The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread

[Hey_Hey]

I would say that I like #1 the most, but I think it is a mistake to think that any of these are either/or. I think it would be entirely reasonable to merge some of them.  

I would like to know more details about the local urban and suburban bus service.  For example, are we going to entirely scrap the current MTA route map and start anew? I think there is some benefit to starting with a clean slate.  Another weakness that I see is that there is no regular local bus service to high employment centers that aren't in the core.  For example, Maryland Farms sits on the Williamson side of the Davidson/Williamson line and serves as a major employment center for residents of both counties.  However, none of the plans offer a glimpse as to how people living in Green Hills or Bellevue would be able to get to work there. 

I would also love to a see a crowd-sourced competition to design a system. I have a feeling that there would be some innovative thinking among transit users that don't work for MTA/RTA.  Coming at it from a completely outside viewpoint often brings with it some truly amazing designs.  The London Underground map design that is still in use today (after updates), and serves as the inspiration for NYC MTA and other systems, was designed as a spare time project and was unsolicited. 

[Rockatansky]

I also voted #1. When I did so I added several comments stressing the need for rapid transit to operate in dedicated ROW free of interference from traffic. I would encourage all who feel similarly to also do so.

[timmay143]

#1!  Light rail down Nolensville Rd.?!  Yes please!

[Guest]

Okay someone help me out with the Numbers for the first plan...

Cost = $230/per person x 3,000,000 (people in Metro area) x 25 years (term) = $17,250,000,000

So we have $17,250,000,000 in revenue

Cost = $5,500,000,000 (capital costs) + $11,750,000,000 (operations cost x 25 years) = $13,475,000,000

A difference of $3,775,000,000

So my questions are : (If I am not reading it correctly please clarify - Thanks)

(1) Does this budget not anticipate ANY private or state or federal funds?

(2) What is the dedicated funding? What tax can be targeted to 3,000,000 people in a metro area to ensure that ALL pay not just those employed? Or do you believe that per capita number is a smoke screen and the real number will be much much higher when you count only those residents that will Pay the tax?

(3) How can there be such a huge amount of money unaccounted for (even more if private/state/federal funds are sought)?

(4) Why is there no revenue being generated by the actual riders of the system? Is it just not listed? And if not why not?



 

[Vrtigo]

48 minutes ago, nashville_bound said:

(4) Why is there no revenue being generated by the actual riders of the system? Is it just not listed? And if not why not?

I don't have an answer to the vast majority of your questions, but in general it is important to know how heavily subsidized US transit operations typically are. A quick eyeballing of this chart makes it plain to see that, unless your ridership is quite simply enormous, that you couldn't ever dream of even breaking even when running a transit system.

I presume the numbers seem askew in this scenario because it has to take into account the net loss that comes with running such a system. 

[titanhog]

I still think they need a plan that does more than just BRT to Murfreesboro.  I don't think that will help the I-24 issues that much.

[nashwatcher]

What kind of time frame would you guesstimate for one of these scenarios to be chosen?

And if scenario 1 is the choice (hopefully), how long will it be until something like the light rail is operational? 

[Guest]

A great take on mass-transit

Transit is Dead

"In 2013, America’s transit systems spent more than $60 billion carrying fewer than 59 billion passenger miles, for an average cost of $1.03 per passenger mile. By comparison, Barclays estimates that shared, self-driving cars will cost only 29 cents per mile. Since cars are also faster and more convenient than transit, transit will disappear except in places that are simply too dense to be served by automobiles, which in the United States mainly means New York City."

[BnaBreaker]

Hmmm...an article entitled "Transit is Dead" that appears on the website of an organization that is funded by the Koch Brothers, who are oil billionaires who would greatly benefit financially if mass transit were indeed 'made dead,' and have actively tried to derail transit projects all over the country, and in Nashville's case, were successful in their attempt.  I'm sorry, I don't mean to be divisive here.  I'm not trying to make this a political discussion at all.  I'm very open to differing opinions on the matter.  I just have an extremely difficult time believing there is anything at all impartial about this article when there is such a clear and direct conflict of interest involved.  I mean, the Koch Bros. are about as impartial about mass transit as the cows on the Chik-fil-A billboards are about chicken. 

