) speed-mitigation measures. While traffic inevitably will become worse (and in shorter periods of time than in a 12-month period earlier), adversely affecting a primary arterial as Harding Rd. - West End Ave. could also (predictably) “re-write” the traffic eco-system of the entire western-southwestern third of Metro Davidson. I want to see at least a streetcar in ANY part of Nashville, but my likes aside, the process of the mayor's arrival at a decision, and with absolute oligarchic rule and determination, is more disturbing and flawed than not having that streetcar itself. Oh, poor me, I can't have my streetcar (gosh! darn!) or light rail. The reason that I am "settling" for this AMP, even (as I have stated in a previous rant) if the proposed implementation is not best suited for the affected area, is that we really have no choice – simply not choice at all – in the matter, as I see it. The decision mainly appears based conclusively on whether or not federal funding likely could be awarded as matching.funds, not based on pro-active planning and first-step taking for self-funding of long-range projects non-highway related. I am the first to admit that I am not at liberty to know the funding sources for the MCC, but at least one council member stated publicly that the city could have had (LRT or streetcar-circulator) rail by now, if it were not for the MCC and related infrastructure changes needed for its construction. The mayor's constituents "moshed" him into office (and incumbents often can "cruise at altitude" for re-election), and because the mayor has encountered this affront of opposition from a sizable number of stake holders comprising much of his constituency, he now stands a chance of losing efficacy in handling landmark projects, during the remainder of his 2nd term (for which he ran basically uncontested). The question of the preparations for sustaining capital and operating costs remains foremost, but not "civicly" addressed (not to say that the mayor would wish to be open to such discussion, to start). Again, I have indicated in the past that no due documented (and accessible) analysis appears on-hand that evaluates detailed comparisons of maintenance and construction costs among various undiscussed options in the two most viable alternatives streetcar and BRT – options such as electrification vs. internal-combustion (electrification as an option even for BRT). I also had mentioned that most cities with some form of advanced urban rail system long ago began investment for an eventual system, unlike Nashville. The decision to build the AMP, while not a "slam-dunk" as you say, appears to be one taken as a hasty means of avoiding the "no-brainer" choice of doing nothing at all. With a chance of winning some limited federal funding, any practical planning for more distributed needs has been tabled for this pet project known as the AMP. A comparable amount of "damage" could be done if an AMP-like, reserved-path transit-way were to be built down the middle of Hillsboro Pk, 21st Ave. (US-431). The congestion along that southwesterly corridor path (which also serves as a parallel alternative to both US-31 [Franklin Rd./8th Ave.S.] as well as to I-65 - I-440) is so bad that pass-through drivers have invaded all the back roads of Oak Hill, Green Hills Waverly-Belmont connecting to Granny White Pk. (12th Ave. S.) and to Lealand Ln. (10th Ave. S.). Observed from the air (when the plane banks) are literally hundreds of intersection backups within that entire "pie" sector of town. If Nashville were to get serious on any type of streetcar or light-rail, then it likely would have to be done in routes less obtrusive than direct use of the entire arterials themselves. The actual proposed provisions of the AMP unsurprisingly will likely choke I-440, already bulging-at-the-seams. Again, thanks for the fortitude of being level (and for calling me out). Especially at this stage in the mayor's administration (and with certain persons in charge at the MTA), my perception is that little if any possibility exists for Nashville as a whole to voice and to effect a change to turn the tide for advanced RT (LRT and streetcar), particularly since such a system would likely be entirely located within Metro Davidson, to start (as a locally serving initiative). Perhaps therefore I have become more disposed to assuming this defeatist attitude, with respect to a rail-based solution for the surface. __________ I'll say one more (no, two more), before i shut off my volcano (for now anyway). 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. This strip, now nearly completely redeveloped from original L&N-NC&St.L industrial real estate and sites of a coach yard and roundhouse and former freight-handling facilities (including the long defunct Railway Express Agency [REA]) very well could have been the start of a multi-modal facility for city-bus, Amtrak, Greyhound, AND light-rail, a set-up increasingly being found in a other mid-sized cities (with Greyhound and Amtrak). It would have made too much sense for Greyhound to have been invited into a consortium as host for a multi-modal facility with Amtrak, when Greyhound had to vacate the old Hansen Chrysler dealership at Charlotte and 11th, a year or two ago. Of course, then, too, state lobbying would have had to come into the playing park, making such a proposal that more precipitous. Amtrak's return to Nashville probably is at least 15 years away from now, 10 at the very earliest (as a pipe dream). Newer or repurposed passenger depot combined stations (for bus and train) exist at Spokane, Greensboro, Battle Creek, New Orleans (New Orleans Union Passenger Terminal), and Albuquerque, to name a few. But you’ve got me cornered, Nashville_bound. You got me cornered.

I forgot what the report proposes, but you might check that out, to examine lane pre-emptions. My initial understanding of lane re-purposing was that it was to maintain the same number of through-traffic lanes (4) at the expense of any parking or shoulder lanes, such that the passageway would consist of 2 eastbound and 2 westbound for through traffic and 2 center lanes for transit. But then I could be "on something" with that idea. [under the influence] -=ricky-roox=-

A bit off the "beating" path of Nashv'l mass transit, but in line with the topic, it's promising to hear what BRT can do, as part of a mixed rapid system. Since I've dwelled on Cleveland here and there, this article from the Cleveland Plain Dealer (newspaper), mentions what appeaars to be a contemporary trend in a number of US metro areas. It's goes to show that one of the largest poster-child, rust-belt metro areas actually can be transformed to a state of transit "solvency" and viability, from the "ashes" of what it had been back when I used to hang around there some 30 years ago (while employed at Norfolk Southern RR). RTA awards contract for Little Italy-University Circle station, work to start next month http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2013/09/rta_awards_contract_for_univer.html "... RTA also reported that it had record ridership numbers for the month of August. Ridership increased 4 percent system-wide, or 166,000 more rides than in August 2012. Ridership on the HealthLine was up 4.7 percent, year-over-year, the busiest August since the Euclid Ave. line opened in 2008. The Red Line rapid had more traffic, too, up 5.7 percent in August, a pace not seen since August 1988. A burst of traffic on RTA trolleys boosted August ridership 49 percent, year-over-year. The E-Line that runs along Euclid Ave. from Public Square to the Stephanie Tubbs Jones Transit Center near the Cleveland State University campus had an all-time record of 99,032 customers for the month. ..." Nothing about the article content is particularly "monumental", but the references to ridership increases for both the Cleveland BRT Healthline and the roughly parallel heavy-rail Red Line, as well as for the trolleys, is encouraging for thoughts of local potential here in Nashv', if politics would ever play its deck of cards right. Even the E/W WE-5Pts BRT, as a standalone upstart, can be made to work, if nurtured with the right "fruit".

"Per dollar of transit investment, and under similar conditions, BRT can leverage more (development) investment than LRT or streetcars." Although the excerpt used the phrase "..can leverage", I beg to differ on that opinion, which is subjective at best. If you've ever mulled around Euclid in Cleveland (I have in the past), and have ridden the "rapid" as Clevelanders refer to their RTA, you'd know that most of the so-called development had its rudiments with the Tower City - Windermere (Red Line) rapid-rail. There you would know of both heavy-rail electric (Red Line) and light-rail electric (Green and Blue), which, starting downtown at the old historic Terminal Tower (now Tower City), head eastward and split off at E. 55th street, with the heavy-rail Red Line serving an older but more distant route mostly parallel to the new Healthline BRT. The Red Line is the rapid-rail route which mostly follows the famed Euclid Avenue (US 20), a trumped up version of Nashville's Broadway West End. The Red Line rail and the Healthline BRT follow the same general path in northeasterly direction and end up in East Cleveland (Windermere Station). [Red Line also extends west to Cleveland-Hopkins In'l Airport] At E. 55th street, the Red Line separates from the Green and Blue lines which veer off nearly due east and then southeast to Shaker Heights (where the Green and Blue split to separate destinations within that suburb). The point is, that Forbes article study does not fully consider a full-factored analysis of Portland's [OR] TriMet "Max" and Cleveland's RTA to be accurately comparing the parameters, because the infrastructures and regional economics vary immensely, as well as with other elements. Inthe Cleveland setting ,you likely have a number of travellers using the rail lines from the affluent areas served by the Shaker Heights lines and feeding to transfer points which lead to the Healthline BRT. All this is said to elucidate my point. The "development" spurred along the Euclid corridor, cannot be attributed to the advent of the Healthline alone. In line with what I have stated in a previous posting, referring to Cleveland's RTA Healthline BRT and the RTA's rapid-rail, they need to be weighed as a complete infrastructure system, when one is to effectively and comprehensively evaluate the costs per mile, ROI, and TCO of a BRT. I mentioned that Cleveland's Healthline BRT is not a standalone facility, per se, and therefore post development cannot be ascribed to or touted as being induced by the presence of that BRT alone. The Healthline BRT works in hand with the Red Line (and with other "remote feeders" – Green and Blue lines) by providing local surface along an arterial, previously served only by standard local bus and by the limited-stop Red Line rail, neither one of the latter two of which could provide that "intermediate" level of movement efficiency for riders along that corridor. The same would apply to TRi-Met "MaX" in Portland, as Tri-Met has been expanded several times druing the previous 30 years, and now the original system of light-rail has been augmented with WES ("Westside" commuter rail) and streetcar. (I've only ridden the Max light-rail, to the "burbs" of Beaverton and Gresham). Indeed exceptions do exist on the transit systems of both Cleveland and Portland metro areas, where the ridership trends have not panned out as conceived. Much of this has as much to do with previously established zoning policy as with the interrelational dynamics of a region's MPO implementation and economic viability and survivorship, There was an old saying that throwing a sack of beer cans in the weeds was all one needed to make a 7-11 convenient store pop up on site. That anectotal humor does not exactly apply to building of rapid-rail or to BRT, to say the least. Eugene [OR] is a different "breed" of scenario, in that dedicated lanes comprise nearly 2/3rds of its "EmX" BRT route, and some lanes themselves are separated from the roadways entirely (an ideal setting). For the size of Eugene, the BRT does appear to serve that specific corridor well. Otherwise, Eugene does not have the density and constraints of a larger and older Metro area that would (and which most often do) adversely affect the planning and construction of a well-planned, integrated BRT set-up. The Eugene (and Springfield, OR) BRT system, of the Lane County [OR] District, appears to have been a success story from the start, largely as a result of what I have just indicated – the size and needs of the metropolitan area, which are much different from those of Cleveland and of other areas in which BRT or rail may be (convincingly) justified. In any event, as I also have stated in the past, BRT is works well as constituent of a balanced transportation system, but a BRT alone is not likely to provide that balance. "Balance" is that thematic emphasis which appears to have been achieved with Boston's Silverline BRT and Cleveland's Healthline (as well as some others of lesser prominence in other dense metro areas), because they work in complement to existing rail systems, in place l-o-n-g before BRT even was a buzz-phrase. The article does little to support its claims, either directly or by reference, especially given the applications sited, which vary in perceived success immensely. -= Ricky-roox (Fred D.Smith )=-

Maybe others have, but I certainly hadn't gotten wind of it. It follows, then, that the proposed ,as certain, BRT lite along Charlotte Ave/Pk. and along Nolensville Pk, to follow (according to some media release during July or early August), likely would receive in kind.

