The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread

[markhollin]

From this morning's Tennessean. Sure wish I could attend this, but alas, I will be out of town.  If anyone goes, please give us full report. These are the type of conclaves that will set the agenda in creating a long-term mass transit plan for the future of middle Tennessee.

 

http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/local/2015/06/13/regional-transit-solutions-topic-county-summit/71139880/

[tragenvol]

Yes, he's been attracting attention as such for at least a week now, with that "device", and indeed it has been somewhat alluring.  Unfortunately, the ad agency shows a vignette of what appears to be high-speed intercity rail.  They could have been a bit more resourceful with a real-life example of regional or urban rail, without showing branded imagery (logos of an owning transit agency).  My guess is, either that the ad agency is banking on general naiveté of the targeted audience, or that the ad visual director simply lacks a sense of authenticity in choice of illustration to conceptualize the intent.  Otherwise, let's just hope it's not smoke, in the event he becomes a close contender.

-==-

He's likely Nashville's next mayor, i.e. Bill Freeman...a huge fundraiser and major player for the Democrats.

[rookzie]

He's likely Nashville's next mayor, i.e. Bill Freeman...a huge fundraiser and major player for the Democrats.

 

Time's rapidly running down the drain; it's mid June already.  I'm with donNdonelson2, in that I'm not particularly impressed with any of the chess pieces on the board.  Freeman openly appears to have the political "reagent-graded compounds" that one would expect could land a term (or two).  My head "hurts way too much" so far from the impressions conferred so far for all candidates, and some already might as well just stop wasting "hard-earned" [cough-cough] campaign funds.

 

As far as Freeman is concerned, if the water would tend to shed more his way, I primary hope is that we won't have another surreptitious incarnation of what's outgoing, hell-bending and ram-rodding, and yanking pre-mature rabbits from the hat.  Another concern is his stance on eminent domain w/r/t some current and contentious dialogs on certain properties.

 

But as far as mass transit itself is concerned, I point back up ^ to what I stated 4 posts ago, that it's going to require political will in concert if it's going to happen at all.

-==-

[Rockatansky]

He said we need a regional transit plan

The Nashville Area MPO has had one for half a decade now. Why any person (especially a mayoral candidate) would willfully ignore that fact is beyond me.

 

Having a plan is great, but the real crux of the issue is how to fund it. Unfortunately none of the mayoral candidates have expressed their plans for mass transit funding.

Edited June 15, 2015 by Rockatansky

[PruneTracy]

The Nashville Area MPO has had one for half a decade now. Why any person (especially a mayoral candidate) would willfully ignore that fact is beyond me.

 

Two possibilities: 1) The mayoral candidates legitimately don't realize that all of their transportation-related "ideas" have been studied in far more detail than they have themselves developed, which is unlikely; or 2) They are well aware that their transportation platforms consist mostly either of works in progress or discarded alternatives from previous studies, but continue to bring them up because they understand there are more people who have no idea what's going on and will applaud their ideas as profound than those who understand they are full of crap, which pretty much describes every poitician I've ever encountered.

 

Personally, I'd volunteer for the first candidate who says, "I'm going to let the MPO, MTA, and Public Works decide where and how to upgrade our infrastructure, since they're the ones who study it to death."

 

Having a plan is great, but the real crux of the issue is how to fund it. Unfortunately none of the mayoral candidates have expressed their plans for mass transit funding.

 

No one's ever won an office talking about how to pay for stuff.

[MidTenn1]

I don't have a vote, but it is interesting to see how some candidates a addressing a subject (traffic congestion) that they are poorly informed on as some have 'promised' to coordinate the traffic 'lights'.

 

However, about a decade ago, nearly all of the City's major arteries had fiber optic cable interconnect systems  installed along with necessary improvements to make the 'signal' controllers work with the cable. I know this because I oversaw the preparation of the construction plans.

[Will]

David Fox has made statements about exploring public-private options for transit, but he's pretty light on details. One thing I think Fox has in his favor is that he is the only candidate who seems to be willing to call out Metro's debt problem for the looming risk that it is. 

 

Perhaps we should start a separate thread for mayoral race discussion in the coffee house? 

[Vrtigo]

David Fox has made statements about exploring public-private options for transit, but he's pretty light on details. One thing I think Fox has in his favor is that he is the only candidate who seems to be willing to call out Metro's debt problem for the looming risk that it is. 

 

I do like Fox's comments on privatizing the transit system similar to what has been done by some European cities. I just have my doubts that there's a private organization with big enough pockets to fix Nashville's problems...

