The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread

[Bos2Nash]

On 1/13/2024 at 9:32 AM, Nathan_in_DC said:

Why is it up to WeGo to fund streetscape pedestrian improvements like crosswalks instead of NDOT/TDOT?

I was quite curious about this too and would argue that it should be NDOT with a caveat...

"WeGo was awarded $2.4 million for pedestrian improvements and transit amenities at three sites along Trinity Lane and one on Murfreesboro Pike. The Trinity Lane sites will support the recently proposed crosstown bus route connecting East Nashville to the future North Nashville Transit Center. The route is a part of the Spring 2024 proposed service changes that the WeGo board will vote on at its Jan. 25 meeting."

This pedestrian improvement sounds to me like they are specifically tied to the new transit stops that are along these alignments. In which case, I do agree that it is within WeGo's scope to build those improvement. 

[markhollin]

Courtesy of Sky5:
 

[Nathan_in_DC]

5 hours ago, markhollin said:

Courtesy of Sky5:
 

 

KVB bridge is cleared and salted, Seigenthaler bridge is untouched...

[markhollin]

Nashville voters will pick their choice for U.S. president in November, and advocates for expanding mass transit in the city want to hitch a referendum to that same ballot.

Their motivation boils down to this: It's their best bet for success.

The basis of that belief can be found in an analysis that Nashville political strategist and public affairs specialist Darden Copeland put together right after his firm, Calvert Street Group, steered Raleigh's successful 2016 vote to raise sales taxes to pay for a transit expansion. His question: Was that kind of plan more likely to succeed in an election with high turnout, or low turnout?

Holding a vote during a high-turnout election "maximizes its chance of success," said a transition committee that O'Connell assembled. "We believe … you need to present this to all Nashvillians in an election that will be the most high-turnout, so that all Nashvillians have a voice. Our recommendation is you do a presidential election, ideally," the committee chair told O'Connell at a public event. 

The private Calvert Street report, which Copeland shared with the Business Journal, concluded that "a low-turnout transit referendum is a 50/50 proposition. Targeting a higher turnout election, however, represents a greater opportunity for transit proponents."

When 40% or less of the local electorate voted, the result was a "crapshoot" for passage of transit plans. But three-fourths of referendums passed when turnout rose above 40%, leading Calvert Street to call that level of turnout a "magic line."

The more turnout rose above that point, the greater the voter support for transit. Each additional percentage point of turnout led to more than a half-point of votes in favor of transit, Calvert Street found.

Austin has had a similar experience with transit votes, one that isn't reflected in Calvert Street's analysis because it is based on property taxes.

In 2014, which was not a presidential election, voters in Austin rejected a $1 billion transit plan by a 57-43 margin.

Voters flipped by a nearly identical split, 58 to 42, in favor of a $7 billion transit plan in 2020 — a presidential election that pitted Donald Trump against Joe Biden.

Copeland, in an email interview, pointed to another factor that is harder to quantify, but one he experienced during Raleigh's 2016 campaign.

"Presidential-year races in blue districts not only turn out marginal voters who will support transit, they make it harder for opponents to get their message out," Copeland told the Business Journal. Donors and the media are focused on a wider range of federal, state and local races, he said. "Transit attacks are diluted with TV ads, phones and mail for candidates and other races … and operatives are busy helping their respective candidates of their choosing," he added.

Copeland emphasized that "good turnout along doesn't win campaigns, it only increases our chances. To win, we will need a broad coalition, a well thought-out plan, and it can't hurt voters' pocketbooks."

For his part, O'Connell has said expects to know later this month if Metro can craft a plan and meet all the legal and financial requirements to enable a November vote.

More at NBJ here:

https://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2024/01/18/transit-vote-referendum-presidential-election.html

[MLBrumby]

I hope Mayor O'Connell will have a great, easy-to-read summary of the proposal for transit out by May!  I hope it includes BRT with dedicated lanes... and (I've said it here many times) connecting some old streets that were broken up by Interstates.  I hope it's not LRT... I think any city under 2 million that puts tracks down for LRT is wasting money on a boondoggle. 

Edited January 18 by MLBrumby

[PaulChinetti]

3 hours ago, MLBrumby said:

connecting some old streets that were broken up by Interstates. 

Good idea, what are some prime candidates for reconnection?

[MLBrumby]

1 hour ago, PaulChinetti said:

Good idea, what are some prime candidates for reconnection?

I don't know Nashville like most here, but a few possibilities for starters (not all of these would/could be dedicated but the portions built to traverse the Interstates could be)...