.. And those figures do not necessarily reflect the true ROI and TCO of the "tangible" alternatives. As I has mentioned earlier, the use of the streetcar model, can be made scalable for demand, such that basic articulated units can be specified as "couple-able" into two or three joined tandems into trains. I say this, because, as ridership figures (according to expectations) steadily rise, the number of BRT units required to sustain the passenger demand during peak will require substantially more operators for a given frequency and headway, compared to the number of operators employed for a rail vehicle of substantially higher capacity. Non-peak periods? Then, of course, the triple- or double-coupled "artics". become a virtual single "train". Boston's MBTA (the "T") used this operation paradigm decades before the term "light-rail" was cool (or even a buzz phrase). The “T” ran (well into the '80s) single PCC-type late-1940s streetcars equipped with Tomlinson-type couplers on both the front and rear of each PCC car (the overwhelming majority of which were single-ended, single-direction, as are buses), in the transit tunnels (as part of the central subway system), on elevated pathway (Lechmere leg in Cambridge), on acquired abandoned railway ROW (Riverside and Mattapan lines), but mostly in the city streets with mixed traffic (Watertown via Brighton Ave.; Arborway;), and on some streets with separated car ways (Boston College via Commonwealth Ave.; Cleveland Circle via Beacon St.). Although these now retired cars did require door operators in each coupled streetcar, the principle eventually transformed into the use of contemporary LRT vehicles, deployed as subway, LRT, and streetcar (local stop-and-go circulator). Boston also has (as I mentioned in an earlier post) a heavily used BRT (the "Silverline") , which replaced a major portion of an old "L" (elevated) heavy-rail line (razed to accommodate a stillborn express highway project), but even this BRT connects to the existing rail system. For the West-End - Five-Points upstart, from a practicable aspect, a true LRT might not be a best fit, and that's the reason that I say streetcar implemented as LRT (in the sense of joining separable units). True LRT might best planned long-range in a venture utilizing the nearby CSX east-to-west Bruceton Division (past Fisk, HCA-Centennial, Murphy Rd, Cherokee Park, St. Thomas). I realize that that would be an extremely expensive undertaking, but it would be perhaps appropriate for LRT, given the spoke-and-hub surface arterial layout and the close proximity of the freight railroad parallel to West End (west of I-440) and along side Harding Road, through Belle Meade. LRT is best suited for transport of large numbers of commuters over longer distances, with number of scheduled stops limited to a figure responsive to a maintaining a moderate to medium-high speed (within the capabilities of the vehicles) between stops. But that's a different topic altogether, IMHO, effectively eliminating LRT as a choice for the corridor purpose. The corridor primary only can be accommodated in “local” patterns of mixed traffic (as opposed to express or non-stop, for practical application) along its entirely street-bound route, despite the proposed use of signal pre-emption and dedicated center lanes (west of Rosa Parks Blvd). BRT and streetcar virtually, then, are the only two of the three subjects of analysis warranted for use as "circulators", which is what the AMP essentially will serve as. TCO also covers the maintenance of each option (BRT or streetcar), including personnel, training, power consumption, general vehicle maintenance, busway/street-track maintenance, electric conduit maintenance, engine-/tire-/steel-wheel/traction-motor maintenance – any and all other (of the many) factors peculiar to either alternative. Buses are not necessarily cheaper to operate, when incorporated as a primary infrastructure component, due to the fact that hydrid-diesel or any other type of bus with a self-contained prime-mover generally will cost more to maintain than its electric counterfpart (be it trolleybus or streetcar), with these costs being averaged over a given number of vehicles in the circulation pool. My intent is, not to refute the published figures for planning and the projected costs of construction for the alternatives (BRT vs. streetcar). Those figures can be derived more or less directly. Despite the stated intention of providing a lower cost transport transit infrastructure, pragmatics of tracking the costs to sustain and to maintain a sizable number of BRT sub-systems has actually shown (consistently) that BRTs actually have become more costly to operate than rail-bound counterparts, for a given comparable scope and range of urban coverage. The study has overlooked this “leg of the tripod” entirely. It also would have the uninformed believe that BRT would attract the same amount of patronage from automobiles as that of LRT or of streetcar, a statement which is arguable at best (if not dubious) that the proposed BRT could approach the proven superiority of municipal rail. The mayor himself (as well as the MTA reps) has directly expressed that BRT has the “feel and look of light rail”, but without the tracks, in a manner that would suggest, therefore, that BRT would be embraced with the same amount of enthusiam as that of rail. (I really don’t think so) My opinion notwithstanding, I have little doubt that BRT probably is the best way to go for Nashville, in consideration the initial outlay cost, the (un)availability of a sustainable funding source, and the current ethnographics (cultures and societies) of the districts to be served by the corridor. Because Nashville (its administrations, that is) had not done its homework, back during times of missed opportunities over the last 30 years, in preparing the people for self-funding of public transit future, it now is in a rather lamentable position to be able to accomplish what other cities have done with upstart rail projects (take Dallas for example). Now the only apparently "palatable" method of making up for lost time is to apply for whatever grant a proposed project might be capable of winning, and then come up with a way of matching the difference (instead of the other way around: establishing a funding source first). I believe that the perennial absence of such a funding source may have proven pivotal in the decision to select BRT as the “best” solution for this corridor project. But I do feel that the proponents have neither fully apprised themselves, nor have they disclosed a more nearly accurate account of the real price tag on the cost of a “fast” mass transit application for this city. BRTs are a necessary component in providing a comprensively balanced transportation system, but a BRT as a standalone, for this particular city’s surface needs, does not provide that balance. But at this point in time, with federal funding grants on the dying, “drying-up” trend, settling for what it can get, without a defined sustainable funding source, the city might be hard pressed to aim for the streetcar option. In conclusion, BRT, therefore,.would be the way to go for this upstart, although not necessarily in the manner proposed. for the lane configuration. I do remember a Tex Ritter being there in the in the past -- at that SE corner, that is (used to go there to "soak up", so to speak). I also recall, at least sometime during the early '90s, there being a Pizza Inn, which was "cheezy" in quality.

Yes, I believe that was simply a rendering or "artist's conception" of how the AMP might appear in a redeveloped West-End scene at mid-town Nashville. The rendering is the typical dramatization of new yet-to-be-built structures infilled with the locally traditional landmarks. In this example, the Cathedral of the Incarnation Catholic Church and School (toward the upper-left), and Vandy's Baker Bldg. (upper-right), are illustrated with a somewhat overblown, futuristic style articulated vehicles depicting operation in action, of the proposed AMP. The intersection is West End and 21st Avenues. Renderings, you know, are intended to provide target audiences with a "best-case" illustration of a proposed project. I don't know just when this particular sketch was published (prior to or following the mayor's and MTA's "recommendation" of choice during the first half of Dec. 2011), but an animation was generated and published on the Transit Alliance Web site (which you probably already know of [http://thetransitalliance.org/amp]), following the conclusion of the alternatives analysis for the corridor. The actual vehicles to be utilized most likely will (would) be New Flyer Industries Xcelcior, some of which have been in service on a few Nashville MTA routes, most notably, the No. 55X. Murfreesboro Road BRT Lite. According to member Nashville Cliff, a visiting representative has confirmed that the Xcelcior is to be used (a more conservative and functionally practical design). I think that I’d feel less on the edge of my seat, if I were on board of one of two opposing streetcars, than I would on one of those steerable buses on those center lanes. I suppose that a safer set-up would be laid out for opposing vehicles along center lanes of any corridor, rather than busway lanes separated simply with with a contrasting appearing material or demarcation border. Perhaps embedded roadway illumination might assist operators during inclement weather conditions. As the pavement surface wears from repeated use, the resulting sheen and glint from headlight reflection can make any flush marking difficult, if not impossible to discern during the dark and during rainy conditions. I could imagine, instead, some kind of gently rounded and filleted solid low barrier between opposing busway lanes to assist in keeping the bus movements in check. I don’t know still whether or not I’d feel that secure, though. At least at present the single center lane in stretches of Broadway and West End afford some sense of “insulation” against oncoming traffic and human error (minimizing chances of head-on collisions). Nashville Cliff also says (quoted above) that he heard that a low curb likely would separate the center lanes from traffic.