[samsonh]

David Fox has made statements about exploring public-private options for transit, but he's pretty light on details. One thing I think Fox has in his favor is that he is the only candidate who seems to be willing to call out Metro's debt problem for the looming risk that it is. 

 

Perhaps we should start a separate thread for mayoral race discussion in the coffee house? 

 

What exactly is Metro's looming debt problem? When I look at bond prices for Metro bonds I see a market that is demanding them. AA+ is a pretty good rating imo, plus I predict Metro being ahead of revenue collection schedule on the Music City Center. Where is the looming risk?

[Will]

Metro has upwards of $2.3 billion outstanding in general obligation bonds. That doesn't include things like the MCC and Sounds stadium that are ostensibly to be paid for with dedicated tax revenues.

 

Metro's bond rating was downgraded in 2014; among other factors Moody's cited an "above-average debt burden." Debt service payments in the FY2015 budget were up $57 million year-over-year to $209 million, which required a $45 million withdrawal from reserves.

 

I think the risk is in the large overall debt figure, the increased debt service payments as part of the operating budget and the overall spending trend of the past few years.

[samsonh]

Metro has upwards of $2.3 billion outstanding in general obligation bonds. That doesn't include things like the MCC and Sounds stadium that are ostensibly to be paid for with dedicated tax revenues.

 

Metro's bond rating was downgraded in 2014; among other factors Moody's cited an "above-average debt burden." Debt service payments in the FY2015 budget were up $57 million year-over-year to $209 million, which required a $45 million withdrawal from reserves.

 

I think the risk is in the large overall debt figure, the increased debt service payments as part of the operating budget and the overall spending trend of the past few years.

 

Debt rating is still Aa2, which is high quality and low credit risk. It is important to read why they downgraded and reasons they would upgrade. Metro is investing in it's future. Increase in taxable population base is a key driver in an upgrade. Metro's bonds trade at a premium currently. The market does not view Metro as any sort of credit risk. Main reason for the downgrade was Metro General Hospital being a drag on finances, and mentioned twice in Moody's release on Metro. If Metro stops subsidizing I would not be shocked to see an instant upgrade.

 

https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-downgrades-Metropolitan-Government-of-Nashville-and-Davidson-County-TNs--PR_296184

 

Reading behind the headlines is important to get the real story. Or Google Metro bond prices to see what the market says about Metro as a credit risk. I can see the trades as they happen so I feel decently informed

[37206dude]

I found this article to be really hard to understand:

Without better roads in Nashville, transit options will fail

 Frank Daniels III, [email protected]

http://www.tennessean.com/story/opinion/columnists/frank-daniels/2015/06/18/without-better-roads-nashville-transit-options-will-fail/28896141/

 

 

I think he makes a number of big mistakes.  Despite the title his thesis is (in addition to enjoying time alone in his truck)  not about improving road design but is that we need "additional lanes and more roads"

 

Managing road space is not about transit vs cars, it's about how many car trips people take and how far those car trips are.  Everyone has mandatory trips but the discretionary ones add up over of a population of drivers.  His remedy of building more road capacity (in addition to no clear explanation of how this would support transit) would have the predictable effect of inducing more demand for discretionary car trips and increasing congestion with resulting negative impact on time lost in traffic and environmental damage from more idling cars.  Whichever road has the new lane capacity will immediately fill up with traffic but none of the other roads on the network have been widened to accommodate this new volume and traffic congestion increases everywhere.  The examples of this are too numerous to list but induced demand is so well established that it is a fundamental rule of traffic engineering that has to be the primary consideration in managing road capacity.

Edited June 21, 2015 by 37206dude

[rookzie]

I found this article to be really hard to understand:

Without better roads in Nashville, transit options will fail

 Frank Daniels III, [email protected]

http://www.tennessean.com/story/opinion/columnists/frank-daniels/2015/06/18/without-better-roads-nashville-transit-options-will-fail/28896141/

 

 

I think he makes a number of big mistakes.  Despite the title his thesis is (in addition to enjoying time alone in his truck)  not about improving road design but is that we need "additional lanes and more roads"

 

Managing road space is not about transit vs cars, it's about how many car trips people take and how far those car trips are.  Everyone has mandatory trips but the discretionary ones add up over of a population of drivers.  His remedy of building more road capacity (in addition to no clear explanation of how this would support transit) would have the predictable effect of inducing more demand for discretionary car trips and increasing congestion with resulting negative impact on time lost in traffic and environmental damage from more idling cars.  Whichever road has the new lane capacity will immediately fill up with traffic but none of the other roads on the network have been widened to accommodate this new volume and traffic congestion increases everywhere.  The examples of this are too numerous to list but induced demand is so well established that it is a fundamental rule of traffic engineering that has to be the primary consideration in managing road capacity.

