The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread

[rookzie]

5 hours ago, nashvylle said:

much cheaper to do streetcars like Portland. 

Doesn't matter what kind of vehicle.  What matters is conveyance into and away from downtown.  I alluded to Portland a couple of months ago with the newly opened Tilikum Bridge, a shared crossing (over the Willamette River) for transit, cyclists, and pedestrians only, with provisions for emergency vehicles.  Nashville needs AT LEAST a dedicated bridge.  Notwithstanding the need for a dedicated river passing (or two), it might be possible to emulate (to a fair extent) Portland's handling of shared RoW for its MAX LRT (not the Portland Streetcar), in traffic management and layout downtown. as those trains serve as limited stop "streetcar" rail in the CBD, but then "tear out" of the CBD and go on their own, once away.

As far as a subway is concerned, Nashville probably has different geological constraints from those of Buffalo, and other LRT locales, although that does not necessarily preclude the possibility of tunneling, just because of flooding issues and required depth of bore.  Again it's initial costs that becomes an "ingestion" issue, and that one alone makes the likeliness in this here town unpalatable (if not untenable).  I wish I were wrong, but I think not.  It's hard enough to sell ANY kind of rail in Nashville, much more a partial subway, and I would never expect it to get "off the ground" (so to speak ─ much less likely IN the ground).  Combining the best of Portland's Tilikum and Seattle's Downtown Transit Tunnel (which shares buses AND LRT along a common path, and both ends of which emerge to the ground surface over a relatively short distance) might be do-able and a compromise.

Ever tried driving downtown ANYwhere along Charlotte after 2:45p on weekdays?  It's bad enough going west, at least as far as I-40 and 13th.  But eastbound at Capitol Hill and beyond just outright SUX big time, requiring at least 4 light changes at 5th before being able to advance a few car-lengths farther and through the bottleneck at 3rd.  No way any LRT or streetcar can manage that!
 

Edited April 1, 2016 by rookzie

[Neigeville2]

6 hours ago, Rockatansky said:

Yep. Bedrock + lack of density = no subway in Nashville.

But how can this be?  Lack of density is an issue, sure, but Manhattan is made of granite.  

[titanhog]

26 minutes ago, Neigeville2 said:

But how can this be?  Lack of density is an issue, sure, but Manhattan is made of granite.  

Yeah...I just read that Austin has been considering a future subway system...and they said since Limestone is "chalky"...you can actually drill a mile a week with current technology...and it's way cheaper than what they have to do in states like California or NY.  So...I'm guessing we could do a sub system (unless there is something I'm missing about our geologic conditions.)

[Hey_Hey]

I never have understood the limestone argument.  Unless you're in Florida, any subway system is going to be in rock of some sort.  

 

I I would be interested in seeing the cost of light rail from Murfreesboro, Franklin and Hendersonville that goes below grade inside the downtown interstate loop. The total subterranean mileage would only have to be a couple miles that way.  

[SoundScan]

There are already several miles of tunnels underneath downtown Nashville that make up part of the District Energy System. Some are trench and cover and some were built with the help of an small TBM. There is some good info about the system and its construction on the nashville.gov site:

http://www.nashville.gov/District-Energy-System/DES-Featured-Stories/DES-Tunneling-Project-Photos-from-the-1980s.aspx

 

 

A brochure that shows the system map: http://www.nashville.gov/Portals/0/SiteContent/DistrictEnergySystem/docs/DESBrochure2013.pdf

 

[Pyramid Scheme]

6 hours ago, Hey_Hey said:

I never have understood the limestone argument.  Unless you're in Florida, any subway system is going to be in rock of some sort.  

 

I I would be interested in seeing the cost of light rail from Murfreesboro, Franklin and Hendersonville that goes below grade inside the downtown interstate loop. The total subterranean mileage would only have to be a couple miles that way.  

I liked the monorail from downtown to Murfreesboro in the i-24 median idea. Heck of a lot better than adding another lane. If I remember correctly it would've been slightly cheaper too.