Ok, thanks... smeagolsfree, on 09 Jun 2013 - 07:44 AM, said: I did think that I had double-vision or something. So there ARE two moderators for this one, eh? I remembered that I have a commitment next Saturday (Sept. 07), doing some twice-a-year volunteer work, but I think that I can manage to steal away to the DwnTwn Pub Lib by 10, if that's where you normally would meet. That's not that far from where I will have been since 07:00 that same morning - at the railroad tracks on Willow St.. off Hermitage Ave. Guess the worst thing is trying to park somewhere, in the Lib. garage itself or over in State parking behind the Supreme Court off Charlotte (which is free during "off" hours). I'll definitely shoot for being there, though, even if only a few of you can make it. Besides, being there for the meeting has now become a commitment also. I do assume that you don't dress up there, but rather dress tacky (as I intend to).

I signed up with this discussion site too late, I see, to have noticed even this topic. Some of you have seen heard my mouth "go off" in another forum topic recently. I really do want to "meet up" with he moderator and others of the "ring leader pack". [you do know who you are, don't you?] I guest most of us have jobs and few if any "silver spoons", so to speak (for myself, anyway). If I can set the thing up to "follow this topic", without having to "trawl" it,then I might not miss another opportunity. All that I want to be able to do beforehand is at least to get a day's notice to get a haircut the day before, to get there half-way decent (wherever). Then can pull off this mask and show my real collar and dogtag (and my owner [lol]) thanks.

nashville_bound – Posted Today, 08:24 AM Anecdotal I know, but I have gotten an ear-full of opposition to the AMP from most of my lefty friends in the Richland, Whitland, Cherokee Park neighborhoods. Here is a recent FB discussion ... mind-you all of these are far-left voters... these are four posts from four different liberal Nashvillians... "We are concerned about the impact this project will have on our historic neighborhood (which is right off of West EndAve). Increased traffic on West End Ave (Nashvillians love their cars--I seriously doubt drivers here will take to mass transit. My feeling is that the people who now ride the bus, will be the riders of The Amp.), losing green spaces to create parking. People in & out of the area throughout the day. Not to mention the increase in our taxes. I've yet to read anything that leads me to believe that enough people will use The Amp to make it worth all of the costs (financial & otherwise). Some of our neighbors were able to change the way 440 was built (and in the process saved our historic homes). I'm hopeful that we can alter the current plans for The Amp (stopping it entirely probably isn't realistic) so that we can all feel "good enough" about the project." " Look around the country none of these make enough money to cover operating cost, let alone the capital investment. Find out who will get rich, someone is, follow the money." "Needs to be rail plain and simple. Commuters will use rail because they can "see" where it goes. Businesses will be around a rail line as well, but not around a bus route that is easily rerouted. Go rail." " I agree. On visit to San Francisco, we rode the streetcar often but didn't think once about getting on a bus. I've generally liked Mayor Dean but I think the has become his trophy so he can say he built something when he runs for next office. Unfortunately, he couldn't afford a streetcar so we are getting a bus whether we want it or not." I more than tend to agree with producer2. I know that this personal opinion probably will put me “on a limb”, likely to get “sawed off”. [but that’s what we’re here for, unless we can gather at a donut shop or somewhere else] Arguably, the last two opinions could be ascribed as being "blind" or neutral to left or right. Statement 3 seems to a declaration of consensus among most all cities, including Motor City Detroit (of all towns, which just might end up getting a streetcar new start after all), whether or not a fixed guideway system (any kind of rail) can be fully funded with a sustainable source. The first two statements reflect an age-old mindset toward involuntary outreach (by taxation), because "…it won't help me, since I don't ride those things...therefore why should I pay to have my property value threatened..." Compare that predisposition with that of other locales of this city – the areas such as the east- north, northeast-, and Nolensville Road districts. Granted, the Whitland, Cherokee Park, and other contiguous enclaves of the West End area have some "killer" crown jewels of masonry, but so do other neighborhoods as well, as the beholders would see it. I-440 was, for the most part, destined to be built on its present, former railroad property (Tennessee Central Beltline), and except for residential property which would have been displaced by some interchange ramps the construction of which are known to have been successfully opposed, I-440 was a done deal of a different breed, to start. We're not talking about tearing down houses for imminent domain here. Additionally, transit is not generally expected to make a profit, despite its operating revenue sources, so operating costs will seldom if ever be recovered by fare revenue alone. True, referendums on tax increases for transit more often than not will be voted down, particularly when a transit authority becomes embattled within metro areas having governance at odds with each other (e.g. MARTA and the Ga. counties of Fulton with Gwinnett, Dekalb, and Cobb, in particular, as well as other neighboring counties). I am not speaking for or against the AMP BRT or streetcar, per se, but I do not believe that the decision to select the dedicated-lane BRT from Five Points to the West End (the US-70S portion) , has been the most judicious selection of an FTA supported new start, particularly since the public has had little input into the choice. I also realize that it is almost seemingly impossible to garner conclusive accord and agreement from the public on just what should be the so-called “first leg” of a planned comprehensive system of mass transit – BRT, BRT-lite, streetcar, light-rail, heavy-rail. The fourth of those statements quoted by nashville_bound’s neighbors might be poised for more common sentiment for discussion and review. The mayor’s seeming commitment to start the current BRT “lite” on Gallatin Pk (in 2010?) with the advent of the MTA NABI articulateds was touted publicly with eventual plans to augment that corridor with some form of LRT, by implementing some way of acquiring sufficient ROW for dedicated busway lanes (a challenge particularly along the stretch between Main St. and Trinity Ln.), with an ultimate vision of transforming that corridor to a fixed-guideway (rail) system. I do not recall having heard any additional discussion on that vision since that time. As well patronized as the MTA Nº56X “BRT Limited Stops” / Nº26 “All Stops” corridor has become since that time, I would at least have expected some progression in transit service augmentation on that route, despite the fact that it may not have been deemed as having a density warranting high probability of being awarded Federal funding. The recent (an ongoing) replacement of the US31E overpass across the CSX at Amqui in Madison could have and would have perhaps incorporated any needed structural changes for projected plans to accommodate passage of light-rail or streetcar ROW, as the mayor had proposed for that corridor. It has been quoted, "…the proposed East/West Connector was not chosen because it was the best route… it was chosen because of the available Federal funds…” With similar rationale, the Music City Star (MSC) also was born out of competition with other municipalities for available funding. The Eastern branch of the MCS, by consensus, would not have been the so-called “best-route” (or better phrased, the “most promising new-start route”), in terms of expectations. Most tend to concur that the Southeast- and the North-Northeastern branches would have won that accolade, the Southeast branch to Rutherford County holding the superlative “most likely to succeed”. The Eastern branch was selected primarily because it was the least expensive new start of its type to be implemented for the region. It had to be made heavy-rail, instead of light-rail, in order to utilize an existing and eventually rehabilitated roadbed and to be legally allowed to run concurrently with freight operations (in compliance to FRA [Federal Railroad Admin.] rules). Indeed, the 2006 MCS by far was a cheap new start, having being closely watched by the entire world of transit organizers, because of its comparatively small price tag, in itself placing Nashville’s MCS “on the map”, so to speak. I do honestly believe, however, that the transit vision and implementation as a whole was breached by the mayor’s administration in its ramrod approach toward finalizing plans for the West-End corridor (whether rail or BRT would have been selected) and its chosen path. While there have been town meetings and “invitations” to the public in the MPO prospectus for Nashville, very few if any measures appear to have been undertaken to effectively publicize and to periodically apprise stakeholders of extensive liberal and concerted discussions on transit visions for the city as a whole. Some prolific contributors of this forum have done a far better job of analyzing, deliberating, and conceptualizing a transit plan, than the so called experts have. These are just two of your previous such posts: Musiczealot – Posted 13 August 2013 - 12:22 AM Volsfanwill – Posted 15 August 2013 - 08:18 PM I do believe that a decision should not be made on cost differential alone, for the choice of BRT over streetcar (or LRT). While Parsons-Brinckerhoff consultants did provide a “basis” for a decision predicated on capital outlay for new construction of the AMP BRT, nevertheless, the consultants’ study does not necessarily bias itself toward that choice. UTgrad09 objectively voiced what may be shown to be a “painful truth”, with respect to an FTA approved new start for the AMP ________ UTgrad09 - Posted 12 August 2013 - 06:02 PM For where we are -- BRT probably makes more sense right now. This line isn't going to involve tunnels, bridges, or elevated roadways where the costs could actually skyrocket past LRT. Our urban center is more dense than we get credit for -- but it is still not really 'high density' compared to most major cities. LRT is better able to handle large ridership...something that likely won't be a big problem initially. I think part of the fear is that Nashville is such a car dependent city as it is, initiating an expensive LRT system might be perceived as a waste of money (at least at first). Nashville needs to ween people off the idea that they have to use their cars everywhere they go. I think BRT is a good compromise there, because it will still serve those that are transit dependent (i.e. those that can't afford cars) yet should attract some of those that want to live a car free or car reduced lifestyle (those that choose not to drive). As the demand increases, the viability for LRT would be much greater. If at some point in the future, LRT would be more effective, then the bus ROW could be converted to rail lines. That might sound like double-work for some people (in reality, it probably is), but if this is 15-20 years down the road, then BRT may have served