The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread

[BnaBreaker]

So aftet this mess it's gonna be, what, another twenty years before someone comes along that even wants to bother getting the conversation on rapid transit started again? And by then traffic congestion will be so stifling that the city's healthy growth and prosperity will be a thing of the past.

[nashmoney]

Interesting article in the NYT

 

Streetcar Revival Is Wavering in Some Cities

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/18/business/streetcar-revival-is-wavering-in-some-cities.html

 

I was in ATL this past weekend and rode their streetcar. I rode the whole loop from the Sweet Auburn area - MLK historic distric to Downtown, Centennial Park and back. It was free for the first few months. After that, it is $3 for an all day pass. We rode it on a Saturday.

 

Here are my observations:

• A car arrived about every 10-15 mins
• Nice new streetcars - each car didn't seem like it could hold over 50 people though. We had 26 in our group.
• Each time we rode it, they were half empty. Each time we rode it, most of the riders were elderly or appeared homeless and a handful of tourist.
• Travel time was very slow, due to traffic, traffic lights, and the driver taking a 15 minute break with us still on it
• You could easily walk or bike the route faster than the streetcar would get you there
• Definitely a great use for tourist who don't know their way around, or residents in the Sweet Auburn area that want to get downtown or work withour walking, biking, or driving
• The kids loved it
• IMO it caused more traffic than it alleviated
• Drivers and pedestrians not knowing rules of the road - one man walks right in front of the streetcar / cars cutting the streetcar off

Overall, I enjoyed the experience. It just didnt seem like something I would ride everyday if I was a resident. IMO, streetcars and BRT work best when there are dedicated lanes or signal changers. We sat at redlights too long and we still had to sit in traffic. I think longer routes would help streetcars become succesfull as well.

 

I am kind of glad The AMP did not happen without dedicated lanes because it would not have been as successful and would have given the naysayers more to complain about and hamper future mass transit efforts as a result

Edited March 17, 2015 by nashmoney

[samsonh]

So aftet this mess it's gonna be, what, another twenty years before someone comes along that even wants to bother getting the conversation on rapid transit started again? And by then traffic congestion will be so stifling that the city's healthy growth and prosperity will be a thing of the past.

 

It won't be that long. We actually have progressive people moving into the city and they will demand mass transit. It takes time to change attitudes but they are evolving(except in the Belle Meade area,lol)

[rookzie]

Interesting article in the NYT

 

Streetcar Revival Is Wavering in Some Cities

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/18/business/streetcar-revival-is-wavering-in-some-cities.html

 

I was in ATL this past weekend and rode their streetcar. I rode the whole loop from the Sweet Auburn area - MLK historic distric to Downtown, Centennial Park and back. It was free for the first few months. After that, it is $3 for an all day pass. We rode it on a Saturday.

 

Here are my observations:

• A car arrived about every 10-15 mins
• Nice new streetcars - each car didn't seem like it could hold over 50 people though. We had 26 in our group.
• Each time we rode it, they were half empty. Each time we rode it, most of the riders were elderly or appeared homeless and a handful of tourist.
• Travel time was very slow, due to traffic, traffic lights, and the driver taking a 15 minute break with us still on it
• You could easily walk or bike the route faster than the streetcar would get you there
• Definitely a great use for tourist who don't know their way around, or residents in the Sweet Auburn area that want to get downtown or work withour walking, biking, or driving
• The kids loved it
• IMO it caused more traffic than it alleviated
• Drivers and pedestrians not knowing rules of the road - one man walks right in front of the streetcar / cars cutting the streetcar off

Overall, I enjoyed the experience. It just didnt seem like something I would ride everyday if I was a resident. IMO, streetcars and BRT work best when there are dedicated lanes or signal changers. We sat at redlights too long and we still had to sit in traffic. I think longer routes would help streetcars become succesfull as well.