While we're on the subject though, may I ask, why is it that some people demand mass transit be a revenue generating venture in order for it to even sniff the drawing board while simultaneously raising zero questions about the comparatively far greater sums of public monies continuously dumped into the financial black hole that is public road projects?  I mean I get why the Koch. Bros. do it.  Their financial well-being depends on America remaining an auto-dependent society.  But what's the motivation for your average joes?  And I'm not saying road projects shouldn't be funded either, but if public cost is truly one's primary concern here, how are you going to freak out about the squirrel in the tree while paying no mind whatsoever to the Grizzly Bear that's already on top of you?

Edited March 4, 2016 by BnaBreaker

[fieldmarshaldj]

^Oh, noes ! Koch Bros !

[SoundScan]

Are you denying the implicit bias in that article? $165 billion spent on highway infrastructure in 2014 alone. Should we take a guess at how much revenue was generated by those highways? Or we could discuss how Americans spend a collective 5 billion hours sitting in traffic every year and the economic impact of that lost productivity. Or perhaps the direct costs and economic impact of motor vehicle accidents in the $100's of billions (http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-economic-impact-of-traffic-accidents-20140529-story.html).

There is no magic bullet to solving America's traffic nightmare. The solution is multi-modal: a combination of highway infrastructure, mass transit, autonomous vehicles and signal automation, and telecommuting. I get that some people love their cars, a result of convenience, nostalgia, ignorance, or a combination, but there are plenty of transportation corridors all over the nation--even in little ole' Nashville--where the passenger density of the automobile makes little to no sense.

[rookzie]

12 hours ago, Hey_Hey said:

I would say that I like #1 the most, but I think it is a mistake to think that any of these are either/or. I think it would be entirely reasonable to merge some of them.  

I would like to know more details about the local urban and suburban bus service.  For example, are we going to entirely scrap the current MTA route map and start anew? I think there is some benefit to starting with a clean slate.  Another weakness that I see is that there is no regular local bus service to high employment centers that aren't in the core.  For example, Maryland Farms sits on the Williamson side of the Davidson/Williamson line and serves as a major employment center for residents of both counties.  However, none of the plans offer a glimpse as to how people living in Green Hills or Bellevue would be able to get to work there. 

I would also love to a see a crowd-sourced competition to design a system. I have a feeling that there would be some innovative thinking among transit users that don't work for MTA/RTA.  Coming at it from a completely outside viewpoint often brings with it some truly amazing designs.  The London Underground map design that is still in use today (after updates), and serves as the inspiration for NYC MTA and other systems, was designed as a spare time project and was unsolicited. 

As a regular MTA rider for 8 years, usually 5 RT's per week (and formerly a regular DC Transit rider back in the mid-'60s for comparison), I've been inclined for "ages" to basically scrap the current MTA bus-route system and start over.  That what Houston, a region generally known for its automobile-centric mindset, has done with arguably remarkable success, by indications.  Columbus Oh. reported has evaluated a plan in consideration of the same (also such truly urban-grid regions should fair an easier challenge theoretically than in Metro Nashville).

The core idea behind a total revamp would be to establish a new network of a high-frequency grid (as much of a “grid-able” paradigm as practically feasible), designed to enable anywhere to anywhere travel with a single fast connection ─ I stress “single” and with not extra-cost transfers. Everywhere on the proposed network such easy access should be possible.

I actually emphasize dealing with and "ironing out" the bus system, before any committing to any specific rapid-rail development, for the sake of establishing meshed interaction.  It all needs to be done concurrently in planning.  Actually I have started to gain some faith in the MTA "nMotion" outreach with "Cumberland Region Tomorrow" teaming with the Transit Alliance of Middle Tennessee in hosting (with seemingly reasonable visibility) the multiple series of community meetings throughout the region.  To an extent, it also is attempting direct engagement with riders of all existing routes.

Edited March 4, 2016 by rookzie

[Guest]

And what kind of impartiality do you believe TransitNow has? Or MTA or any of the consulting firms that make money designing mass-transit systems? Is everyone on the take? Koch? Soros? Buffett? Me? You? Does everyone not have a interest in certain outcomes and is that not completely normal? It is duplicitous to say "I'm very open to differing opinions" at the same time you are saying " I just have an extremely difficult time believing there is anything at all impartial about this article". 
 

If you have an issue with the numbers or the manner in which the argument is presented then that is valid. I have not dismissed the findings of the pro-mass-transit alliance argument. In fact I have several questions that remain unaddressed in this thread from yesterday. I am at least trying to interact and learn and not just scream, "bias".