[farm_boy]

On 3/31/2016 at 7:13 PM, grilled_cheese said:

Is it safe to say that nashville_bound is against public transit all together?  All I am hearing are the negatives.

Absolutely NOT true! He is only stating what should be common sense!

Of course we all want a subway, but if it costs 8 billion versus 1 billion to expand our existing interstates to 20 lanes, then it is difficult to justify the cost of a subway!

Also, if mass transit saves you only 5 minutes a day on a commute, is the cost justified? These are the types of questions that seem to get ignored by some.

We desperately need mass transit, but it will be a failure if it does not provide cost and time savings for the users. And that includes the cost to build.

[ruraljuror]

This is a good little case study.  

First, expanding the interstate to 20 lanes obviously has diminishing returns with each new lane added so it's not really a viable option, but I get that you're just trying to make a simple point here. 

More importantly, lets say the new transit system does only save 5 minutes a day on a commute.  Lets say that 100k people a day benefit from those 5 minutes saved.  In just one year that adds up to about 3 million hours in 'saved time'.  At minimum wage levels of hourly pay, that's about 25 million a year in lost/gained productivity.  Of course, these are all pretty low end estimates--what's the value of the transit system look like when traffic gets bad enough (as it's predicted to) so that the transit system now saves 10 minutes per day per person and that the average hourly pay of those people are significantly higher than minimum wage? What's the value when the number of those who benefit from the system is closer to 1 million people than 100k?  How much is that system worth over a period of 20 years, 50 years, 100 years? 

Yes we do desperately need mass transit, but it will certainly fail if we all look at it only from the standpoint of one individual as opposed to the macro perspective.  

[markhollin]

I know this is kinda unwieldy, but it's the kind of out-of-the-box thinking that might get us somewhere (literally).  Yes…there will be plenty of argument, etc. about this---but I'm just throwing it out there to get the creative juices flowing.  I in no way think this is a solution---but a jumping-off point for ideas.

I can imagine a thinner fuselage, carrying hundreds of passengers in more standardized rows. The track could be elevated about 50 ft running right down the middle of interstates (provided the down-draft from the fans wouldn't cause vehicles underneath to go off course).  This height would allow for overpasses.   I think there would need to be a stabilizing shaft at the front end of each craft as well. High winds could certainly be a problem.  Not sure how that would work.  But seeing that Nashville usually has very little in the way of contentious winds, it is not as large a problem as many other cities would face.

The stations would be quite a challenge to construct.  The primary terminal downtown would take quite a bit of space. Strategically placed passing lanes would need to be worked into the scheme in order for units to move in both directions.

One thing is for sure, if something like this COULD be worked out feasibly, it would become a very popular ride because of its uniqueness; would establish Nashville as a world leader in mass transit concepts; and could even become a tourist attraction. 

 

 

[tragenvol]

10 hours ago, Philip said:

I liked the monorail from downtown to Murfreesboro in the i-24 median idea. Heck of a lot better than adding another lane. If I remember correctly it would've been slightly cheaper too.

In 2014, the Monorail Feasibility bill's sponsor estimated costs for a 30 mile monorail between Murfreesboro and Nashville at just under a billion dollars; later, TDOT estimated at $2.3 billion....I'm not sure who is more accurate, but it certainly appears that monorail would not be cheaper than additional lanes.

Edited April 1, 2016 by tragenvol

[BnaBreaker]

Monorail is an idiotic choice for that span anyway.  Really, given the hugely increased costs for something that is still essentially just a train, monorail is a pretty idiotic choice for any span.  Really the only advantage I know of is that it makes suburbanites not used to mass transit feel more comfortable because monorail is Disney World's preferred mode of mass transit.

By the way, all one needs to do to understand that eternally widening expressways is not a viable solution for addressing traffic concerns, is to visit a city like Atlanta or Houston or Los Angeles.

 

Edited April 1, 2016 by BnaBreaker

[PruneTracy]

2 hours ago, markhollin said:

I know this is kinda unwieldy, but it's the kind of out-of-the-box thinking that might get us somewhere (literally).  Yes…there will be plenty of argument, etc. about this---but I'm just throwing it out there to get the creative juices flowing.  I in no way think this is a solution---but a jumping-off point for ideas.

