The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread

[donNdonelson2]

The light rail in Houston certainly does have frequent unscheduled encounters with vehicles and pedestrians. My best guess is that the vehicles and pedestrians are most regularly the party at fault.

[Vrtigo]

12 hours ago, VSRJ said:

I think cars are much more likely to run over pedestrians than trains. But I agree, it's a matter of preference and opinion. Chicago's L system is an example of an elevated system that works. It's not the most appealing, but it works in the very dense, urban grid it weaves through. I like trolleys (and in-street trams), but I think they're more appropriate for short routes where the need for speed isn't as great. Memphis' trolley system (if it ever returns) is a great example. It's more useful for tourists, though -- definitely not a mass transit replacement.

Keep in mind the era in which the "L" was built... In the late 18/early 1900s, very little of our constructed environment was especially visually appealing. Fortunately, modern implementations of an elevated train evidence much more effort being placed towards aesthetics.

[PruneTracy]

14 hours ago, Neigeville2 said:

But probably fewer than 1/3 as many people would be willing to ride it, so it isn't really cost effective.  BRT has worked well in poor third world cities like Jakarta or Bogota.  I don't think it's a first world solution.

Farebox recovery ratios being what they are, I'm not sure ridership really factors into the cost-effectiveness of either mode. In fact, opting for the big-budget alternative to potentially increase ridership feels a bit like maxing out your credit card so you can get more cash back. Nashville's peer cities are doing this, to the tune of billions of dollars, and the jury's still out on whether they are going to reap the benefits, if any exist.

BRT is cheaper than light rail, has a similar capacity, and upgrades well to trams or streetcars if so desired. No, it's not sexy. But it's functional, at least as public transit operations go, and at the end of the day that's all we really need out of our transportation infrastructure, particularly when said infrastructure operates at a loss regardless.

There's nothing that says we can't have both BRT and light rail at some point; in fact the two complement each other nicely when used in the correct context. But I'm disinclined to break the bank on our first go for the sake of, again, potentially gaining a few more trips per day. Without getting too political, in a lot of ways the only difference between our first-world cities and the Jakartas and Bogotas is the massive debt we incur so we can have nice things without paying for them.

[Vrtigo]

2 minutes ago, PruneTracy said:

BRT is cheaper than light rail, has a similar capacity, and upgrades well to trams or streetcars if so desired. No, it's not sexy. But it's functional, at least as public transit operations go, and at the end of the day that's all we really need out of our transportation infrastructure, particularly when said infrastructure operates at a loss regardless.

(emphasis mine)

Absolutely fair and valid points all the way through, but you're missing the crucial relevance of a point that you hinted at in your message. I agree with you 100%, but I've resigned myself to the fact that we remain the distinctly tiny minority.

Through my participation in Nashville's transit dialog, attending MTA community meetings, etc., the most consistent theme I have heard is that people want it to be "sexy" and that it must be so in order to convince our citizens to ride. When we are so effuse with alternatives to transit--chiefly, our own private automobiles--the incentive to ride transit must be exceedingly strong. So far, the only incentive I have heard the majority of our citizens be amenable that it be sexy. A fast bus isn't sexy because it is... still a bus. People at these meetings were jumping all over each other to say how excited they were about rail, in spite of the fact that they knew it cost 4x as much and was functionally almost identical to BRT.

[PruneTracy]

50 minutes ago, Vrtigo said:

Through my participation in Nashville's transit dialog, attending MTA community meetings, etc., the most consistent theme I have heard is that people want it to be "sexy" and that it must be so in order to convince our citizens to ride. When we are so effuse with alternatives to transit--chiefly, our own private automobiles--the incentive to ride transit must be exceedingly strong. So far, the only incentive I have heard the majority of our citizens be amenable that it be sexy. A fast bus isn't sexy because it is... still a bus. People at these meetings were jumping all over each other to say how excited they were about rail, in spite of the fact that they knew it cost 4x as much and was functionally almost identical to BRT.