 

I am kind of glad The AMP did not happen without dedicated lanes because it would not have been as successful and would have given the naysayers more to complain about and hamper future mass transit efforts as a result

 

 

Steetcars basically are meant to be circulators, and that's the reason that most of them run in mixed traffic.  Even as far back as 1960,'61 just before the end of DC Transit's streetcars they almost always ran in the middle of the streets and therefore would constantly have to stop and start (except those going to Cabin John, Maryland to Glen Echo Amusement Park), where there had been a separated trackway.  It's the reason that they eventually were mostly displaced by buses, although much of that doing had been concluded as nationwide exploitation surreptitiously devised from a general conflict-of-interest conspiracy to acquire private transit in wholesale (for which General Motors agreed to a huge settlement).  It's also one reason that DC's streetcars were "condemned" by Congress, who agreed to fund the initial construction of DC's Metro.

On other "heritage systems, such as in Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and much of Boston and SF, where most of the surface street trackage has been eliminated over the decades, save in a few areas mostly away from the center core, the streetcars have doubled as light rail (before such a term had been used), along separate RoW (in some cases running as a subway).  The modern streetcar basically serves the same purpose as its vintage predecessors ─ to perform as a local stop-and-start circulator, but with the intent of attracting ridership (whether or not it actually does).  This is same level of service found in the new systems of Portland [OR], Seattle, Atlanta, DC, and with the vintage systems of Memphis and the SF’s Muni “F-Market St. & Wharves" line.  The new cars do nothing but look like pretty "homey" toys with skirts (to give that floating appearance), rectangular headlamps, and often “loud” (bold) paint.  Unlike with buses, people tend to be attracted to the sensation of a gliding and sometimes swaying streetcar ride and also to the simple abstraction of personal appeal of the rolling steel sound, with the functionally non-fulfilling fact that it rides on rails (other than providing an immediate perception of permanence).  I'm told that some people even get charmed by the rhythmic clank and rumble of the wheels striking joints of special trackwork. However, streetcars do nothing to “fill the billet” of moving people between points, travel from which otherwise would be subjected to the  retarded movement by recurrent roadway traffic conditions.  Perhaps it’s these elements of broad personal amusement or stimulation induced by use of streetcars that makes them mysteriously motivating to the public.  It is vital to keep in mind that streetcars are referred to such by namesake, due to the fact that historically they originated as electrically propelled carriages or “cars”, which replaced the use of horse cars (which also were drawn along tracks for ease of movement), all of which operated along a “municipal street railway” and which eventually became displaced (in the US) by “self-mobile”, self-powered cars known as “the rest of the story”.

The thing about it is that, “doing” a streetcar means primarily doing so with an objective of its limited but specific purpose.  True LRV's are built for higher acceleration and cruising speeds (like the ones also in Seattle, Portland, and SF, as well as other cities which you also must know about (like SLC, Sacramento, Balto, Twin C's, StL, LA).  A true LRV set-up requires many times more capital and resources, in order to do it right for it's pre-designed purpose.  Otherwise, it's a terrible waste and a boondoggle at best.  Maryland's Purple Line LRT which is supported by a rather lukewarm margin, is intended to fill that huge northern transit gap between the DC 'burbs of Bethesda and New Carrollton on dedicated RoW.  With half-hearted public sentiment in favor of the project, given the fact that Washingtonians and Marylanders may not overwhelmingly support it or feel that it would connect any meaningful activity centers, compared to, say, the way the citizens of Denver have felt toward they own system, I myself remain less than convinced that the Purple Line LRV should be pushed into fruition, at least for now anyway.

With the haphazard concentrations of scattered work and residential centers around middle Tenn. as a whole, there appears not yet a "right" way to develop a single system to do it all, even if officially it were to be governed under a single authority.  As a number of contributing members have posted during the past three years or so, the needs in Donelson or Madison are not the necessarily the same as those of West Nashville, Antioch, or Bordeaux or elsewhere, and anyway it happens, it is simply going to have to be very expensive, one way or another (if not both or all ways).  But circulators are not going to help with traffic ─ that’s a fact ─ and a bus is not much better than a streetcar, to the extent of the disruption caused by constant boarding and unloading in a through lane.  Notwithstanding its obviously initial costs of planning, preparation, construction, and of course the streetcars themselves, compared to circulator buses, streetcars do tend to have a much longer revenue life span than their bus counterparts, and in most cases streetcar construction lends itself to more to a much longer rebuildability cycle before replacement, compared to buses.