its purpose (increasing the visibility and desirability of public transit) while the 'rapid' part of it would stay the same. I'm not an expert on the issue...but the reviews to me seem mixed. There are arguably more positives for LRT than BRT, but some of them might or might not apply to our own situation. What needs to be done is find the best solution for Nashville, not just copy what Austin and Charlotte do. The solution for each city's needs may be different. UTgrad09 - Posted 12 August 2013 - 07:09 PM Obviously I think Dean jumped on the fact that BRT would be cheaper to implement...but Nashville did its due diligence in having an outside opinion on the matter. I was hoping for light rail as well, but the study said that it wasn't feasible. It was either electric streetcar, or BRT. If the study had come out and said LRT was the best option, I think Dean would have supported that. Sometimes you can't just blame politicians when you don't get what you want. At least they did a study rather than jump into this blindly. Furthermore, I have read that the city could face issues finding federal funding for the rail systems, so BRT is likely a surer bet and will get off the ground more quickly. ________ volsfanwill’s point also was well made concerning the fact that one size does not fit all. volsfanwill - Posted 12 August 2013 - 10:57 PM A side note for comparison, I know we hate comparisons to Charlotte and Austin but sometimes it is necessary. first both of them used existing railroad ROW. something that does not exist on the corridor that the AMP is proposed for. second. both of these cities have completely different types of systems from each other. Austin uses light rail like vehicles but theirs acts as more of a commuter rail. with stops few and far between. Charlotte on the other hand has a light rail that acts more like a metro system with frequent stops that increase closer to the CBD. From what I have read on the expansion plans of both cities they plan to continue their respective patterns for the future. I do see BRT as a gateway transit for Nashville. convince people that it is viable and build other lines to increase usability. I personally grasp things better visually so several months ago I opened up google earth and traced all the transit lines in the US minus regular bus. that includes commuter rail, LRT, BRT, and even METRO systems. I was shocked at how many cities built LRT in the last decade, especially the number of cities of comparable size to Nashville. Also, larger cities that have Metro systems are expanding new lines with LRT instead of heavy rail. this leads me to my personal idea. after seeing what every other city has done. I kinda combined several ideas. this is VERY Long term. like 20 years to build out. AMP as proposed as a starter line. Then build LRT as a north south line. acting as commuter rail from Murfreesboro to the cbd where stops become more frequent. (no this is not too long Austin's is over 31 miles and they might extend it another stop). 90% of the ROW follows an existing RR much of which has plenty of room to build dedicated tracks adjacent. that would help alleviate the I-24 corridor problem. also, include a spur to the airport. this would mean more frequent trains operating downtown. once that works and people see the benefits of rail, more LRT lines could be added to Gallatin and Franklin. Traditional heavy commuter rail (Star) to Dickson and Clarksville. other lines BRT and LRT along Charlotte and into Metro Center. I have it all mapped out. overall the important thing is, although we would all prefer LRT. The city needs convincing. so I'll settle for BRT as a starter. convince people that rapid transit is needed, then build more lines and better lines in incremental steps. ________ Rather than “squander” my time engaging in “knok-dwn-draggoutz” of debates on the heated subject of what is a best fit for the city of Nashville, by necessarily joining one side or the other, instead, for several years now, I have focused on researching the “pragmatics” of modern existing and new-start installations, as well as “heritage” system upgrades. Having become “sensitized” to the relevant subject and the ramified details for side discussions, this is the reason that I managed to find a “glowing bush” in the form of this particular UrbanPlanet forum and its “open-source” spectrum of input. Each of us, of course, is entitled to her/his own opinion. We (in middle Tenn.) do need to learn all that we can, from practices of other municipalities, to embrace the merits of both BRT and of fixed-guideway (rail) systems, while being mindful of the need to institute “checkpoints” and oversight , as it were, to avoid making “faux pas” uninformed decisions as what had occurred with Seattle’s downtown transit tunnel, a poster-child example of lack of foresight and wasteful spending due to design incompatibilities (finally resolved with the inclusion of a light-rail and bus mix). I have included here some relevant articles as “seeds” of insightful study, for those who might be interested in further in-depth discussion of BRT vs Light rail as a municipal choice. Please bear in mind that some of these are “editorial” and subjective in nature, rather than factual, although each of them is worthy perhaps of at least some consideration and evaluation. “Quality Bus (‘BRT’) vs. Rail Transit – Fitting the Right Mode to the Application” Light Rail Now http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_brt_2005-01.htm “Rail Transit Under Attack from "Bus Rapid Transit" Promoters” Light Rail Now http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_brt_2007-08a.htm “Weyrich: Federal Anti-Rail Promotion of "BRT" is ‘Dead Wrong’" [commentary] Light Rail Now, Light Rail Progress http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_brt005.htm “State Decision Making in the Context of Federal Transportation Funding” The Transport Politic http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2012/07/26/state-decision-making-in-the-context-of-federal-transportation-funding/ “If Washington Can’t Commit, Chicago is Ready to Go It Alone” The Transport Politic http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2012/04/02/if-washington-cant-commit-chicago-is-ready-to-go-it-alone/ “Kansas City’s downtown streetcar project wins a $20 million federal grant” The Kansas City Star http://www.kansascity.com/2013/08/30/4447914/kcs-downtown-streetcar-wins-20.html#storylink=cpy Over time, I have “harvested” a sizeable amount of research – much of it scholarly – in the form of on-line and as printed-reference sources, regarding the multi-faceted subject encompassing transit service new starts and upgrades. ________ One of Mayor Dean’s rationales for promoting the AMP focuses on Cleveland’s [Oh.] HealthLine BRT, promoting its "success", as well as that of Eugene [Or.]. I do not question, per se, any demonstrated or perceived benefits of the Cleveland RTA’s BRT venture. What does seem to have been totally discounted from consideration was the fact that Cleveland has had in place a well-established heavy- and light-rail system for quite a few decades - since post-war years (1955) - the initial heavy-rail system having been built and expanded upon a few miles of existing right of way once part of the former electrified Cleveland Union Terminal RR, the need of which was obviated when diesel's replaced the dirtier coal-fired steam locomotives into and out of Cleveland's Terminal Tower (now Tower City), during the late 1940s. This east-west line, in addition to a few existing streetcar lines with beginnings during pre-war years (streetcars transitioning into modern light-rail cars), eventually have evolved into the present-day Greater Cleveland RTA, including its extensive system of buses. One major but seemingly overlooked factor underlying the touted success of the Healthline BRT is the fact that it comprises a relatively new component of a pre-existing multi-modal mass-transit system: standard bus, heavy-rail, light-rail, and now a BRT line. If one examines the integration of the new Healthline BRT into the Cleveland system, it would be discovered that this line actually serves as a "surface" line roughly parallel to the east leg of the existing Red Line (heavy-rail), this portion of which serves the East Cleveland district along the dense and distant Euclid Ave., from Public Square (Tower City) to Windermere in East Cleveland. To this extent, the Healthline BRT provides an arguably much needed alternative to the existing parallel, long proven Red Line rail route, as it serves far more passenger boarding points than does its rail counterpart, and with much more frequency, while maintaining intrinsic speed advantages over standard local bus service. The Healthline BRT manages medium-sized groups of transit riders along relatively short distances, while the parallel Red Line rail handles larger (trains) of riders along longer distances. In this particular scenario, Cleveland might appear to have the best of both worlds in one corridor: BRT supplementing a parallel rail line. In all, that particular BRT is synergistic to Cleveland's already well-established rapid-transit infrastructure. On the contrary, Mayor Dean's intent is to create basically a standalone "rapid" system new start in Nashville; Cleveland's BRT is not a standalone rapid system, in terms of the rapid-transit infrastructure there. The same can be said about Boston's MBTA (the “T”) Silverline BRT (which remains a result of the T’s decision not to implement an earlier plan to upgrade the Silverline with LRT, after the Silverline BRT replaced an “EL”[-evated] heavy-rail line [similar to Chicago’s “EL” or “L”], torn down for an eventually cancelled expressway project). Perhaps a little discussed benefit of the East-West AMP might be as a corridor connection for Music City Star riders to and from Vandy and White Bridge Road. But, that would be subjective at best, perhaps. In summary, where I am going with all this is that, despite time constraints on FTA funding application, the Parsons-Brinckerhoff study for Nashville was an “alternatives analysis” tailored to the West-End corridor. As costly as the study itself was, the Mayor and the MTA do deserve a trophy for having arranged an outside professional assessment of a proposed new-start project. It might be best, however, for the commonweal of the workforce, tourism, the privileged and the underserved transit-dependent, as a whole to utilize the alternatives analysis, in conjunction with more pro-active comprehensive initiative and envisioning, as demonstrated by some of these forum contributors, who certainly and clearly have demonstrated their dedication and zeal in drafting their transit plans. [Kudos “ad infinitum” to you, dudes! You know who you are and thanks!] There only can be one “first” for a “new” mode of transit serving the surface streets of Nashville, whether or not it’s the West-End – Five-Points BRT or otherwise, and I don’t necessarily say that this one should be the first or not. BRT does have it merits over streetcar and LRT, but the differential of new-start costs of each and the selection of BRT (if implemented in its purest dedicated form) does not necessarily translate into the highest ROI, in terms of operating costs. LRT (not streetcar, unless established in design as “hybrid” in purpose) is more “scalable” for peak vs. non-peak periods where high density and utilization is demonstrated. For BRT during peak, the only way to increase frequency (shorter headways) is to have more articulated bus