West Side (E-W)

The Commerce-Grundy/Porter-Hayes corridor would be a great transit corridor from 2nd Avenu to 21st

McGavock Street from Bridgestone Arena to Music Sq. West

Possibly Union Street to Hynes Street to Patterson to Centennial Park

West Side (N-S)

16th Avenue to 17th Avenue over I-40 from Church St. via McMillan to 16th to 17th to Clarksville Hwy

One of the 30s or 40s over I-40; likey candidates are 39th Avenue North and/or 44th Avenue North

South Side

Benton Avenue over I-65 Geodis Stadium to 12th South

Fron Nolensville Road via Rosedale to Bradford to Fessey Park Drive to to Kirkwood Avenue to Belmont Blvd. 

East Side (some of these have been addressed by the East Bank reconstruction and roads from the Oracle Campus to Dickerson Road)

Cleveland Street and the Bridge over the Cumberland to connect the EB connector (Cowan) to 5th Street to Hermitage to I-40

I think a pedestrian and transit bridge over the Cumberland from the terminus of Church Street at First Avenue to the new East Bank Green park is a key piece of the puzzle

North Side

Delta Avenue North

Cement Plant to Great Circle Road

 

 

 

 

 

[markhollin]

The 1.5 mile 12th Avenue South project has landed the No. 12 spot on PeopleForBikes’ ranking of the “Best New US Bike Lanes of 2023.”

[nashvillain_too]

Mayor Freddie O'Connell Executive Order Number 045

Subject: Green and Complete Streets Policy

https://www.nashville.gov/departments/metro-clerk/legal-resources/executive-orders/mayor-freddie-oconnell/fo045

[markhollin]

Summary article on mass transit plans over the past decade in Nashville and where we stand now:

https://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2024/01/25/metro-transit-amp-freddie-oconnell-dean-barry-bus.html

[Sean blackdog]

Today this morning from Facebook BNA ….. 

BNA FYI: Exit 216A will be closed from Midnight to 4 a.m. on Wednesday Jan. 31 and Thursday, Feb. 1, as we are in the process of installing new signs to enhance navigation. Please use Exit 216B or Murfreesboro Pike as alternate routes during these periods. Safe travels!

[markhollin]

NDOT says repair of Division Street collapse may take 10-14 days:

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/local/2024/02/01/nashville-officials-division-street-repairs-could-take-10-14-days/72423157007/
 

[trillhaslam]

On 1/18/2024 at 3:33 PM, MLBrumby said:

I hope Mayor O'Connell will have a great, easy-to-read summary of the proposal for transit out by May!  I hope it includes BRT with dedicated lanes... and (I've said it here many times) connecting some old streets that were broken up by Interstates.  I hope it's not LRT... I think any city under 2 million that puts tracks down for LRT is wasting money on a boondoggle. 

Under 2 million? That would exclude many cities that currently have well-utilized light rail. 

Besides that, there's no reason to have an arbitrary population cutoff point to determine if rapid transit is feasible or really involve that metric much at all. It's far more nuanced. The populations of Detroit, Portland, and Boston, for example, are quite similar. Does it make them all similar candidates for transit success? Certainly not.

[MLBrumby]

24 minutes ago, trillhaslam said:

Under 2 million? That would exclude many cities that currently have well-utilized light rail. 

Besides that, there's no reason to have an arbitrary population cutoff point to determine if rapid transit is feasible or really involve that metric much at all. It's far more nuanced. The populations of Detroit, Portland, and Boston, for example, are quite similar. Does it make them all similar candidates for transit success? Certainly not.

In addition to my JD, I have an MBA. So I always go to numbers and experience, and I'd love to see the P&L numbers on LRT for all cities (esp 2M and under). Sadly, I haven't thus far, but I assume you have. So I'd ask how profitable and at what point (population) is it better to pursue LRT over BRT?  Many here know I've been a huge proponent of BRT... I'd even go larger than 2M as a threshold for LRT, but there are cities/metros of that population that have gone forward with the expense. Looking at a city as averse to rail as Nashville has shown itself to be (Mayor Berry's proposal of a few years back and Dean's BRT before that), I'd say it's far FAR wiser to pursue BRT before investing into a much longer term (breakeven) investment like LRT. I'd like to hear your response with some numbers, which admittedly I haven't been "privy to". 