-==-

 

Edited March 18, 2015 by rookzie

[nashmoney]

Nashville B-Cycle program adds 4 stations

 

http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/local/2015/03/18/nashville-cycle-program-adds-stations/24931707/

[Neigeville2]

According to this article, Electric buses are taking off to to orders from several cities; Nashville is mentioned as one.  Not a real huge bus, a 40 footer carrying about 30 people; do we have these in operation currently?

 

The article cites the lifespan of a bus as 12 years without mentioning if there's a difference between diesel vs. electric.  I seem to recall rookzie saying something about buses being worn out by their own vibration; I'm guessing an electric bus would shake less.

[gannman]

I think I recall reading that the downtown circulator busses would be replaced by smaller electric busses. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

[PruneTracy]

According to this article, Electric buses are taking off to to orders from several cities; Nashville is mentioned as one.  Not a real huge bus, a 40 footer carrying about 30 people; do we have these in operation currently?

 

I travel to Chattanooga on a regular basis and see their electric fleet in action. For what it's worth, if it's any warmer than 75 outside they are rolling with all the windows open. Not saying I'm one for creature comforts but if the MTA's destination for these are the circulator routes (where I usually see the 40-footers) it might be good to keep the tourists cool.

[rookzie]

According to this article, Electric buses are taking off to to orders from several cities; Nashville is mentioned as one.  Not a real huge bus, a 40 footer carrying about 30 people; do we have these in operation currently?

 

The article cites the lifespan of a bus as 12 years without mentioning if there's a difference between diesel vs. electric.  I seem to recall rookzie saying something about buses being worn out by their own vibration; I'm guessing an electric bus would shake less.

 

Structural stress due to body torsion is one factor that wears on a bus, mostly brought on by uneven pavement (and Nashv'l has a lion's share of rough roads, without having to deal with this past harsh winter.)  Much of this as a deterioration factor can be greatly diminished, if a manufacturer elects to employ compound suspensions, but many low-floor designs (for ease in passenger boarding and egress, which can translate to reduced time at a stop) seem to have been adopted which forgo the smoother-riding suspensions.  These running-gear components constitute a relatively smooth ride during the first few years of a new bus's continuous operation, but this noticeably diminishes beyond that, as such sub-assemblies tend to undergo accelerated wear with extended use on bad roads.  Near- or over-capacity loads also have a deleterious and compounding effect of body torsion, and this twisting effect of a bus coach-body imposes permanent strain and wreaks havoc on all interior fixtures, from standee handrails to seat moorings, not to mention the typical aluminum sliding-sash windows.  Body torsion is directly proportional to rigid wheel-base length, and torsional stresses, as well as severe shear stresses resulting from the inability of a stiff suspension to attenuate impulses of roadway shocks (particularly at speeds above 20 mph), are the primary causes of rider discomfort because of the amplified noise from interior components no longer rigidly or tightly secured or fastened.  From sitting near the back of a bus, I have been able to actually observe the interior undergo twisting (like a bowl of jelly), when a driver ends up rounding and breaching a sharp curb.  I also have nearly cut myself on handrails which literally have broken in two with a 'clean" and sharp fracture induced by constant torsional and shear stresses.

 

And yes, as stated last year sometime, engine vibration, particularly resonant and rotational harmonic vibration from idling and at slightly open throttle RPM, tends to exacerbate the interior rattles.  Of course, we're speaking of primarily I-C (internal-combustion) prime movers, being straight diesel (not "hybrid" diesel-electric) coupled to a torque converter and a trans-axle, as diesels by design are inherently sources of heavy vibration, due to the principle of "compression ignition" required for burning diesel as a power source, and therefore diesel engines require high compression of combustion air for the heat necessary to ignite an injection of fuel. (this is the reason that diesels have that characteristic "marbly" sound).