units and therefore more personnel (and wage costs). With a moderate addition of coupled articulated LRVs (to form only short trains of doubles or triples of articulated units), a single operator can safely manage the control and boarding of a single virtual vehicle. Also, streetcars and LRVs rely on a distributed power source, in the form of small electrical substations (as used in Memphis for its heritage-style streetcars [some referred to as “Melbourne” cars, originally from “down under”]). These basically are large “transformers”, self-contained with relatively small footprints. For peak periods, pure electric is more efficient system-wide, even more than diesel-electric hybrid, despite the initial outlay for overhead electric catenary lines for streetcar or LRV units. The ride quality of BRT is debatable when a BRT must share some roadway with standard traffic. Some LRT systems do exist in which the LRVs are DMUs (Diesel Multiple Units), as found in proclaimed successful set-ups, NJ Transit’s River Line and North Co. Transit District (NCTD) at Oceanside and Escondido, Ca. DMUs, however, do not perform effectively in stop-and-go traffic and are best suited for totally separated ROW. For the densities of Nashville, BRT might very well be the best bang for the buck, as well as the most realistic. There exists even a variation of “traditional” BRT which utilizes electric (trolley) articulated buses, like the buses found in Seattle (of current Breda and of future New Rider mfg.). While this seems a bit strange, it offers the dedicated-lane BRT, in conjunction with an overhead distributed power source. Some practices of trolley buses incorporate batteries to permit “bridging the gap” for short distances off-wire, making the operation even more flexible. Because trolley buses are not restricted to an absolute fixed path (rails) , the top-mounted electric power poles allow the buses a substantial degree of lateral steer-ability, enabling this type bus to board passengers at curbside as well as at road center. The pole pickup shoes and the poles themselves pivot to allow this maneuverability (since buses still must be steered anyway). So you have “pure” electric propulsion without the rails and an enhanced sense of permanence, but without the rails. I don’t believe that dedicated or exclusive lanes, on the proposed West-End – Broadway segment of the AMP, are necessarily the best way to go for that corridor. I say this, not because of exceptions taken by others (in particular, council members, who seem to express that their districts have been overlooked), but due to the mounting number of protests, on the brink of turning nasty, from the stakeholders in the residential areas along and off of West End Avenue, west of I-440 primarily (Elmington Park to St. Thomas-White Bridge, and likely from those who reside beyond that point (where West End becomes Harding Road, I believe). These guys really seem to be "hell-bent" (influenced by canvassing or otherwise) on getting the AMP plans derailed, at least in its proposed form with dedicated lanes. (most others whose areas are "touched" by the AMP proposal, seem to embrace it) It would be of interest to see reactions and sentiment on the AMP project, if alternatives had been offered – say, LRT with dedicated lanes; LRT in mixed traffic (operation and vehicles more like modern streetcars [instead of LRT], as in Portland [Or.] and those being now built in DC and in Cincinnati); or some less invasive lane proposal with articulated buses (hybrid-diesel or hybrid-trolley-battery). I am certain without a doubt that federal guidelines allow some latitude of basic proposal types and variations thereof. A umber of federally funded trolley bus systems, for example, exist which are not BRTs at all. While it unlikely would happen in lieu of the AMP itself, planning and instituting a multiple-hub, multiple BRT-lite network, suggested by some others in this forum, overall might be more beneficial and publicly supportable, even if it doesn’t appear as appealing as the AMP for a new start. I believe that planning should encompass, not only consideration of ALL options and variations of “best practices”, even "flavors" of BRT, but also these very details of technology and methodology (including demolition, excavation, and utility relocation, disruptions, and environment impact) should be posed and proposed to the stakeholders in the form of progressive series of open discussions, without any capital decision-making by the administration. When all the "cards are laid on the table" and "the full tape is played" in informing all those truly concerned, then the truly concerned will be in far better position to make informed decisions on what could be had and on how to pay for it (or not). And this should be done BEFORE and earmarking and approval of a fat sum of funds for any professional alternatives analysis – or at least not without expert discussion and infusion of ideas from diverse sources (new starts and existing systems and plans of other cities, such as our in-state neighbor Memphis, which has had a vintage streetcar system with modernized modifications, operating since 1993). Because I was not present during any planning of the AMP proposal, I cannot rightfully say just how the planning process ws undertaken. While It is known that Parsons-Brinckerhoff consultants were commissioned to draft and to finalize an alternatives analysis for a streetcar analysis and for a BRT analysis as weighted alternatives, and that this had been announced in the media before a conclusion was made, what is not known (to me anyway) is whether or not weighted consideration was given to other alternatives, to any extent. All we do know for certain is that the mayor had mentioned, in the past, his impressions from visits to some other cities having different recent new-starts in various stages of completion. We also do know that the public highly likely was not kept abreast of discussions during the progressive stages of the planning for the AMP (in consideration of the mobilized reaction and protest against it). With a fat sum already dished out to the consultants, the decision to select the BRT dedicated-lane alternative may have become a matter of political logistics (let alone the issue of cost comparison), to avoid questionable funding for consideration of additional details of design in the analysis process , details which should have been included with the original study and evaluation, but which were not introduced into the process. While the consulting firm does have reputed creditability, we do not know to what extent the parameters of designs from existing practices elsewhere were interjected into the equation for cranking out the final solution. That having been said, We don't necessarily know if the solution is one of "salt", as opposed to one of "pepper", or if it is a solution of "salt, black pepper, red pepper, basil, and marjoram", tailored to the "tastes" of the region. The fact is, the region does not necessarily know just what its "tastes" are, until it has had at least "samplings" in some form or another and explanations and descriptions of what has been and what can be done with them. A "Music City Center" approach to a mass transit new-start project decision (irrespective of what the MCC funding sources are) by nature leads to unsurprising dissension and distrust, if not a perception of deception and antagonism. The people have expressed a need to "weigh into" the decision-making on any transit plans which they believe would affect directly their quality of life. Enough of my soapbox; I guess I ended up draggin' myself into the caldron of debate after all, didn't I?

Just wanted to show some outside opinion and perception (perhaps less subjective than mine) of the region's mass transit as a whole. Only the final statement is relevant to this topic, but I included the entire article to illustrate the context of the dialog. It could be construed as being too opinionated and and misinformed, but from an entrepreneurial vantage, it just might deserve some merit. ___ ___ ___ Recent article in free local community newspaper: [Daniel, Ben, ed. "Planner Says Locations Matter Most for Nashville." Green Hill News 25.33 (2013): http://www.gcanews.com/thisWeek.html, August 29, 2013] The Nashville Next Speaker Series Monday, Aug. 26, had Joe Minicozzi, founding member of the Asheville Design Center and principal of Urban3 LLC, to explain why and how location matters when developing communities in Nashville. He asked the audience to look at Nashville as if it were a business. We are all investors and shareholders in the $66 billion commodity known as Davidson County, and he explained that we need to make decisions about revenue and cost as if we were making decisions inside our portfolio. He went on to say that we don’t judge the efficiency of our cars by miles per tank, because if we did we would all go out and buy an F-150. He said we buy cars based on miles per gallon of gasoline, which in comparison to building our city in the best interest of its citizens for Davidson County we should look at revenue as the value per acre not value per project. He used Walmart as a comparison to his neighborhood in Asheville, N.C., to explain that a 34-acre Walmart at $6,500 per acre is not as beneficial to a city as a neighborhood of houses on .13 acres at $19,500 per acre. He said to think about it as if you were a farmer: You are going to produce as many crops as possible in a single field to produce the most money. Minicozzi went on to show a series of charts and maps comparing areas of Davidson County and the amount of revenue per acre. He explained that compact development generates more tax revenue. “As shareholders you are all investing in infrastructure in this area,” he said. “You should have expectations of return and redevelopments, this is why it behooves you to push for not having surface parking spots downtown. You get a bigger bang for your buck if you build your communities low.” Minicozzi said that an East Nashville neighborhood, Greenwood, that is more dense costing $800,000 per acre is worth about four times more in tax revenue than Belle Meade, valued at $250,000 per acre. On a side note, he pointed out that it was very surprising to find that Green Hills Mall is worth $8 million per acre while other successful malls in Nashville are only worth about $2 million, because it is such a dense mall that it pops out near a value of a downtown building. He went on to show that half of an acre of a downtown building’s value is equal to the 52 acres of 100 Oaks, and inside The Gulch there is value in places between $9 million and $65 million but as soon as you cross the street is drops between $1 million and $3 million. “Your downtown zip code is about .3 percent of your counties total area,” he said. “It’s just a little speck, yet it is producing 20 percent of your county’s total retail taxes. That’s impressive.” He compared this with Opryland, which takes up 9 percent of Davidson County land area but it only producing 8 percent of the retail revenue. The bottom line of his presentation was that as a city we have to build with a plan and compact developments generates more tax revenue. He ended after a question and answer session saying that what surprised him the most was that Nashville is still on the bus system and not already using a newer more efficient version of mass transit. This final statement appears to be a "reservation" of thoughts, if not a direct misgiving. I felt this worthy of sharing with the forum.