[trillhaslam]

14 minutes ago, MLBrumby said:

In addition to my JD, I have an MBA. So I always go to numbers and experience, and I'd love to see the P&L numbers on LRT for all cities (esp 2M and under). Sadly, I haven't thus far, but I assume you have. So I'd ask how profitable and at what point (population) is it better to pursue LRT over BRT?  Many here know I've been a huge proponent of BRT... I'd even go larger than 2M as a threshold for LRT, but there are cities/metros of that population that have gone forward with the expense. Looking at a city as averse to rail as Nashville has shown itself to be (Mayor Berry's proposal of a few years back and Dean's BRT before that), I'd say it's far FAR wiser to pursue BRT before investing into a much longer term (breakeven) investment like LRT. I'd like to hear your response with some numbers, which admittedly I haven't been "privy to". 

I think a good-faith conversation about building transit, at least within the scope of projects in this country, cannot begin under the prerequisite that we must judge our options by how profitable they are. Transit projects (and for that matter, most road projects) are not built to make money and rarely approach breaking even. They are heavily subsidized, and we expect that of them. In addition to my MPA, I have a master's in planning, and we consider these projects far more holistically: Are we connecting communities? Are we bringing people to jobs? Are we providing a safe and reliable transportation alternative to those who cannot drive? That is not to say that transit projects should not be or are not extensively analyzed quantitatively. A mountain of possible projects could be wasteful if implemented in Nashville, but we should come to our conclusion after consideration of a variety of factors far beyond whether a profit is generated.

I really don't disagree with your assertion that BRT has a place in Nashville. Most corridors don't have the densities of population nor jobs to reasonably support light rail. That said, I don't think it makes sense to choose BRT instead in every instance because it's cheaper, as light rail as a mode carries inherent benefits. The distinction is very especially pronounced when BRT is built to substandard conditions, which is the American norm. I would be quite fearful that that would happen in Nashville.

[Luvemtall]

Many great conversation points, I do agree that a city’s population should not have that kind of influence over types of transit. My two cents is that there should be a network of multiple forms that allow for different routes and situations. BRT might be the answer for some outlining more remote areas, but LRT would probably be a better option for the highly utilized routes such as Downtown to points like, airport, Opry mills etc. and of course throughout the central core. It’s not one size fits all , but realistically what makes the most sense for a particular application.

[MLBrumby]

23 minutes ago, trillhaslam said:

I think a good-faith conversation about building transit, at least within the scope of projects in this country, cannot begin under the prerequisite that we must judge our options by how profitable they are. Transit projects (and for that matter, most road projects) are not built to make money and rarely approach breaking even. They are heavily subsidized, and we expect that of them. In addition to my MPA, I have a master's in planning, and we consider these projects far more holistically: Are we connecting communities? Are we bringing people to jobs? Are we providing a safe and reliable transportation alternative to those who cannot drive? That is not to say that transit projects should not be or are not extensively analyzed quantitatively. A mountain of possible projects could be wasteful if implemented in Nashville, but we should come to our conclusion after consideration of a variety of factors far beyond whether a profit is generated.

I really don't disagree with your assertion that BRT has a place in Nashville. Most corridors don't have the densities of population nor jobs to reasonably support light rail. That said, I don't think it makes sense to choose BRT instead in every instance because it's cheaper, as light rail as a mode carries inherent benefits. The distinction is very especially pronounced when BRT is built to substandard conditions, which is the American norm. I would be quite fearful that that would happen in Nashville.

I really mean this respectfully, but I do go into "lawyer mode" when I'm seeking specifics (and that's a reference to my MBA side), so nothing personal, but here goes... 

So how much should they (public transit companies) be able (allowed) to lose? And should public dollars be spent irresponsibly? 

So let's get to the basics... it sounds like you're "all in" on Light Rail. If not, then let me know. On the other hand, I think a city of Nashville's size should NOT go "all in" (or partially) on LRT.  There may be the "one or two off" city that's suitable for rail right out of the gate, and if so I'd like to know them. But I will stand on my original assertion that it's foolhardy for Nashville to go into light rail now (or ever). If you have the figures, I'll study them,  I don't know why you oppose an initial BRT approach, but I'm open to your reasoning, as there may be others here who are just as interested. I further back up my argument with the assurance that initial BRT lanes can be converted at a later time and expense to rail if so needed.

I've said this many times before: I don't understand public transit, but I've done what's in my grasp to come to some understanding of what's suitable to Nashville. I sensed (correctly as it turned out) 5-6 years ago with the (then) Mayor's proposal for rail that it wouldn't be approved ... or funded. Transit is like a striped unicorn to Nashvillians; meaning they need to be convinced it exists before they even accept it COULD happen in their city. Step... 1... 2... 3... ? 

[trillhaslam]

1 hour ago, MLBrumby said:

I really mean this respectfully, but I do go into "lawyer mode" when I'm seeking specifics (and that's a reference to my MBA side), so nothing personal, but here goes... 