My question would be whether it's prudent to spend several times as much on a transit system to try to accommodate those who have hang-ups about superficialities. I made a comparison on a post in this thread a while back to brick sidewalks and cobblestone pavement. They look nicer, people like them more, and I'm sure if all our streets featured them we'd get more walking, more neighborhood participation, etc. But we limit upgrades to specific, relatively small areas because the public intuitively understands that roads are a functional tool first and foremost and we simply can't afford full streetscaping everywhere. They'd rather be able to move around on an ugly road than be stuck looking at a nice one. But they don't extend the same logic to transit and the government/agency/consulting class accommodates that instead of pointing it out because $$$.

We could build several BRT lines for the cost of one light rail line. I talked to a lot of people through the pre-Amp debacle who loved the idea of trams or streetcars through West End. But when you started asking them specifics it seemed that they liked the idea of people riding it more than them personally. And most of them actually had a good reason, because the number of people who could reasonably use this one line without sullying themselves by stepping on the rest of the system was relatively small. But it shows that the West End corridor, while far and away the best candidate for rapid transit in this city, is not exactly populated with people who need reliable, fast transit service. They would benefit from it, but they don't need it, or they would already be riding the existing bus routes. So you end up going the whole nine yards for one group of residents, while not being able to afford service for another, but for the former it's a novelty while for the latter it's a necessity.

I've heard personnel from various transit agencies say they are in the business of customer service, that's why they want to go big with what the customer wants. But the problem is that their customers don't pay for the full cost, the taxpayers do. So while I would love for us to have light rail all over the place I'm not interested in catering to vanity when it hampers our ability to provide effective service elsewhere, particularly to people who would appreciate any improvements, not just the nice-looking ones. As always, if people need an incentive to slum it up on a bus, traffic's not going to get any less congested.

[rookzie]

.. I've said time and time again over the last 3 years, that what works best is a "judicious" implemtation of BOTH one or more types of rail with BRT.  All major U.S. cities which have had "heritage" systems of traditional urban- or interurban-type rail establishment but ones which has remained extant, have strived to integrate their networks with some form of BRT, express bus, Bus on Shoulder, or whatever it "wants" to be called.

Bus-only-Shoulder (or Bus-On_Shoulder) has been operating for its third decade in Minneapolis-St. Paul, which adopted the idea on a six-lane highway in 1991, and the region seemed to like it so much they expanded, such that 10 years ago, the Twin Cities had 271 miles of active bus-shoulder lanes.  Chicago started this with the privately owned PACE bus in 2011 on I-55 (Stevenson Expressway).  Even Manhattan has implemented a flexible system which has been touted by most locals as a marked improvement in an environment which has had in place one of the oldest and one of the most elaborate subway/elevated street railway networks in the world (and it's still boring ground for new rail lines).

Twin Cities is one of those regions with a long established network of non-sexy, limited-stop bus runs, long before it went ahead an built both a light-rail and a commuter rail network.  The point is, unless a region is a New York or a Chicago, or a Boston or a Philly, it's usually best practice to start off modest, rather than to go all the way live with an elaborate rail network, notwithstanding the need to plan and engineer such an upgrade in phases. Planning for sexy rail? Yes siree, but there is a lot out there already which can be done long before all that engineering and funding ─ right now.

Fact is, it won't work, whatever it is, unless some at least partially dedicated pathway is pre-empted, however that might have to be done; and unless some form of pre-paid fare requirement can be incorporated.  Otherwise it becomes simply another case of the "tortoise or the hare".  There's no need start off big, but it does need to start, period.

-==-

Edited February 5, 2016 by rookzie

[Vrtigo]

Obviously, it's only one step towards a comprehensive solution, but NBJ reports that Middle Tennessee mayors, officials approve $1.2B for transit funding over next 25 years.

[Rockatansky]

http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2016/02/17/transportation-officials-adopt-85-billion-25-year-plan/80504062/

[Vrtigo]

A shame that the URL posted above is a bit deceptive... 

Imagine what that would buy us!

[titanhog]

I hope there really is a move towards mass transit...and not just fixing roads, bridges, etc.  Until they say "$XX has been approved for light rail, brt, etc", I won't hold my breath.

[rookzie]

16 hours ago, Vrtigo said:

A shame that the URL posted above is a bit deceptive... 

Imagine what that would buy us!

..a "TransLink" to all the burbs (Vancouver automated SkyTrains)

[rookzie]

 

19 hours ago, Vrtigo said:

Obviously, it's only one step towards a comprehensive solution, but NBJ reports that Middle Tennessee mayors, officials approve $1.2B for transit funding over next 25 years.