That's just part of a long-term "global" vision for middle Tennessee; there is no sustainable funding source for such an enormous undertaking. As I have indicated, and as others have stated in previous posts, CSX is a private business - a huge Class-III railroad, whose goal is to maximize profits for its shareholders. The CSX Chattanooga Subdivision (through M'boro and points southeast to Ga.) is one of the most congested lines of the firm, and given the operations into and out of Nissan, on a single-track main (reduced from double many years ago due to CTC [centralized traffic control] consolidation, before that line became so congested), no MCS extension on that line could even be considered before some major capital, wholesale improvements could be made on that line to M'boro. Unlike with the NERR and NWRR shortlines out of Nashville, which are small and are more amenable to less pricey upgrades to heavy-rail commuter (or even light-rail is done in accordance with the FRA rules), that CSX line cannot accommodate any increase in rail traffic operations, especially during peak periods. Although funding sources are determined in part by the project itself (and would include Metro Davidson, Rutherford Co., and the cities of LaVergne, Smyrna, and M'boro), the shear magnitude in projected costs for upgrades to that segment of the Chatta. Subdivision would lead me to believe that some serious political "rock fracting" would be required before any compelling need becomes transformed into motivation and real action. Currently the waters appear too calm for that to be happening with notice. Well, you got me. Reckon this man behind the curtain can’t stay masked forever, eh? I knew that I’d set myself wide open, with recalling some of my experiences of the (not-so-recent) past. Make no mistake about it – I’m no spring chicken, you found out! As for your parents, I graduated in your father’s class year ‘69, as I was an upcoming senior during ’68 (when TC went bankrupt in Aug. ’68) at what used to be Peabody Demonstration School (PDS). It had been a part of the former Geo. Peabody College for Teachers, which became a part of Vandy in 1979. PDS had been a prep school of the college, and it closed in 1974, later to be bought and turned into what now is USN (Univ. School of Nash.). While I’m not totally ancient (not yet anyway), I am blessed to have undergone a rather storied, tortuous path of an upbringing (perhaps in part as result of some personal decisions), during the ‘50s and ‘60s (and even up into the early 70’s). Being “tilted” as a steel ball in a pinball machine, during those decades – that is, living here and there – is to an extent what lead to my being placed in position to ride so many trolleys, buses, and passenger trains of the past – back when railroads still their own travel agencies in downtowns throughout - back when one could observe all kinds of strange exterior color schemes as the signatures of these still private companies – back when Nashville Transit Company (NTC) was the privately own city-bus system in Nashville. In high school , when I wanted to go visit a buddy whose family lived at Seward Air Force Base in Smyrna (Tenn.) I had to go to the Greyhound station at 6th and Commerce downtown (razed in the mid ‘70s, replaced w/ what is now the "old Convention Center), catch a “dog” up US 41, and get dumped off at a Gulf filling station (with a metal Greyhound sign flopping from a pole). It seemed to be a rather dramatic deal (especially with jerky standard transmission buses) just to get to neighboring Smyrna, compared to the way it is now. Back then, with Trailways and Greyhound locals to everywhere, you felt as if you really were going somewhere out of town (since it DID seem to take forever before the Interstates were set up). Back in ’64, L&N still had a handful of system locals in the area, and one still could ride from Union Station to Columbia, Mt. Pleasant, Sandy Hook, and Lawrenceburg (some trackage of which now is part of the Tennessee Southern). Family “dynamics” led me to spend time in Nashville (my birth place but I almost had been born in Dover, Del.); DC/Silver Spring, Md., Champaign-Urbana, Ill.; Cambridge-, Medford-, Lynn, Ma.; Roanoke- Va. Beach- Norfolk, Va., and Greensboro- Thomasville, NC, (and a little time in the East Bay area of Oakland, Ca.), during my nearly 62 years. One can imagine that in travels among all these places, I probably “crawled” a lot of ground, so to speak (back when they still had “Pullmans”), and when trolley tracks still squealed in DC and in Watertown, Ma. I guess I have a handful of years remaining anyway. In reference to the discussion of the TC Beltline and I-440, TC’s Beltline basically connected the TC’s Nashville Riverfront – Harriman, Tenn. line to its North Nashville – Hopkinsville, Ky. line. You follow your maps (and in your car follow the streets), and you will see that at the Clifton Yard of the old TC (now NWRR), the tracks diverge (near Clifton Ave. at 25th Ave.N) – one leading northward to the Bordeaux-Ashland City line, the other leading eastward. This easterly meandering line still serves a few “dots” of local industries in the “near North” from 19th Ave to its abrupt (and unromantic) end at 9th Ave. N. A small office and engine facility is still used at what is (and historically has been) referred to as the Herman Street yard. You mention that rickety timber underpass at Seminole near Craighead. That NWRR track ending at 9th Ave N used to extend to the Cumberland by passing over 8th Ave (Rosa Parks Blvd.) with a “scarey” timber trestle approach and steel deck girder, into the areas now occupied by the State Govt for parking and for the State Mall. This “Sulphur Dell” area housed the Sulphur Dell Minor-League park, the Nashville Stock Yard, and the floating storage tank of the Nashville Gas Company. Tracks criss-crossed this area “every which way”, in some cases leads and spurs sharing the path with roadways. It was a common sight to be riding the Herman Street bus along Harrison Street with a TC Alco switcher trailing behind (back in ’67). Much more can be said about the TC trackage along the riverfront (west bank, downtown northward) and about the former NC&St.L trackage (merged with L&N in 1957), which serves the Cockrill Bend Industrial area in extreme west-northwest Nashville proper (the orig. incorporated area prior to the 1963 Metro consolidation). Get in your car and go to Ed Temple Blvd. at Buchanan Street (you probably already had done so years ago) and you can observe that massive timber-trestle approach to the Bordeaux swing bridge over the Cumberland. You also can follow that same line back south toward Jefferson and to Herman Street (although there is no straight path by car), and you will see something that “time forgot”: a timber abutment and underpass at Meharry Blvd. (west of 21st Ave) and timber “squeeze-unders” at Albion Street and at Alameda Street. The one at Alameda is so narrow that only one car can “squirm” through at a time (and you had better be inching along, at that). Other timber vestiges can be found along the TC (NWRR) to Ashland City, some of which one would see only if sought, as many of them are in rather obscure locations. Much of the maze of industrial lead trackage, long abandoned and removed during the previous 45 years, could have been some basis for an urban transit connections for light rail. With San Diego’s MTS, MTA-Baltimore, “The Tide” of Hampton Roads Transit (Norfolk, Va.), planners took advantage of existing little used or abandoned rights-of-way for their upstarts. Others include Charlotte’s LYNX, and Boston’s MBTA (referred to as “the T”, its Green line Riverside extension [not and upstart] utilized trackage of the former Boston and Albany [New York Central]), and its Red Line Ashmont-Mattapan line being from the former "New Haven" (New York, New Haven and Hartford RR). This latter (called the "Mattapan High-Speed Line") is only a short 2½ -mile urban run, but nevertheless is highly utilized. Perhaps I’ll “piggy-back” on some future discussions from others’ references and proposals. Indeed, you guys have slammed out some beefy ones and illustrations on transit concepts. I know I’ve tended to get too much in detail on the things that I’ve dredged up, relating to these transportation topics.

OK guys, I've attempted to answer your questions to the best of my capability, so have your coffee mugs full. Answer to: Unincorporated Area - Posted Today, 05:45 AM Informative post, thanks! My recollection is that most of the old TC r/w west of Murfreesboro Rd was taken for the 440 footprint. --- --- --- --- Yes, and that had been planned and partially implemented as early as 1968, during my senior year in high school, as I recollect. The Tennessee Central Railway (TC) then was in bad shape financially, and the highway planners knew it. The sizable rock outcropping, along the northeast facing of the hill on which stands the WTVZ Fox Channel 17 TV tower, forms the curvature of the interchange from I-40 east onto I-440 East (at its western terminus). Although more rock was removed during the last 15 years to add a second lane on the interchange, that basic rock cut-out existed back in the late ’68, and at that time seemed to go to nowhere. When the TC did go belly-up 31-Aug of ’68 officially, the state pounced on it That portion of the ex-TC had been referred to as the Beltline – extending from the NERR (N&E) main west of Fessler, (the start of Southern Junction), across the L&N (CSX) at the location where the Junction now joins the CSX (Melrose area - Berry Road near Franklin Road), to west Nashville where a little-used stub track crosses Charlotte Ave. at around 31st/32nd Ave N. (former site of National Linen). The highway planners evidently seemed already to have had their sights on a dying TC as the rock cut-out logically only could have been deemed an excavation leading only the then yet-to-be-abandoned TC Beltline. During mid-1980, a carbon-arc torch was used to remove the steel through-type girder TC bridge over the L&N Bruceton Division (where I-440 now passes over the CSX in West Nashville, just west of Metro Parks and Recreation). This had been the start of a succession of procedures to completely dismantle what remained of the abandoned segment of the TC Beltline and to commence construction of I-440. Even when observed from a mile away at the Charlotte Ave. L&N overpass at 25th Ave. the torch arc would blind you in broad daylight. The remains of what is left of the Beltline (after I-440) actually are now owned by the Nashville & Eastern, where it is named the Nashville and Western (NWRR). This remnant includes Clifton yard (28th and Charlotte to Clifton and 24th), Jefferson Yard (near Scovel St. north to Heiman St.) and the remainder of the extant route across Ed Temple Blvd., across that ancient rusty swing bridge to Bordeaux (past the tank “farms”) and parallel to SR 12 on to Ashland City. Past A.O. Smith (State Water Heater) in Ashland City, the segment of the TC to Henrietta and Clarksville has all but been dismantled, except for a few trails. The U.S. Army owns and maintains the segment from Fort Campbell owns to “Hoptown” Ky., where the TC officially ended. A number of the old Warren-type truss bridges and bridge piers remain intact (as monuments of the past) near the Cumberland Riverfront in Clarksville, but the earthen berms are all gone. _____ Answer to: Burg - Posted Today, 08:27 AM 1. Adding an extra train during peak times. You said they are currently running 3 trains at once. Is it possible to run 4, or are they currently maxed out at 3 with the tracks in place? 5? 