 

Most electric driven buses ─ that is, those which do not rely on a direct, externally collected electric source, as do trolley coaches ─ are under the typical 40-ft length, and as such, they should not be subjected to as much torsion as that of longer bus bodies.  The reduced length should facilitate corner turns, and will somewhat reduce gross vehicle weight, despite the (distributed) weight of the batteries or fuel cells (electro-chemical or electro-molecular modules), compared to the mass and weight of a ductile-iron-cylinder diesel engine + a radiator coolant system, a fuel tank, and a torque-converter and trans-axle/final-drive assembly on standard buses.  The new self-contained (fast-chargable) electric-driven coaches likely utilize a newly available low-floor type electric drive, which is much lighter in weight than comparable assemblies of conventional buses.  With all this reduction in weight and overall length and the use of super-quiet (except for a high-pitch whine) and lightweight electric drive, we'll just have to wait and see how long these things will hold up.  All I know is that they have been on order to replace the elusive DT free-ride circulators, something that Chattanooga has been doing since the late '90s (with a somewhat older design).  I do wonder how heat and air-conditioning and all auxiliaries will be driven, since the buses are self-contained (and cannot "cheat" like trolley coaches with the luxury of unlimited power).  But, Nashv'ls roadway conditions will become the biggest factor on the longevity of these newly ordered units.  As it stands now, the DT roadways leave much to be desired, and likely will not be improved in the very near future, with all the construction underway.

-==-

Edited March 22, 2015 by rookzie

[Hey_Hey]

I've driven an electric car for over three years now (both a pure EV and a plugin hybrid) and fully believe long term buses are a good target to go electric.  Right now, I would be willing to bet they are still quite a bit more expensive than the gas or diesel brethren, but there are some benefits.  First off, electric engines are far more reliable than internal combustion engines. That's the reason every almost every ship and train are run by electric motors.  When you take out the transmission, cylinders, and driveshaft you suddenly remove some of the moving parts that inevitable fail. Add to that the need for almost no maintenance on electric engines and you start to see some cost savings on the operational side. Secondly, they are silent and cleaner.  Electric motors make almost no sound which would be a big improvement over our current diesel buses. Electric motors are clearly cleaner when in use, although I think the  carbon emissions/global warming benefits are negligible.  Lastly, fuel costs would be very stable. Right now one of the biggest operational costs is essentially unknown for transit agencies because no one knows what gas prices will be next year. Electric prices are incredibly stable. 

 

There are some downsides. Cold weather kills range, and that would have to be dealt with. Cold weather depletes the usable energy in batteries and also requires heater usage which is very inefficient for electricity to produce.  Hot weather doesn't do a whole lot to range because there is increased energy density in the batteries and air conditioning is actually a more efficient process than heating. There's also an unknown about battery life. Battery capacity decreases as time goes on, and that could affect usability in transit routes. Also, the higher the voltage to charge the quicker the degradation, so using a DC quick charger (which would likely be required to charge in the middle of the day) to replete battery state of charge will kill the batteries quicker. In the future the capacity of the batteries might be long enough that charging would only have to happen in the middle of the night which would help.

 

One really interesting idea would be to have inductive charging infrastructure installed in a BRT lane so that the bus could run off electricity sent to it from the road surface without the need to ever plug in. 

[rookzie]

The foreseeable future holds only for DT circulator use, around Nashv'l, for short distances and confined range.  The practicability of self-contained electric vehicles, particularly in commercial or public transport applications, likely decreases exponentially with the increase in mass of the vehicle, and with the current adaptability provisions to mixed traffic, I seriously doubt in Nashv'l that self-contained pure electric buses will replace diesel- or gasoline-hybrid versions of such vehicles or even natural- or LP-gas-powered versions, all of which have worked predictably well in the municipalities which have used them, in any deployment other than short circulating routes.

 

If the transportation plan of Green Hills ever gets underway, with the concept of a transit hub, say, in the area of the proposed Hillsboro HS redevelopment, then the use of such electric vehicles there very likely could and would win a contract, since the proposal entails the use of a circulator route or two to serve the local GH district.  With the payload ratings, it just would not be practical ─ not yet anyway ─ for quite a number of years to expect such buses to be utilized on arterial- the cross-town, or even the current secondary routes, nearly all of which (except the cross-towns) have in inbound terminus at MCCentral.  The traffic demands and some hills ─ particularly Capitol Hill at Charlotte, where at least a half dozen arterial routes must climb in stop-and-go fashion ─ simply cannot be expected to be sustainable with current technology of electric buses.