 For those who don't have a "free" subscription to NBJ...

On February 17, 2016, the MPO executive board adopted the 2040 Regional Transportation Plan

Also extracted with some 3rd-party software, a somewhat more clarified image of the sketch scheme for mass transit 2040.  It's also of greater importance to note that the approved allocations for the next 25 years do not come even close to taking into account the actual costs of development and implementation.  So it still would be a matter of lobbying for respective "levels" of advanced-capacity transport.

          The total estimated capital cost for building out the transit vision is between $3 billion and $7 billion depending on
          the type of guideway, vehicle technology, and alignment selected for each corridor.

          The Denver region, which is about the size that the Nashville area is expected to be by the year 2040, has invested
          billions in their game-changing transit system over the last 15 to 20 years, with a total price tag upon completion sur-
          surpassing $7 billion. Funding comes from a dedicated one-percent regional sales tax, approved by voters which in
          turn has leveraged significant federal grants.

          The process [is] used to design the specific type of service for each corridor involves significant public input through
          detailed corridor studies which provide an estimate of cost and benefit for each possible option.

-==-

Edited February 18, 2016 by rookzie

[titanhog]

I really hope they can do something more than a rapid transit bus from Murfreesboro in the future.  I-24 is a nightmare and will only get worse.

[rookzie]

14 minutes ago, titanhog said:

I really hope they can do something more than a rapid transit bus from Murfreesboro in the future.  I-24 is a nightmare and will only get worse.

..While it's a "vote of concurrence",  the MPO Connect 2040 plan appears vague at best and elicits no real indication of a strive to establish advanced-capacity transit along those corridors tagged with blue "rapid transit" lines.  While the legend does distinguish "BRT lines" from others, it does not define just what form the blue "rapid transit" lines constitute.  That could be BRT or even express bus, as far as a common reader's interpretation is concerned.  As Smeags said a month or so ago, that graphic just as well could have come from "Romper Room".  It's also far from being "robust" in vision, IMO.

[nashvillwill]

Will you guys help me understand something. What I read is something like this;

"1.2 billion for transit funding over 25 years"

What my pessimistic mind hears is this;

"That money is mostly going to sustain existing levels of service. There may be a little extra to fund another study or something"

But what they may possible mean is this;

"We are pledging that 1.2 for new build projects. Existing service will be funded by other means not included in this figure"

 

So which is it?

 

[PruneTracy]

59 minutes ago, nashvillwill said:

So which is it?

MPO plans include all spending, so your pessimistic mind is correct. But I don't recall what proportion of transit spending is for new service versus existing.

[BnaBreaker]

3 hours ago, nashvillwill said:

Will you guys help me understand something. What I read is something like this;

"1.2 billion for transit funding over 25 years"

What my pessimistic mind hears is this;

"That money is mostly going to sustain existing levels of service. There may be a little extra to fund another study or something"

But what they may possible mean is this;

"We are pledging that 1.2 for new build projects. Existing service will be funded by other means not included in this figure"

 

So which is it?

 

That's exactly what I was thinking.  $48 million/year doesn't really seem like that much once maintenance costs are factored in.

[markhollin]

Panel discussion from local officials on the costs of mass transit plan:

http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/blog/2016/02/fficials-on-paying-for-transit-its-going-to-cost.html

[rookzie]

4 hours ago, markhollin said:

Panel discussion from local officials on the costs of mass transit plan:

http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/blog/2016/02/fficials-on-paying-for-transit-its-going-to-cost.html

In the article, TDOT Commissioner John Schroer, is quoted as saying:

"The Legislature doesn't like transit. We've seen that's the case," Schroer said, pointing to legislation by lawmakers two years ago that helped stall West End's Amp bus rapid-transit project. "While transit is a big issue here, most people in the state don't care about transit because they don't live in Nashville."

While I strongly feel that municipalities have to muster the lion's share of mass transit network development, I believe that it is unfair and not necessarily true in what he states as having road-blocked the ill-fated AMP project, despite questionable boundaries in policy and stalwart decision-making by state officials.  I think we all recognized the civil war (as it were) between the "outgone" mayor and the the state, as well as challenges both between the mayor and his constituents and between him and a few outspoken council members.
 