 

The content of that article is not worth even the processor power it takes to just display it on a monitor screen.  He's premising the addition of viable transit options on the increase of  roadway capacity to accommodate it ─ a totally flawed and self-centered rationale, if it could be termed even that.  The only bed-buddies he would cuddle with would be the closed-interest opposition to the EW connector, which he consistently alludes to (the AMP) in argument.

 

In absolutely no way does he even suggest that he recognizes the existence of alternate proven technologies in addition to dedicated-pathway bus transit, and to that effect the modes of transit that he supposes would work might as well be chariots, stages and Conestogas, inasmuch as even they could operate relatively efficiently, if only they had their own lanes.

 

The only ounce of truth from the thesis would be an unwitting mention of perhaps a benefit of providing more rounded street corners and repositioned utility poles, to better accommodate turning transit vehicles, which are somewhat constrained from negotiating optimal travel paths through most of the CBD and in many other parts of the core as a whole.  Roadways also could be improved by being fitted with bus pullovers, sometimes referred to as bus pullouts, bus bays or off-line bus stops.  These are added widths of pavement (e.g. one in front of Hillsboro HS) adjacent to the right-side travel lanes that allows buses to exit traffic during boarding and alighting operations.   As roadway improvements, bus pullover bays can be provided at mid-block or at intersection locations, preferably placed on the far-sides of intersections, to facilitate re-entry of transit vehicles into traffic (and to minimize confusion for drivers making right turns).

 

The reporter seems too much of a dweeb to even have the capacity of understanding such basic and relatively modest changes.  The only one thing that he does seem to realize is that he's stuck in traffic with his lane-hoggin' truck, along with the rest of us.

-==-

Edited June 21, 2015 by rookzie

[37206dude]

The content of that article is not worth even the processor power it takes to just display it on a monitor screen.  He's premising the addition of viable transit options on the increase of  roadway capacity to accommodate it ─ a totally flawed and self-centered rationale, if it could be termed even that.  The only bed-buddies he would cuddle with would be the closed-interest opposition to the EW connector, which he consistently alludes to (the AMP) in argument.

 

In absolutely no way does he even suggest that he recognizes the existence of alternate proven technologies in addition to dedicated-pathway bus transit, and to that effect the modes of transit that he supposes would work might as well be chariots, stages and Conestogas, inasmuch as even they could operate relatively efficiently, if only they had their own lanes.

 

The only ounce of truth from the thesis would be an unwitting mention of perhaps a benefit of providing more rounded street corners and repositioned utility poles, to better accommodate turning transit vehicles, which are somewhat constrained from negotiating optimal travel paths through most of the CBD and in many other parts of the core as a whole.  Roadways also could be improved by being fitted with bus pullovers, sometimes referred to as bus pullouts, bus bays or off-line bus stops.  These are added widths of pavement (e.g. one in front of Hillsboro HS) adjacent to the right-side travel lanes that allows buses to exit traffic during boarding and alighting operations.   As roadway improvements, bus pullover bays can be provided at mid-block or at intersection locations, preferably placed on the far-sides of intersections, to facilitate re-entry of transit vehicles into traffic (and to minimize confusion for drivers making right turns).

 

The reporter seems too much of a dweeb to even have the capacity of understanding such basic and relatively modest changes.  The only one thing that he does seem to realize is that he's stuck in traffic with his lane-hoggin' truck, along with the rest of us.

-==-

 

Yeah, I agree with you.  My main problem still is that his title was "better roads" but his article was mostly just about "more roads".

 

I wrote a pretty harsh email to the Tennessean about this piece.  Mr Daniels himself took my criticism very graciously but did not seem to have informed himself well on this topic before writing about it.

[UTgrad09]

He's an opinion writer. Occasionally he makes some good points, and occasionally he drops a big ol fudge dragon in the urinal, like here.

[Nathan_in_DC]

occasionally he drops a big ol fudge dragon in the urinal, like here.

 

I'm remembering this bit of literary painting you've done here.

[UTgrad09]

I'm remembering this bit of literary painting you've done here.

Credit South Park and do it in the voice of Mr. Mackey.