[smeagolsfree]

After seeing the self driving cars price per mile at 29 cents a mile, I have to say that is impressive if the numbers are correct. However, did they include continued road maintainence in the numbers. Also self driving cars are still a long way off. Each state has to approve, not to mention the technology is still being developed. Then, how long will it take to have nothing but self driving cars on the road! My take would be decades. Then how do people that choose not to sown a vehicle or can't afford a vehicle get around. I guess they have to walk because transit is dead.  Not happening guys.

We have to learn to think for ourselves, rather than listen to idiots on both sides of the political spectrum spout off with self serving articles, books, and fear mongoring. Everyone needs to start using common sence and keep the politicos on both side out of it. That is why this country is so divided because these same people want us to be divided. Again, not just the jokers to the right of me, the jokers to the left of me as well. Here we are stuck in the middle again.

 

Not calling anyone out here, but we need a common approach to benefit all of us.

[Guest]

Exactly! There are far too many people in this world that think they already know all that is required to form a conclussion on a particular issue. For instance who on this board is ready to Go with Plan 1 Today without even caring to find out the answers to my questions? There is a cost to doing nothing and then there is a cost to doing something...at the present do we really have all the information required to make an informed decision? I think not.

[Neigeville2]

1 hour ago, nashville_bound said:

Exactly! There are far too many people in this world that think they already know all that is required to form a conclussion on a particular issue. For instance who on this board is ready to Go with Plan 1 Today without even caring to find out the answers to my questions? There is a cost to doing nothing and then there is a cost to doing something...at the present do we really have all the information required to make an informed decision? I think not.

The plans are so vague at this point, it's probably wrong to even call them "plans"; nevertheless I'm ready to go with plan 1, because the other two clearly aren't ambitious enough to address the problem.  I'm not all that impressed  with Plan 1 but the other two are starting from a place that isn't going to work.  

Every detail is going to be debated over the coming decades and needs to be, but I start from the premise that a metro the size of Nashville can't live in 1950 forever, and what we need won't be cheap.  We need an inspiring vision that will engage people who want the city to succeed.  Without that excitement, you'll just have a bunch of NIMBYs and Beaman-types (narcissistic trust fund babies) fighting tooth and nail because they're against every public endeavor, probably with lots of help from the clowns in the state legislature who at this point it's clear just hate Nashville and Memphis and will override the will of our voters at any opportunity.   Go big or go home.

[VSRJ]

That's what frustrates me about current routes. Unless you're going from an outer "spoke" to the hub (and back), you're more or less SOL. I wouldn't be opposed to taking a bus from the Berry Hill area to the airport area where I work, but that would involve taking a bus to Music City Center, a 10-minute layover and taking another bus to my destination. That's roughly an hour for a 6-mile trip that usually takes 10-12 minutes. Who would use that for anything other than a worst-case scenario?

[titanhog]

To me, mass transportation into and out of Nashville to/from the suburbs is going to have to use something other than the current interstate system.  It's either going to have to be rails, platforms, tunnels or something other than what is currently there unless you have a dedicated lane with no way for autos to infiltrate those lanes.

[Hey_Hey]

It is interesting that we have brought up autonomous cars.  Autonomous cars will happen, it's just a matter of when, and autonomous cars will change Americans' lifestyles significantly.  What those changes are is up for debate, but we can speculate.  It looks like we are around 5 years from the first fully autonomous cars being available.  They will be expensive, but they will be available.  However, I subscribe to the belief that very quickly after they become technically possible to make that we will see subscription models or pay-by-the-mile models of car sharing.  The ramifications for that are profound in terms of urban planning and the movement of the masses around a metro area. The legal and liability ramifications are, IMO, much easier to overcome than the technical problems of designing autonomous cars.

I see car ownership decreasing over the long run because it won't make financial sense to own a $30,000 machine that costs $1000 per month to own (insurance, car costs, maintenance, gas) when they could pay far less than 50 cents/mile to ride. The benefits are immense: personal finances will improve when the middle class no longer has to own two cars, parking garages and surface parking lots become uneconomical over the long term leading to their redevelopment, and gas stations and the property they sit on will be steadily redeveloped (gas stations may go extinct because of electrification over the next 20 years as well).  

I don't know if autonomous cars will drive people away from cities or push them into the cities. I can see the argument that people would live further out because they can be productive during their commutes, but I also see benefits of having immediate access to on demand cars that density will bring. I see rural places falling further behind because the economics of operating a self-driving subscription service won't work nearly as well in Macon County as compared to Nashville.