No state government can realistically be expected to be a generous benefactor as that of Florida and New York, which have allocated enormous amounts of funding for such regional projects.  Recently several media sources have suggested that the state just might have the propensity to become more than a lukewarm receptor to the focus on mid-state regional transit, than it ever has previously.  Whether or not this evolves to anything material, arguably the current level of civic engagement and a stronger appearance of transparency, in the ongoing planning timeline, probably could effectuate a much more positive reaction from lawmakers, than that which led to festering polarity among a majority of stakeholders and which imminently culminated in near confrontation during 2014. -==-

 

 

 

Edited February 19, 2016 by rookzie

[Vrtigo]

13 hours ago, rookzie said:

In the article, TDOT Commissioner...

-snip-

-==-

I find myself wondering how much the city of Nashville contributes to the well-being of these individuals in 'BFE (incorporated), Tennessee'... Sure, they may never spend any time in the city itself, or ever in a million years have any likelihood of utilizing such a transit network. But still, that transit network contributes to the success of Nashville, and by proxy, the state as a whole.

Surely, there is some way to quantifiably measure how Nashville's congestion and transit problems impact the state of Tennessee as a whole. Can't a case be made to gain more support by showing that we (forgive the platitude) are "all in this together?"

[Rockatansky]

The funds identified by the MPO are primarily intended to improve or expand transit service, not pay for current transit operations.

>>> elicits no real indication of a strive to establish advanced-capacity transit along those corridors

I disagree. The corridors are identified, what remains undecided is the transit mode to be used. Mode can't be identified until funding sources have be nailed down. The MPO can't levy taxes to pay for transit, so the identification and approval of those sources will be the next major step in establishing high-capacity transit in those corridors.

 

[rookzie]

17 minutes ago, Rockatansky said:

The funds identified by the MPO are primarily intended to improve or expand transit service, not pay for current transit operations.

>>> elicits no real indication of a strive to establish advanced-capacity transit along those corridors

I disagree. >>>The corridors are identified, what remains undecided is the transit mode to be used. Mode can't be identified until funding sources have be nailed down. The MPO can't levy taxes to pay for transit, so the identification and approval of those sources will be the next major step in establishing high-capacity transit in those corridors.

 

I disagree.  So far the plan has been nothing but periodic updating and approval of plans in identifying corridors, and repeatedly nothing has been materially accomplished following these revised "catalogs".  Until they ever can and do come up with some funding mechanisms, then we're right back where we started.

[nashwatcher]

Thinking about the issue of traffic downtown...long term we need more bridges crossing the Cumberland to help take the pressure off downtown traffic and better connect East and West Nashville. Have those working on our future transit solutions mentioned anything about more bridges? Start with East Nashville to Fesslers and connect it with Wedgewood.  This especially makes sense long term with how the Wedgwood Houston area is taking off.  We need connectivity if we want to develop into our potential.

[rookzie]

10 hours ago, nashwatcher said:

Thinking about the issue of traffic downtown...long term we need more bridges crossing the Cumberland to help take the pressure off downtown traffic and better connect East and West Nashville. Have those working on our future transit solutions mentioned anything about more bridges? Start with East Nashville to Fesslers and connect it with Wedgewood.  This especially makes sense long term with how the Wedgwood Houston area is taking off.  We need connectivity if we want to develop into our potential.

 

I and others brought up the discussion on lack of bridges, a year or two ago.  You can find that with a term search within this topic.  Despite our cries, I know of no new urban (surface road) bridge plans.  Ideally, the city could use 4 or 5 additional surface-road bridges, in locations along the river bends through the core. Discounting the Gateway (Korean Veterans) Bridge, which basically is nothing beyond a replacement for the Shelby Street Bridge, no new surface-roadway bridge (establishing an entirely new pathway) in the city has been constructed since around 1956.  That's a problem, exacerbated by the limited available passings over and under the expressways, as well as by the interchange interaction with these surface roads.

Edited February 21, 2016 by rookzie

[nashwatcher]

As more bridges would clearly help with long term traffic flow and help with congestion, why aren't they part of the discussion? Is it just to expensive to construct one?