 

Even with the high initial expense, electing to plan and to install a trolley-bus system, even on a few routes, would be far more effective in reducing the carbon footprint, even though currently only about 5 US cities (Canada has its own) still utilize these trackless trolleys (Dayton, SF, Seattle, Philly, and Boston-Cambridge-Watertown).  During the 1950's and '60s (e.g. Memphis) even until the early '70s (Chicago), many medium and small US cities and towns used trolley buses as a replacement for streetcars.  Even these, though, fell on the wayside, primarily as a result of the GM financed National City Lines machinations to drive away the use of all electrically powered public transport vehicles (nearly all of which had been external electric).  The the effects of the conspiring to dismantle and replace such systems with motor coaches (diesel- or gasoline powered) had been steady and accelerated long beyond the 1951 succession of failed court appeals against successful litigation of GM's decades-long actions.

 

With the reference to electric motors in trains, specifically locomotive-hauled trains, locomotives which are pure externally powered, electrified include the Amtrak Northeast Corridor trains, Maryland Area Rapid Commuter (the MARC Penn Line), NJTransit, and some SEPTA commuters, and there remain even a few freight lines which have been electrified such as the mineral-hauling Black Mesa & Lake Powell RR in Northern AZ.  The overwhelming majority of domestic locomotives, are diesel-electric primarily for one reason: they must be self-powered, as it costs a lot to maintain electrification for RR operations, and it works best when traffic density warrants it for distances limited to under 250 miles.  The modern diesel-electric locomotive utilizes an electric transmission, consisting of a main alternator or in some cases a generator (directly shaft driven by the prime mover [engine]), an auxiliary alternator (for excitation of the main alternator "field"), and electric traction motors (directly geared to the axles).  This is the only practical manner of delivering power to move a heavy RR train under any conditions, because, unlike trucks and buses which until recently have been primarily diesel-mechanically propelled, the power and torque requirements for utilizing a a torque converter or even a direct clutch, simply cannot be transformed via a mechanical transmission as used on roadway vehicles, as the demand would far exceed the physical characteristics of the transmission components necessary to provide sustained torque and power required for controlling a train.

 

There are a few exceptions of mixed success, the design of which employs a hydrostatic transmission, and these diesel-hydraulic transmission designs for heavy locomotive use are the only exceptions which remain beyond experimental deployment.  In any case, electric motors can and do generate a lot of heat under sustained loads (not the same conditions as for an internal-combustion engine), and loco traction motors require external blower-and-duct cooling to prevent burn-outs at low speeds with heavy tonnage.  Current technology for most locos built during the last 30 years provides a electronically regulated variable control of newer 3-phase AC electrical distribution to traction motors, and thus eliminates manual concern for managing load limitations.   As far as pure-electric locomotives are concerned (as opposed to diesel-electric), North America simply does not utilize electrification nearly to the extent as Asian and European operations do.  In any event, we're talking about practicability, and the purpose of pure external electrification, as opposed to anything else (including battery or fuel cell), is to provide as much power as needed to meet demand, a total separation of concern from providing and maintaining an on-board self-contained power source for large commercial transport vehicles.

 

But digression aside, the introduction of these new fast-charge vehicles should be well worth the test in the targeted application for DT, and in time along limited circuits in regional transit-desert sectors.  The concept of "fuel-less" public transport vehicles is not nearly as practical as is applied to private transport, and as I see it, there really is no practical operational advantage in using such technology system-wide, in favor of conventional externally powered electric vehicles.  Unless and until dedicated pathways can be established, I do not foresee these things ever being used for main-stream runs along farther distances (if then), and by the point in time the concept of inductive charging could be deployed on a practical basis, with respect to capital outlay, sustainability, and politics, I would project that only some kind or urban rail (with trolley or pantograph overhead pick-up), trackless trolley, or the ever-evolving diesel-hybrid vehicle for BRT would be far more practical in the long run and FOR the LONG runs.  These new zero-emissions electric fast-charge buses can be best suited for the limited patronage expected with two of the current (but also questionable if not struggling) Nº 60/61 Blue/Green Circuit Free Rides, and I am optimistic that they should perform well on those routes, as there does appear to be a market niche to be filled in this limited application.  We just shouldn't be getttin' "tore" up, though, if one of those things ends up behind MTA's "big-bruiser", the tow truck.