[bigeasy]

Not sure if this is right place or if it has been discussed before, but what exactly are they doing with the bike lanes on Davidson St between Nissan Stadium and Shelby Bottoms? From what I could tell on my last ride a few weeks ago both sides of the bike lane will be on the same side of the road? As a cyclist that seems a bit dangerous to be riding towards traffic. Why would they do that? Unless there is a barrier I see that being very hazardous. They also had a weird bicycle cross right after shelby bottoms. Maybe it will be better, but from what I could tell a few weeks ago it seems like a bad idea.

[nashvillwill]

It's the Disneyfication of bicycle infrastructure. It's becoming more and more prevalent around the U.S. Those of us that know how to truly ride safely, are being put in harms way for the image of safety, designed by those who don't/rarely ride for those who don't/rarely ride. It's also perceived to be less of an inconvenience for drivers if they shove us to one side.

[rookzie]

It could (and that's a big "could") be a great idea, iFF  (if and only if) it were barrier-separated  or level-separated from traffic (Brighton Boulevard), as proposed last winter in Denver, some of considerations of which is/has been in process of being implemented.

-==-

[jmtunafish]

TDOT is finally coming to terms with what many of us have been saying for years:  widening the interstates is not the solution to relieving our traffic woes.

http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/blog/2015/07/tdot-s-nashville-interstate-dilemma-we-can-t.html

[Hey_Hey]

It seems like there would be something we could do with CSX.  Surely CSX needs or wants something from Tennessee. Is there no potential for a land-swap or state financed upgrades to rail lines?

with a company are large and expansive at CSX there has to some red tape that can be cut or added to make them a little more receptive to sharing lines. 

[rookzie]

TDOT is finally coming to terms with what many of us have been saying for years:  widening the interstates is not the solution to relieving our traffic woes.

http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/blog/2015/07/tdot-s-nashville-interstate-dilemma-we-can-t.html

Yes, I did hear him elaborate on that somewhat during the Power of Ten Regional Summit last month at TPAC.  He elicited it rather well, with a sense of resolve.

-==-

[L'burgnative]

TDOT is finally coming to terms with what many of us have been saying for years:  widening the interstates is not the solution to relieving our traffic woes.

http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/blog/2015/07/tdot-s-nashville-interstate-dilemma-we-can-t.html

I'm not going to agree or disagree with this, but I don't understand why the Nashville Interstate system was widened the way they were.  The way I remember it (I was born in 1979 so I'm sure someone could correct me if I'm wrong) is they started widening in the early 90's and started around I-440 or Briley Parkway and worked there way out.  Why didn't they start at the Downtown loop, from there widen the multiplex sections (I=24/65 north of the loop and I-40/24 east of the loop) and then widen outward as needed from there.  I've said it a hundred times here; Nashville is going to continue to have traffic problems on the interstates until the downtown loop is widened to flow with its spokes.  Turn on the water to your garden hose full blast, kink the end and see how much water comes out.  Heck; had they kept the widening inside Davidson County they might would have kept the majority of the population in Davidson County, rather than it moving out to Rutherford, Sumner, Williamson and Wilson Counties.

Edited July 14, 2015 by L'burgnative

[MLBrumby]

TDOT is wacky... they are widening a road here in Chattanooga, with the goal of eliminating a bottleneck.  But instead of taking the widening all the way out (about two miles farther) to the next major road, they are just going about halfway between where the bottleneck occurs now and the next major road. Result: Bottleneck just moves farther down the road. They always shift money around too.  And the I-24 link at the south of downtown is absolutely sucky with 3 lanes max in each direction. I think I already complained about a really idiotic part of I-75 that was widened through Ooltewah, but they only widened past the Oolt exit... just about a mile and a half shy of where the road widens again to three lanes to go over White Oak Mountain. So the result is a bottleneck before it goes back to three... then comes back to two on the other side of the mountain.  It created a really hazardous situation that last month a trucker (who was not paying attention to the road) plowed into the backs of 9 cars. 6 people were killed. "Pissthetic" as some in my family would say. 

Their plan for Nashville over the past two decades is no better. Every time I drive into Nashville, the I-24/I-40 "connector" where the two come together just east of downtown is the worst traffic I ever encounter.  That stretch of highway looks the exact same as it was when I started at Vandy in fall of 1988. What a friggin' joke! 

Meanwhile, today GDOT announced their latest $8 billion expressway toll lanes along I-75 up to Cherokee and expansion of GA 400 to Alpharetta. That has been widened twice already since the mid 1980s.  

Edited July 14, 2015 by MLBrumby