Transit may totally change in format and costs. The biggest ongoing expense of running transit services is labor.  Buses and trains will become autonomous just like automobiles which will decrease the operating costs of transit systems. Will the efficiencies in autonomous mass transit motivate people to use it, or will they opt for a more expensive personal vehicle? Thinking a few steps ahead, transit may also transition away from fixed routes.  It's not a stretch to imagine a system in which 10 passing autonomous vehicles pick up a group of residents from Lenox Village and delivers them to Green Hills. At the same time they are being picked up, a 15 passenger vehicle picks up a group at the same stop to deliver them to the CBD.  

I guess that brings up the question of what we do from here.....I still think we need to plan as if the autonomous revolution never happens. However, I might hedge on building a $1 billion rail line if I think there's a 20% chance it will be obsolete in 20 years.  The reality is that we should probably go after the low handing fruit first anyway. We can go ahead an build out BRT, urban streetcar, and add cross town bus routes without burning too many bridges. Once that happens we may have a clearer view of where autonomous tech is heading.

[Guest]

Hey_Hey 

That is the most responsive and logical post I have read in this particular thread. I agree that this is but the beginning - but we can all envision - 

automated: autos, buses, trolleys, light rail, Uber and Lyft, 

Middle and Upper Class will go from 3-4 vehicles to 1-2 plus fraction use as needed and yes, urban dwellers my go to 1 or even zero owned vehicles.

In the face of all these changes an investment of tens of billions into an antiquated solution is not justified, IMO.

Edited March 5, 2016 by Guest

[PruneTracy]

12 minutes ago, nashville_bound said:

In the face of all these changes an investment of tens of billions into an antiquated in not justified, IMO.

Transit agencies can build for the future today by choosing modes that upgrade into foreseeable technology. Both BRT and LRT, for example, can upgrade to driverless vehicles when the technology becomes available for relatively little cost.

As long as we have surface transportation, mass transit will have certain advantages over personal transportation that keep it quite relevant. You've probably seen some variation of this photo:

There is only so much room on an urban street and even the most sophisticated driverless cars will take up more space per passenger than a transit vehicle.

That said, the question is whether we are building transit for the right reasons. I work with a lot of agencies, passengers, and general aficionados and their justification for supporting new lines and services is more often or not based on an end result that is not only wildly optimistic but in many ways unattainable. Everyone wants to be the London Underground, the Shinkansen, and/or the TransMilenio but the fact of the matter is that most cities can't build a line of any mode that is cost-effective to use and operate. Even the global cities are having trouble justifying upgrades, such as New York's BRT lines or Los Angeles and MetroRail. Denver and Seattle are floating billions to play the part of big-city but the jury's still out on whether their systems attract the ridership to make it worthwhile.

The idea is sound: we need to use transit for any number of reasons, not least of which is the hard ceiling on density captured in the above photo. But plopping down billions on transit lines under the build-it-and-they-will-come mentality is just as unsustainable as widening highways for perpetuity. If we're going to drop this kind of dime on transportation then municipalities like Nashville need to protect that investment through development policies that make it realistic to see butts in seats rather than relying on the hypotheticals offered by vanity riders. Otherwise, there's a pretty extensive and reasonably cost-effective bus system whose ridership actually needs transit.

[titanhog]

In areas where public transit isn't historically available, you have to start with convenience.  The reason Uber and Lyft are working so well is convenience...especially with the newer generations. If someone lives in Smyrna and needs to go to Off Broadway Shoes in Demonbreun Hill...you have to convince them that driving and fighting traffic is not worth it.  You can't make them drive to a spot to get on a bus...then the bus fights traffic and drops them off downtown.  Then they have to find another bus and wait until it gets within walking distance of Off Broadway.  Then...do it all over again to get home.  

 

[rookzie]

17 hours ago, nashville_bound said:

And what kind of impartiality do you believe TransitNow has? Or MTA or any of the consulting firms that make money designing mass-transit systems? Is everyone on the take? Koch? Soros? Buffett? Me? You? Does everyone not have a interest in certain outcomes and is that not completely normal? It is duplicitous to say "I'm very open to differing opinions" at the same time you are saying " I just have an extremely difficult time believing there is anything at all impartial about this article". 
 

If you have an issue with the numbers or the manner in which the argument is presented then that is valid. I have not dismissed the findings of the pro-mass-transit alliance argument. In fact I have several questions that remain unaddressed in this thread from yesterday. I am at least trying to interact and learn and not just scream, "bias".