So how much should they (public transit companies) be able (allowed) to lose? And should public dollars be spent irresponsibly? 

So let's get to the basics... it sounds like you're "all in" on Light Rail. If not, then let me know. On the other hand, I think a city of Nashville's size should NOT go "all in" (or partially) on LRT.  There may be the "one or two off" city that's suitable for rail right out of the gate, and if so I'd like to know them. But I will stand on my original assertion that it's foolhardy for Nashville to go into light rail now (or ever). If you have the figures, I'll study them,  I don't know why you oppose an initial BRT approach, but I'm open to your reasoning, as there may be others here who are just as interested. I further back up my argument with the assurance that initial BRT lanes can be converted at a later time and expense to rail if so needed.

I've said this many times before: I don't understand public transit, but I've done what's in my grasp to come to some understanding of what's suitable to Nashville. I sensed (correctly as it turned out) 5-6 years ago with the (then) Mayor's proposal for rail that it wouldn't be approved ... or funded. Transit is like a striped unicorn to Nashvillians; meaning they need to be convinced it exists before they even accept it COULD happen in their city. Step... 1... 2... 3... ? 

You are not "losing" money by operating transit - you are spending it as you would funding any public service. I appreciate neither that premise nor your other which implies that funding transit is irresponsible. That aside, I see the answer to your first inquiry to be ideological. If it were up to only me, I'd want transit to be fully funded by subsidy, but it isn't, so I leave that to the democratic process. 

I'm not opposed to BRT, at the beginning or ever, and feel like I made that clear. What I'm opposed to is an assertion that it is the highest mode appropriate for Nashville. Cities like Minneapolis, Portland, Denver, and Salt Lake City make it clear that light rail works in urban forms similar in scale to Nashville. We don't have to search long to find examples that have been successful for years.

You make your ideology clear with respect to transit. Ultimately that is at the heart of whether investments like these come to fruition. I don't think we'll see eye-to-eye on this. I'm for light rail because I've come to learn how impactful it is from my work, my study, and my personal experience. It is all too convenient to look at the price tag of a capital project or at a transit agency's budget, not truly understanding what transformative impact good transit has on people and cities, and write it off as a "boondoggle". 

[smeagolsfree]

Transit is no more losing money than garbage pickup, police or fire protection! It is a city service that is a necessity that has the capability of recouping some of the operating costs.

[smeagolsfree]

This may help all of the people on the board and elsewhere that think transit is supposed to be profitable. It is not! 

Why Does Everyone Want Public Transit To Pay For Itself? (aquicore.com)

The first thing to understand is that there is no scenario in which a major public transit system will pay for itself. Not even close. The closest in the united states is the New York City Subway, which brings in about three-fourths of the system’s ongoing operating costs. 

 

[Luvemtall]

As I’ve said many times before, it’s all in the mindset of most Tennesseans. Transit in their eyes , is making new roads. I hear it all the time, and when I try to have a civil conversation about it I’m met with rude comments and insults. Nashville is an island within the State, and those who don’t live there could care less. And for the majority who do live here, they have trouble wrapping their minds around the fact that Nashville is a major city and finding its way to new found territory. I’m always amazed by how many people I talk to go right to “well back in the days” , that just floors me! It’s the here and now, the future except it and plan accordingly.

[MLBrumby]

1 hour ago, smeagolsfree said:

This may help all of the people on the board and elsewhere that think transit is supposed to be profitable. It is not! 

Why Does Everyone Want Public Transit To Pay For Itself? (aquicore.com)

The first thing to understand is that there is no scenario in which a major public transit system will pay for itself. Not even close. The closest in the united states is the New York City Subway, which brings in about three-fourths of the system’s ongoing operating costs. 

 

Interesting piece, but no one here has argued that transit must be profitable or even pay for itself. However, a challenge for any government proposing large capital expenditures for transit is how much is too much to sink into transit and how to sell it to the public. I address some of that below, but (again) my purpose here is seeing if it makes sense for Nashville to commit to LRT at this time. Thus far, I haven't seen evidence that it's a good move. I've stated many times on this forum that BRT looks like a very good way to go, and I address below, on dedicated routes. 

Back to the original comment placed by me above regarding size of market best suited for an initial LRT vs BRT rollout: I tossed out 2 million as market size because I haven't seen a smaller market where LRT makes sense. Someone challenged the "arbitrary" cutoff of 2 million without making a case for a market of that size; so not to hinge on 2M, it could very well be 3M. I also think someone might have tried to say market size was not as important as distribution of the population, but cannot see it as I scan the comments above. BTW: Thanks all for the edifying commentary. In that list, SLC was included and that city may be comparable to something Mayor O'connell proposes.  If so, I'm sure his office is trying to know more about how that city is doing their rail investment.