-==-

Edited March 23, 2015 by rookzie

[Nathan_in_DC]

With the reference to electric motors in trains, specifically locomotive-hauled trains, locomotives which are pure externally powered, electrified include the Amtrak Northeast Corridor trains, Maryland Area Rapid Commuter (the MARC Penn Line), NJTransit, and some SEPTA commuters, and there remain even a few freight lines which have been electrified such as the mineral-hauling Black Mesa & Lake Powell RR in Northern AZ.  

 

Just a small tidbit: SEPTA has fully electrified its rail fleet aside from maintenance trains and yard or emergency service locomotives. They got rid of the self propelled diesel units a while back when they stopped service on a couple of low-ridership non-electrified lines.

Edited March 22, 2015 by Nathan_in_DC

[rookzie]

Just a small tidbit: SEPTA has fully electrified its rail fleet aside from maintenance trains and yard or emergency service locomotives. They got rid of the self propelled diesel units a while back when they stopped service on a couple of low-ridership non-electrified lines.

 

I hadn't kept up with SEPTA recently, and I had not been aware of that phase-out.  "Common-ers" would never have picked up on such a detail.  So...I mean this as a term of endearment, but you seem to be a rail phreak (freak) like me (at least in part).

 

Hmmmmm... Either that or you once had been a Navy enlisted officer as an Electrician's Mate, and now you work for an engineering firm specializing in Northeast electrification projects and contracts.  That key term "electrification", "electrify" has popped up in several of your past posts over the last year or more.  I'm probably not even close (, but what the hell; worth a guess anyway).

-==-

Edited March 23, 2015 by rookzie

[Nathan_in_DC]

I hadn't kept up with SEPTA recently, and I had not been aware of that phase-out.  "Common-ers" would never have picked up on such a detail.  So...I mean this as a term of endearment, but you seem to be a rail phreak (freak) like me (at ;east in part).

 

 

Maybe...a little bit..

 

(Or a lot...)

 

((Shhhh...))

[37206dude]

The focus (especially by of some of the mayoral candidates) on "regional" transit may be politically smart but as a matter of efficient transportation policy but we can't expect folks to leave their car outside of Nashville if they can't move around easily once they get here.  We need to focus on the central core first.  That will lead to a stronger demand for people wanting transportation options to get into the city.

 

The combination of good transportation choices within the city and the inevitable higher cost of parking that will come with higher density will build market pressure and public support for commuter transit but we're not there yet.  Right now from the experience of many suburban commuters the trip in and the parking costs are still tolerable and there aren't compelling better choices for getting around within the city.

 

The most important point is that we don't make the mistake of trying to focus on build more parking or widen highways.  These things just induce more demand and distort the free market for space.  Building more parking or widening highways would artificially induce demand and we would continue to subsidizing sprawl that is really the source of many of our problems.

Edited March 24, 2015 by 37206dude

[SoundScan]

The most important point is that we don't make the mistake of trying to focus on build more parking or widen highways.  These things just induce more demand and distort the free market for space.  Building more parking or widening highways would artificially induce demand and we would continue to subsidizing sprawl that is really the source of many of our problems.

 

 

I hate to be a pessimist but this is exactly what will happen. I've even heard an acquaintance recently state that he does not want us to become the next Atlanta, while in the next breath proclaim that we should follow Atlanta's lead and completely rebuild our regional interstate network with additional lanes and a full-loop circulator á la I285.

[rookzie]

The focus (especially by of some of the mayoral candidates) on "regional" transit may be politically smart but as a matter of efficient transportation policy but we can't expect folks to leave their car outside of Nashville if they can't move around easily once they get here.  We need to focus on the central core first.  That will lead to a stronger demand for people wanting transportation options to get into the city.