6? --- --- --- --- 2. Adding non-peak trains. Lets say that they decide to expand the timetable to include non-peak trains. And lets say that they are only running one train set at a time (well within the infrastructure limits) back and forth. Is this possible along this line, or is there freight traffic that has right-of-way during these times? I'm not sure if the MCS has some agreement to only run within a certain window of time, or if freight along this line is so sparse, that the MCS basically has free reign on the tracks --- --- --- --- In answer to your first question, they are maxed out at only two concurrently running physical trains, and as you read on, you’ll understand, I assure you. The MCS started out with only 2 cars, but frequently it has had to add a third car. I haven’t ridden the MCS in over a year, but a number of co-workers who use the MCS as their daily commute have told me that 3 cars have become the norm – at least that’s what I’ve been told. Ridership has increased significantly to the extent that 2-car consists have become “tight”, Positive indication of this can be observed by commuter “swarms” streaming from a morning MCS Riverfront arrival to the across-the-platform connecting MTA buses (Numbers 25 60, 61, 62, 93). All MCS station platforms are marked with signs to accommodate at least 4 cars, which generally has been used only on occasions such as Titans game and July-4 specials. There also is a third trainset, including motive power, always on standby at the Lebanon MCS maintenance facility (shop), and this set protects the other two other sets deployed at any one time. All equipment is stored at the Lebanon shop facility in Lebanon (off Tennessee Ave. near the county fairgrounds). “Believe you me”, these buses are full during peak, as I often am “trapped” behind one of them at 06:40 hours (Nº 60 - an articulated), poking along northbound along 5th Ave., stopping for passengers to deboard for the Metro or State office buildings. (for a number of years now, Vandy and Belmont along with State-, and more recently, Metro-Nashville Govt. have provided free transit swipe cards to their employees [good for one round-trip M-F on any MTA or RTA bus or train]). No trainsets are turned, as the locomotive unit (an ElectroMotive F40PH) and the cars (bi-level “gallery” commuter, with center loading) are configured electrically for push-pull operation. One of the cars on each train is built as a cab-control car, containing a complete enclosed cabin mounted in the upper level of one end of the car. The cab-control is distinctive in appearance, with cab windows facing forward and on the side, with a cluster of sealed-beam headlamps located near the top-center; a multi-chime air-horn cluster on the leading edge of the car roof; a steel deflector (referred to as a “pilot”) mounted below the lead coupler; and a pair of low-mounted alternating, flashing sealed-beam lights (referred to as “ditch” lights), intended to attract the attention of motorists and pedestrians. At the the end of a run, the engineer shuts down the cab controls on the leading end and puts the controls in “trailing” mode. He or she demounts from the cab (locomotive end or cab-car end), walks to and mounts the cab on the train's opposite end, and sets the controls on that end to “lead” for full forward control, now in the opposite direction. The locomotive and cars are said to be fully "trainlined" with all the electrical remote throttle and safety appliance controls, PA system, high-voltage power (480 VAC), and automatic air-brake controls. This allows full control to be replicated at either cab end. Two-trainset operation: Lebanon – Martha – Mt. Juliet – Hermitage – Donelson – Riverfront 1st train departs Lebanon shops and stages for call at the Lebanon MCS station Baddour Pkwy (US 70 Bypass near TRW and Bowling Alley east of N. Castle Heights Ave.) 1st train departs westbound for Riverfront [first Riverfront arrival]. 2nd train stages at Lebanon MCS station and departs westbound for Riverfront. 2nd train pulls into east end of meeting point passing siding at Donelson Bowl (Donelson Pike, south of Lebanon Road). [2nd train is held entirely east of Donelson Pike crossing to prevent blocking roadway traffic] 1st train departs eastbound for Mt. Juliet, upon departing Donelson station, passes 2nd train waiting for clear. 2nd train proceeds out of west end of siding and enters nearby Donelson Station; 2nd train proceeds to Riverfront [second Riverfront arrival]. 1st train has arrived at Mt. Juliet and must return westbound to Donelson siding meet point BEFORE 2nd train has returned eastbound from Riverfront. 1st train waits at siding. 2nd train departs eastbound for Lebanon, upon departing Donelson station, passes 1st train waiting for clear. 1st train proceeds out of west end of siding and enters Donelson Station; 1st train proceeds to Riverfront [third Riverfront arrival]. 2nd train returns to Lebanon Shop. 1st train departs Riverfront eastbound for Lebanon; 1st train returns to Lebanon Shop. The "logistics" as an operation strategy provides: 2 full-distance runs (Lebn-Rvrfrnt) 1 partial-distance run (Rvrfrnt-Mt.Juliet 1 partial-distance run (Mt.Juliet-Rvrfrnt) 2 full-distance runs (Rvrfrnt-Lebn) So actually RTA is “squeezing” 3 runs (qualified) from 2 trainsets, such that three trains appear as virtual to the commuter 9for most of the MCS route. The overwhelming majority of ridership can be bound at the Mt. Juliet and Hermitage stations (not surprising) Basically, if you commute from Lebanon or Martha for Riverfront, you have two runs available, but if you board in Mt. Juliet, you have three runs from which to choose. The two trains layover during mid-day non-peak, at the shop and return mid-afternoon for same operational sequence. You just better make sure that you don’t miss the 2nd inbound train from Lebanon westbound, or you’ll be sorry. If you get on the eastbound train for Lebanon and you forget and get instead on the eastbound ending at Mt. Juliet, the conductor would generally bring this to your attention according to the destination color-code of your ticket. You then simply would deboard at Mt. Juliet (where that train would head back to Riverfront), and would wait for the next eastbound run (which then would follow and proceed to Lebanon). In answer to your second question, I do know that freight operations along the N&E must share the main with the MCS, between Stanley Street Nashville and Tennessee Ave. Lebanon. Most of these daily operations are industrial switching, along the main; along the Old Hickory branch (Stones River RR bridge, across Central Pike and Jarez and across that awkward Old Hickory Blvd, Lebanon Pike intersection); and along the Southern Junction for freight interchange to the CSX (past the state fairgrounds). However, some heavier freight movements are handled (sand hoppers) between LoJack Materials at Central Pike and east of Lebanon to Gordonsville (other operations are handled mostly entirely east of Lebanon, beyond the MCS yard limit). I am not yet at liberty to know about any agreement between the NERR and the RTA, at least I have not delved into finding that out. I doubt that some accord is would not be in place, as the NERR has been quite cooperative in working with the RTA, as both the RTA and the NERR have gained immensely from the upgrade funding . To the best of my knowledge, based on what I have observed during the previous 7 years, most switching is performed after the last evening run of the MCS and before the initial weekday run; and during a mid-day off peak period on week days, the latter being done primarily without having to foul the main. I am almost certain that the issue of operating an off-peak MCS is indeed on the horizon, even if that horizon is distant, with no current sense of urgency at this time to address the expansion to off-peak. Current infrastructure probably is marginal at best to be capable of supporting off-peak, but I do perceive this as tenable, contingent on the freight ops being performed with customers. Some obstacles to expansion are the existing bridges spanning Brown’s Creek, Mill Creek and the Stones River, as well as the Omohundro water treatment plant. These are current constraints having single-track in a single-capacity through-truss (with the latter 2 bridges), or limited wayside easement for parallel track expansion (at the water plant).. Hope this illustrates some of the "culture" of heavy-rail commuting in Davidson and Wilson counties.(the RTA "eastern branch")

I have trouble recalling where I had read something in the local media during the last six weeks or so, but it appears that the RTA has proposed applying for funding, in concert with the needs of the hosting Nashville & Eastern (N&E) RR (for the current Music City Star), to build a second passing siding somewhere along mid-route between Riverfront and Lebanon stations. For the September 2006 start-up service of the MCS, one siding was added just east of Donelson Pike (its west-most termination at the Donelson Bowl bowling alley). This first siding was necessary to accommodate the current morning and afternoon commuter running schedules of three trains each way. In practice however, one of these runs, one in the morning and one in the afternoon, actually travels between Riverfront and Mount Juliet only, because of scheduling headway to allow for the two trainsets protecting the runs. The addition of a second siding would permit all three runs, in both morning and afternoon, to run the entire distance between Lebanon and Riverfront, on effectively a single track run. Additionally, from an operational standpoint, the second siding theoretically could allow for eventual increase in the number of runs between the Riverfront and Lebanon. Several improvements have been undertaken since the start-up, along the stretch of the N&E RR between Lebanon and Riverfont, and this segment is the only portion of the N&E to become certified by the FRA (Federal Railroad Assn) for passenger commuter service. One upgrade was the construction of a new main for the MCS to bypass the N&E yard, between Driftwood and Stanley Streets (roughly paralleling Nestor Street), north of Hermitage Ave. at Fairfield Ave. This came with two new concrete bridges (RR underpasses) over Stanley and Driftwood. East of SR 109 an alignment was made to separate the main from US 70 (Nashville Pike) from the railroad by eliminating an existing grade crossing and replacing it with a new RR bridge. Yet another more recent alignment was done to ease the main grade west of SR109 (at Martha) and to bridge 109 over the RR, thus eliminating another major grade crossing (since the MCS approaches and departures from the MCS Martha station created major traffic backup along the ever busier SR109). Many other changes had to be implemented to the Riverfront-Lebanon stretch, some not as dramatic appearing as others - converting to signaled territory; beefing up grade-crossing signals; grade-crossing reconditioning; track upgrades for most of the route; and of course, the new stations and ticket kiosks and the trains themselves (acquired secondhand from other agencies and being outsourced for reconditioning). Oh yeah, I almost forgot to mention the aerial bridge improvements over SR155. Needless to say, a whole lot goes into upgrading a line for heavy-rail commuter - locomotive push-pull or otherwise, especially when the baseline is in deplorable condition to start. This is where Federal funding and shared state and regional (county and/or municipal) funding are utilized in concert. 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 heavy-rail network or corridors for a medium-sized extended metro area as mid-state Tenn. Let me mention Chicago, which of course has the volume, density, and sprawl (Cook and surrounding counties of IL and northern Indiana), and has several commuter-rail stations in its CBD (currently four main terminals serving one or more major routes). While two of these terminal are relatively within close walking distance of each other (Ogilvie Center and Chi. Union Station), they are nevertheless all separate and distinct. This is historic in nature, due to Chicago being a national central point for intercity trains, back before air travel ruled, even back when commuter trains were steam-hauled and shared terminals with the intercity trains. But the shear number of trains into and out of that city even now "requires" that core segmentation and separation, just as a busy airport would need several terminals, from a transportation operational standpoint to offset congestion. 