Regarding the "comps" offered, I didn't know that Boston has LRT, but that wouldn't surprise me if they've invested in extensions to their legacy subway system in recent years. Once again, not comparable to Nashville. I am aware of one route to Logan but haven't used it. Perhaps some funding and planning in that effort may offer lessons to Nashville, but I suspect it's also part of the "Big Dig" project that Nashville will never see. While I've ridden on its very old and functional subway between Cambridge and Copley Square, I know NOTHING about Boston transit.

I also know nothing about Detroit's LRT network, but take on good faith that it's recent and not limited to the legacy People Mover that has been characterized as (Coleman) Young's folly.  Again, parts of that system may be applicable to Nashville's but the markets are very different. With a market size exceeding 4 million, Detroit's is an interesting case "in reverse" to smaller growing cities in that the former is not growing significantly while the population is rapidly redistributing (the city of Detroit is now under 700k). Again, I don't see that as a fair comp to Nashville. Would also be curious to know how much those systems relied on more generous federal/state subsidies than are being offered now (see below). I think SLC could be looked at for Nashville... maybe it is, and I'd be interested to know why they did not decide to roll out an initial BRT system.

I'll mention another factor wrt a smaller market committing to LRT out of the gate, and that is the cities in that niche (that I'm aware of) tend to be in a high growth phase. To wit: Austin, SLC,  and a few others. So they're laying tracks where the needs may change drastically in short order. In contrast, as the demands/needs of various areas of the cities change, BRT is much more flexible. That's a chicken v.  egg situation that smaller markets (especially) will need to address when they're looking at such a large capital investment.

This back-and-forth here underscores the marketing challenge that Mayor O's office faces with whatever system they propose. I'd bet my next meager paycheck that it will NOT include any light rail. If I'm right and not entirely apropos to Nashvillians' views on rail, it will have more to do with the "delta" of the cost of BRT vs. LRT.  No matter what people might argue, cost is always a factor; if it weren't so then you'd see Chattanooga putting in LRT, which has been studied and is feasible according to one. Everyone here remembers Mayor Barry's $1 billion subway (IIRC the whole proposal exceeded $5 billion). I think regardless of the actual total amount, the public generally hear such figures and think "Oh no! There they go again with our money."  They're not even asking if a transit system is profitable or not. Which sounds better to Joe Q. Public: $1 billion or $5 billion?  I don't think anything preceding the word "billion" even matters to people, but they do immediately hear what it will cost them in taxes. I anticipate Mayor O will make the investment sound as palatable as possible on that count.

One more point regarding costs and public perception: as a kid in Atlanta, I recall frequent AJC "exposes" on cost overruns in the construction of MARTA, and the core of that system was a preexisting "heavy" rail system through the city.  So actual dollars matter to any mayor and the perception that they're spent wisely even applies to transit. The light rail phenomenon, admittedly sexier than buses, has been "riding" on enormous federal subsidies the past few decades that are not likely to continue. So Mayor O needs to push with a velvet glove on this topic. My opinion is that will happen at this juncture only by forsaking rail.  

Someone mentioned above (I think correctly) that local citizens are averse to "transit" (once again the distinction between BRT/LRT was lost on some here) because it takes up space on roads. I have also posited some routes in Nashville that could utilize disconnected streets to form new throughways, exclusive to buses. 

[smeagolsfree]

I just hear it from transit opponents. It needs to make money! That is the argument that we hear many times from the ding dongs that do not want transit. It is a misconception not shared by many on this board but a few undereducated ill informed people always make when a transit referendum is coming up for a vote.

I was just making a point to educate those that seek to undermine the conversation. I know you do not share the POV.

[Luvemtall]

Just throwing this out there, because I feel that people are forgetting that this transit system will serve the city of Nashville. Not the whole Metropolitan area, when people think of cities such as Atlanta,Boston, Detroit etc they are comparing to the whole Metropolitan region of that city.  Which granted when combined with their MSA’s Nashville might be behind, but very few transit in those cities extend beyond the central core. So when comparing Nashville at number 21 to say number 37 Atlanta or number 42 Miami when looking just at those cities themselves, we do fit into the matrix .

Edited February 3 by Luvemtall

[PaulChinetti]

What’s more important for light rail, density or population?

Not Just Bikes has videos of cities in the Netherlands and some of those cities with train service are definitely not larger than Nashville.