It's normal conviction to conclude a song-n-dance with same old responses to public outreach:

    A decision already has been made, and outreach is just smoke and mirrors
    The perception that individual and shared questions simply are not being answered
    Appearance that scheduled meetings are inaccessible, w-r-t site and time
    Alternatives presented seem unacceptable

Still, great planning can’t move forward without effective engagement with the public and stakeholders.  Key players at any and all levels who have major influence over a project must be made to feel involved in a way that respects their influence.  Meanwhile, the largest possible public must be engaged in substantive, two-way conversation.  Great outreach isn’t a public meeting where everyone testifies for five minutes and then goes home, or writes online comments and gets nothing back but an automated thank-you.  I think all of us here could testify as witness to that.  I fully concur that outreach should be a two-way "eye-level" engagement in which the participants not only are heard but also are educated about the real choices that are before the community, and encouraged to think about different perspectives on the question, not just the aspect they brought with them.

The approach needs to encourage citizens to discuss the issue with each other, not just with officials.  Citizens face-to-face with each other can explore their disagreements in intimate discussion, and come away better understanding the range of views that the agency is hearing.  They can also begin probing, on their own, possible paths to consensus, but the engagement needs participants to aim at dialog to solve the real problem, even if not readily perceived.  We all know too well the scenario of presenting the issue as preconceived solution in the manner of “Here is the proposal, what do you think?”  But with interactive exercises in which participants can work on the problems themselves, the public can heuristically test their own ideas as enactments, by being presented with multiple alternatives designed to illustrate the real issues, often associated with a difficult policy issue.

What I has stated earlier concerning a decentralized bus network was intended indirectly as one example of the trade-off between mutually difficult to reconcile paradigms ─ planning for ridership and planning for coverage or social service outcomes.  That is, to maximize ridership (minimizing cost) versus maximizing coverage (in response to social service needs).  Few policymakers, and even fewer citizens, have been asked to think clearly about this kind of choice in open, shared dialog.  Obviously, this lends to supposition of multiple transit-network scenarios — even if not credibly proposed for implementation — simply for the purpose of illustrating this disparity between or among unilateral ideals or practices and building an awareness and understanding of it.

[RonCamp]

On 3/4/2016 at 7:38 PM, nashville_bound said:

Since cars are also faster and more convenient than transit, transit will disappear

Put aside any discussion of bias or larger takeaways from the article for a moment.  The statement quoted above is not universally true.  Not by a long shot.

A more accurate version of this statement might be:

• In the average American city, where the amount investment in roadway infrastructure is a large multiple of the investment in transit infrastructure, single occupancy vehicle (SOV) travel is therefore usually faster and more convenient than transit

I'd argue that, if the USA decided that transit investment was as important as investment in highways and other roadways that encourage SOV travel, and realigned its funding structures to reflect as much, the speed and convenience advantage that SOV travel often has over transit travel, particularly during non-peak travel times, would in many cases be reduced or disappear entirely (or perhaps in some cases be inverted).

I want to be clear and say I have absolutely nothing against single occupancy vehicle travel.  But we have to keep in mind that we have the transportation system that we do because roads are (and have been) heavily subsidized by the government - and are not the only way to travel.  SOV travel spreads us out, reduces chance interaction with neighbors, makes us more overweight, causes more deaths than travel by other means, and contributes (as someone noted above) to untold hours of lost productivity and economic output.  And, as anyone who sits on I-40 or I-24 or whatever on an afternoon knows, commuting in traffic just sucks.  

The fact is that by applying the same litmus tests we apply to transit in the US as it is currently funded, structured and implemented, we'd never build highways or roads.  Roads "lose" enormous amounts of money(they cost much more to build and maintain than user fees, i.e. the gas taxes, raise).  

Please do note that, on the flip side, transit *will not solve* our traffic problems either.  

Universal allegiance to any one method of transportation is a recipe for disaster in the long term and is why we find ourselves in a traffic quagmire as things currently stand.     

[Guest]

I do not disagree with your viewpoint, but I will add that one of the main hopes of the automated vehicle technology is the reduction, in absolute terms and not just year-over-year growth of the number of vehicles on the existing roads.

I am interested in your explicit policy recommendations for the comment referenced below. In my mind , "protect that investment through development policies" sounds very ominous... can you clarify? Thanks

On March 4, 2016 at 4:24 PM, PruneTracy said:

If we're going to drop this kind of dime on transportation then municipalities like Nashville need to protect that investment through development policies that make it realistic to see butts in seats rather than relying on the hypotheticals offered by vanity riders. Otherwise, there's a pretty extensive and reasonably cost-effective bus system whose ridership actually needs transit.