 

The combination of good transportation choices within the city and the inevitable higher cost of parking that will come with higher density will build market pressure and public support for commuter transit but we're not there yet.  Right now from the experience of many suburban commuters the trip in and the parking costs are still tolerable and there aren't compelling better choices for getting around within the city.

 

The most important point is that we don't make the mistake of trying to focus on build more parking or widen highways.  These things just induce more demand and distort the free market for space.  Building more parking or widening highways would artificially induce demand and we would continue to subsidizing sprawl that is really the source of many of our problems.

 

 

I think BNABreaker would second that motion on more and wider roadways, not to say that most others of us in this thread and in the Mass Transit tab would not concur as well.  As a number of us have stressed, widening and keeping on widing roads, particularly the arterials and the core freeways is only making matters worse in the long run.  First, it has been shown that within, say, five years of a roadway mitigation-expansion project completion, the same level of congestion usually will have developed as had pre-existed upon the start of that project,  Second, the more and the wider the roadways are expanded, the much more the cost will be of maintaining all the physical plant associated with those roadway surfaces and structures.  No mode of transportation and its infrastructure is "maintenance free", and indeed roadway expansion projects generally, but also arguably, are the right way to go, as a half century or older infrastructure conditions (and even a few only a year old) render the present levels of use severely problematic.  Widening and widening again the roadways (hint: I-65 north of Fern Avenue, and again north of Ewing Lane) approaches a practical limit of such expansion, while the cost of maintaining that expansion goes from negligible (thoeretically) to millions, even billions as an aggregate sum of all such roadways, as they age and deteriorate.  As anyone can observe on I-440, it does not take 20 years (or even 10 years) for a roadway to deteriorate.

 

My point is that, while we need to be able to maintain all the roadways now in existence, as physical and safety conditions demand, we also need to be cognizant of the long-term costs of maintaining an alternate infrastructure of transit facilities.  Much of the transit infrastructure also depends on the maintaining of many of those same roadways within the core, and of course, transit then has become subjected to the same factors of congestion and poor surface conditions as those which continue to fray the nerves of individual commuters.  Then, the only good alternatives are those which do not force the "integrated" use of shared facilities, such as by requiring bikers, buses, streetcars, and even pedestrians to share the "exact" same pathways.

 

Several members have reiterated brought this same point a couple of years ago, that commuters, once they get into the city.

 

UTgrad09 on 14 Feb 2014 - 11:48 AM

...I would liken the need for mass transit in this region to a factory trying to expand its production. Nashville is a city that is growing. In order to continue to grow, or at least manage the traffic, Nashville needs infrastructure investment. A factory has to find ways to increase both production and efficiency. That usually means investment in machinery that will do the job more quickly, or more space to work with, or a change in logistical capabilities. Nashville has room to expand, but it only has so many forklifts to move its product. Perhaps it is time to adjust our way of thinking and move the product more efficiently so we don't have to build more warehouses.

 

Neigeville2 on 10 December 2014 - 07:43 PM

...IMO it's premature to talk about doing anything for suburban commuters until they have a real network to get around on once they get to town.

 

nashvylle on 25 November 2013 - 08:09 PM

...While I do agree Nashville has mass transit issues getting people into our city, what the hell are they going to get around the city once they are here?

 

bigcitymike on 21 July 2008 - 09:57 AM

...IMO the bigger issue is not getting the suburbs into town, (yeah that is an issue) but rather how you get around once your here.

 

_________________

 

 