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 10thAve. 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.abandonedrails.com/Tennessee_Central_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. Heavy rail commuter service, 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 exising 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 (just as are the inbound and outbound trolley rails along Belmont Blvd and along Jefferson Street). Now as far as service between Murfreesboro and Nashville is concerned, IMO it arguably would be a "total sale" for ridership, given the virtual effect of both cities seemingly becoming more contiguous through annexation and development along US41 and I-24 (and Old Nashville Pike), and the number of "heads" passing back and forth daily between the two community centers. Working with CSX as a business, and obtaining the enormous capital required to assist CSX in easing its current congestion woes, while effectively separating CSX mainline freight operations from commuter-rail (and eventually Amtrak intercity) is an entire volume of discussion in its own right. I even envisioned commuter rail along the Nashville-M'boro stretch as far back as July 1970, when I rode some of the last service southeast out of Nashville south to Chatta. and Atlanta (L&N trains N°3 & 4, the "Georgian"). By then it was down to a remnant of what it had been when I rode it back in the early '60s - by this late in time down to an engine, a baggage car, and a coach (or two during holiday season), but nevertheless it still was a train. By then, though, M'boro was only a flag-stop between Atlanta and Nashville (an on to Evansville and to St. Louis). Back then I-24 was fairly new but incomplete (as well as was I-65 and I-40). When Amtrak was formed and took over most US passenger service on May 1, 1971, St. Louis-Nashville-Atlanta service was immediately discontinued. I think that only about a dozen of us were on that night train to Georgia (around 01:30 hours departure southbound), so even in 1970 it was running on a wing and a prayer. Most passengers seem to have boarded in St. Louis, Chatta., Smyrna, Ga. or Atlanta, depending on the direction, and I even felt somewhat "naked" being one of perhaps only 2 or 3 passengers at most to have boarded or detrained at Nashville Union Station. Fast-forward to now. Just imagine the changes in demographics and the patronage of service on that same route (as that former "Georgian") that could be serving Springfield, TN, Greenbrier, Goodlettesville [yes, even G'ville was still on the official timetable back then], Amqui, on the north-northwest, and all the same points southeast now served by RTA buses to M'boro. I suspect that any train service lasting that long, along that north-northwest-to-southeast corridor (why still needing state subsidy [as with rail agencies of any other state]), would have had to be augmented with quite a few more cars by now (you think?). As a contrast, the state of NC began subsidizing a new Amtrak service (prior service dropped in spring 1964) between Raleigh and Charlotte in 1990 and this service has been increased twice since then to three trains each way, each train being nearly fully booked (with up to eight cars each). While one of these train actually travels on to Richmond and Fredericksburg Va. and to DC, many riders are state locals who ride to work across the state or who travel to schools (in the linked communities). While the mid-Atlantic never lost passenger service to begin with (not for long anyway), despite the difference in dynamics of the travel targets within the regions of the Mid-Atlantic compared to mid-Tenn., NC never became totally apathetic to rail travel. Actually Charlotte NC and Norfolk (my home for 12 years) have become "mini-success stories" since during the last 5 years both towns have established either one of or both light-rail and Amtrak. In a sense, intercity and commuter rail (or light rail) tend to coexist as a synergy. My point in seeming to digress is to illustrate the difference in mentality among two different southern metropolitan regions, which in essence have similar populations, but which have totally different constituencies when it comes to regional rail travel. I guess that it's a whole lot easier to get something else, when you already have something to start. Pardon me please, if you will, for rambling. I'll try not to do so often.

Hi, I new to this group. My klutzy feet "stumbled" and "tripped over" this forum, and I am very blessed with all you guys and your spectrum of thoughts and contributions. I no longer fell alone and insecure in my feelings about Metro Nashville's administrations current (and past) and foreseeable plans and decision on transit. Double-articulateds (although not as radical-looking as that in mirydi's post) appear to not be as uncommon as one might think, in other countries, particularly areas with densely, high-ratio utilized surface public transit, compared to privately occupied surface traffic. As far as what might be expected for rolling stock on the West-End - Five-Points AMP is concerned, several articulated coaches currently are in service (since March 2013) on the official startup of the No. 55 Murfreesboro Road BRT Lite service. These units can be observed entering and departing MC-Central with 15-min headways on weekdays. These appear to have been delivered as "Xcelsior" units, by New Flyer Industries (based in Winnipeg, Manitoba, with assembly plants in Minnesota), and could very well be a "prototype" for the AMP. The reason that I say that these Xcelsior units are a "prototype" is that they were delivered to the MTA with left-side doors (in addition to right-side doors), in probable anticipation and preparation for eventual use on the dedicated center-lane service. As far as I have heard, the West-End AMP is the only immediately foreseen project expected to utilize left-side doors and boarding "islands" at center lanes and . These buses are of more traditional contemporary design lines and have a somewhat "cleaner", minimalistic appearance, than that of the rakish, tapered-front North American Bus Industries (NABI, of Anniston, AL) articulateds delivered to Nashville MTA in 2009-2010 (I call 'em "diesel-electric worms"). While the external appearance is not nearly as important as the interior amenities and functionality, nevertheless, I feel that the external design of the NABI engineer could been a bit more conservative, instead of going with a "radical" style as I see it. I am not yet allowed to post any images, so hopefully the URL links will provide valid illustrations NABI (North American Bus Industries) - Nashville MTA http://www.flickr.com/photos/transitalk/6479991667/ To effectively be considered as a physical infrastructure, however, whether I (we) "like" BRT or LRT appears of little relevance, if the decision has been all but finalized to start with the AMP BRT. Instead the success in part will be determined by how well the constituents are integrated with one another. To me, real-time annunciating signage, pre-emptive traffic signaling, streetscaping and center stations, with ANY style of articulated buses, comprises little if any sense of permanence and definition as a facility to the public, if dedicated right-of-way is implemented as just painted pavement with markings (rather than replacing asphalt with some more "inert" material). Even a fleet of station wagons could be made enticing (arguably , [LOL]), if the busways are done with a sense of seriousness. New Flyer Industries Xcelsior (started Nashville service, March 2013) http://www.newflyer.com/index/xcelsior http://www.newflyer.com/index/2012_11_19_nashville_award New Flyer Announces Acquisition of North American Bus Industries, Inc. http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1188099/new-flyer-announces-acquisition-of-north-american-bus-industries-inc-and-extends-senior-credit-facility-to-2017 The rear of the NABI units reminds me of a design emulating the 1940s style rounded-end observation cars once seen on some American streamlined named passenger trains of the mid-20th century -- more like an observation car on steroids. Rather than having a design based on a "new-age", gaudy [tacky] body-line flow, as that of the NABI design, the functionally "clean" appearance of the Xcelsior units at least would tend to maintain some bus-styling "vogue" classic appearance, without appearing too generic. From my unsolicited personal opinion, the NABI units appear somewhat of a distraction, whenever I'm driving behind one of those things, and that makes me wonder just what the engineers were smoking, when they made that design a production consensus. The "blackout" door-window fenestration of the Xcelsior units renders a rather simple profile with primarily rectilinear styling, in favor of rounded corners (reminiscent of that of the former GMC/RTS/Nova single units of the late 1970s and remaining in Nashville MTA service until 2012). I have yet to have ridden the New Rider Xcelsior units, which at first seemed confined to the 55X route; very recently, the Xcelsior's have turned up on the 24X Bellevue Express. I have had numerous occasions in riding the NABI artic's. During their debut into service during spring 2010 (well after the May-Day flood), I managed to catch a ride on these applied to a number of "unlikely" locals, which by all indication only served as a marketing promotional of these units: No. 7-Hillsboro, 2-Belmont, 8-Lipscomb, and various others throughout the system. Currently, most are assigned to the 30-series "X" (express) services (e.g. Madison, Tusculum, Antioch, Rivergate-Vanderbilt) and of course to the 56X Gallatin Pike BRT. More recently the NABI artic's have been seen in dedicated service on the new 86X LaVergne/Smyrna Express. The NABI units often are seen to "pool" upon the changing demand during the weekday, to protect the No. 60 Blue Circuit (from Riverfront MCS station to Farmers' Market) during morning peak, and then to serve other corridors during the day. The last time I rode one of these (on my way to pick up my car from the shop in North Madison), I noticed an unusually loud transmission-gear whine, which would alternate regularly in intensity levels as the bus would accelerate and coast to meet traffic demands. This suggests that, either these units have a questionable power-train design, or maintenance thereof has not been up to par. In either event, these NABI units seem way too new to be having driveline problems already. Otherwise the hybrid power design makes ride and the vehicle as a whole rather quiet, given the deplorable condition of many sections along Gallatin Road (especially when one rides near the center or near the rear axle). I think that the Nashville MTA management and the mayor somehow became "wowed" with appearance the NABI artic's, although admittedly, I have no idea of the bidding process for the Requests-for-Proposal's submitted to various coach manufacturers, leading to their purchase. New Rider Industries is the same firm which supplied Cleveland's Euclid Avenue Healthline BRT units, and also Eugene's [Oregon] EmX units. Cleveland RTA HealthLine New Flyer DE60LF-BRT The firm also recently was awarded contract by King County Metro Transit of Seattle to build a half a thousand or so Xcelsior electric-trolley transit buses, in both 40’ and 60’ configurations. If you've ever visited Seattle, you've noticed its rather extensive system of trolley buses, both single and artic. units. Similarly, the 60’ version is also intended to supplement or replace aging 40’ units of San Francisco's Muni. Seattle (King County Metro) - rendering http://kingcounty.gov/transportation/kcdot/NewsCenter/NewsReleases/2013/June/nr06172013_trolleycontract.aspx Again, thanks for the rich input and detailed plan rationales offered from all.