I've stated before that one my worst peeves of Nashv'll is its lack of bridgeways.  One my favorite bags of tricks is what Portland [OR] has done during the past few decades with the "Steel Bridge" (yes, that's the rather "unique" name given it), across the Willamette River.  I've walked across it a few times on the upper deck; I've ridden across the same on the TriMet Max; and I have ridden Amtrak across it on the lower deck (although it's been almost 30 year ago).  While that city has many great bicycle paths, they have added them to a number of bridges, including the Steel Bridge.  Built in 1912, this bridge I consider an engineering marvel for it's day, and even more so for now.  It's a moveable-span, vertical-lift type (to provide the widest channel clearance), and what makes it truly unique (other than of course its official name) is that it actually has, not one, but two lift-spans.  Built in 1912 this old (and not exactly "pretty") structure has been retrofitted to serve as true "multi-modal). The upper deck is for roadway motor traffic, TriMet Max Light Rail, and pedestrians; while the lower deck, originally as built intended for heavy railroad trains, has been enhanced in versatility with the addition of a path for both bikes and pedestrians, appended to one side of the lower deck.  The enhancement in versatility of "this ol' bridge" has become an unintended result of the original engineering, not only with the new bike-pedestrian way, but also because the lower railroad-bike-pedestrian deck can be raised independently of the upper deck, to the extent that the lower deck "telescopes" upward within the superstructure of the upper deck.  This permits raising the lower deck as needed for clearing smaller water-craft to pass beneath it, without disturbing the upper deck.  At least one time or another during our travels, many of us have experienced being held up in traffic by a opening drawbridge, and the disruption of traffic flow that it causes.  25 years ago, in Bay City, MI, I recall being embarrassed (and feeling really "small) as a rider on a small personal motor yacht, for which the bridge tender held up traffic to partially raise the deck for us to pass under a main street (felt like a sittin' duck with power)

 

 

Steel Bridge, upper and lower decks

   (pedestrian/bikeway, sidewalks,car,littletrain,bigtrain)

 

Steel Bridge lower deck, with bike-pedestrian way

 

Steel Bridge, lower deck partially raised

 

Steel Bridge, Amtrak passenger train on lower deck

   (note attached bike way on opposite side of deck)

 

Steel Bridge Diagram

-==-

Edited March 25, 2015 by rookzie

[Vrtigo]

When I saw this, I almost fell of my bike yesterday morning on my ride into work. Apparently someone has heard our laments about the sorry state of our free bus routes!

[Nathan_in_DC]

You'd think they could at least get someone with legible handwriting to scribble out the instructions...

[rookzie]

When I saw this, I almost fell of my bike yesterday morning on my ride into work. Apparently someone has heard our laments about the sorry state of our free bus routes!

 

 

You'd think they could at least get someone with legible handwriting to scribble out the instructions...

 

 

That's just an extension of the way the MTA has chosen to work evidently (or has overlooked the importance of).

 

Nearly every "decent" transit authority (and I do regard the MTA as at least "decent") I've utilized would has had printed some durable placards to overlay or append to the existing stop signage ─ something that has a bold typeface and which commands attention with the word "Notice:".  I shouldn't be surprised that the Nashv'l MTA would not just eat the petty cost of durable temporary signage, in favor of some jury-rigged, tacky, barely decipherable hand markings, but indeed I am disappointed because they apparently have judged that the currently "improvised" alert should be sufficient.

-==-

[Nathan_in_DC]

What you said, rookzie. It's just one of a thousand other symptoms of the greater problem with MTA.

 

I honestly would be embarrassed if I walked by and saw visitors, especially foreign ones, trying to decipher what looks like someone's five year old child's scratches.

[rookzie]

What you said, rookzie. It's just one of a thousand other symptoms of the greater problem with MTA.

 

I honestly would be embarrassed if I walked by and saw visitors, especially foreign ones, trying to decipher what looks like someone's five year old child's scratches.

 

-==-  «  [he really does LoL!!]    ...or we call'em "chicken scratchin's"

[Vrtigo]

I was more awestruck by the fact that it at least tells you where to actually connect with the bus, rather than standing idly at the bus stop for long enough that you give up, take a taxi and never give MTA another chance.

[Neigeville2]

Elusive as the circulators are, every time I ride them (about once a month) there are visibly more people using them.  First few times, I was the only rider, last time there were about a dozen people on it.  One party was Nashvillians from outlying areas who had parked near the library, done something near there, then used the free bus to go to and from dinner in the Gulch, which is ultimately the future for downtown transit.  We just need a few thousand more people doing that.  When you have enough riders to have buses on 3-5 minute headways ridership will soar.  I feel it'll happen but it may take some time.

[grilled_cheese]

I'm just waiting for the realtime app.