Would be more efficient if the stations were constructed just below ground level and the vehicle utilized ground effect to generate lift. Of course then you'd need long strips of perfectly flat land, of which we have none.

26 minutes ago, BnaBreaker said:

Really, given the hugely increased costs for something that is still essentially just a train, monorail is a pretty idiotic choice for any span.

Miami's people mover is the only example that comes to mind of monorail being the best choice in a municipal context: a need for a high-capacity, fully grade-separated, energized system, but on sandy soil where the water table is basically at the ground surface. But even then I don't think it's actually a monorail, I think it's just fixed-guideway buses.

[Guest]

I get what you are saying but all your numbers are (admittedly) made-up.

What is the projected time savings?

What is the projected ridership?

Lets get some real numbers .... there is almost no time that productivity goes to zero with smart phones unless the job is manual labor.

And what is the opportunity cost of the money that pays to build and operate the mass-transit system? Might those funds be used more effectively being spent/invested instead of taxes?

It sounds like many of us are in agreement that we want to see realistic numbers for all aspects of the proposed Nashville mass-transit plan....only then should we cast our lot to support or oppose (or seek a third way)...

 

5 hours ago, ruraljuror said:

This is a good little case study.  

First, expanding the interstate to 20 lanes obviously has diminishing returns with each new lane added so it's not really a viable option, but I get that you're just trying to make a simple point here. 

More importantly, lets say the new transit system does only save 5 minutes a day on a commute.  Lets say that 100k people a day benefit from those 5 minutes saved.  In just one year that adds up to about 3 million hours in 'saved time'.  At minimum wage levels of hourly pay, that's about 25 million a year in lost/gained productivity.  Of course, these are all pretty low end estimates--what's the value of the transit system look like when traffic gets bad enough (as it's predicted to) so that the transit system now saves 10 minutes per day per person and that the average hourly pay of those people are significantly higher than minimum wage? What's the value when the number of those who benefit from the system is closer to 1 million people than 100k?  How much is that system worth over a period of 20 years, 50 years, 100 years? 

Yes we do desperately need mass transit, but it will certainly fail if we all look at it only from the standpoint of one individual as opposed to the macro perspective.  

 

[BnaBreaker]

3 hours ago, PruneTracy said:

Would be more efficient if the stations were constructed just below ground level and the vehicle utilized ground effect to generate lift. Of course then you'd need long strips of perfectly flat land, of which we have none.

Miami's people mover is the only example that comes to mind of monorail being the best choice in a municipal context: a need for a high-capacity, fully grade-separated, energized system, but on sandy soil where the water table is basically at the ground surface. But even then I don't think it's actually a monorail, I think it's just fixed-guideway buses.

Interesting!  I'll have to research that.  I honestly didn't realize that MIami had any sort of rapid transit system.  

I just wanted to clarify too that I'm just against monorail because it's more expensive than traditional elevated rail, and offers no real advantages over it.  However, I think there is definitely a place for elevated rail in general.  It works well here in Chicago, and in other cities where there is a high density of residents, and you require the capacities offered by heavy rail, but don't want to spend the money to dig all those tunnels, and don't want to be limited in route options by a street grid like you would with a streetcar.  I don't think there is really any need for heavy rail in Nashville though, whether it's elevated or buried.  But the idea that you'd build an elevated rail line to function as a commuter line running down the middle of the expressway is just really, really silly.  It makes about as much sense as building a one-off express subway line from downtown to Murfreesboro.  

[rookzie]

1 hour ago, BnaBreaker said:

Interesting!  I'll have to research that.  I honestly didn't realize that MIami had any sort of rapid transit system.  

I just wanted to clarify too that I'm just against monorail because it's more expensive than traditional elevated rail, and offers no real advantages over it.  However, I think there is definitely a place for elevated rail in general.  It works well here in Chicago, and in other cities where there is a high density of residents, and you require the capacities offered by heavy rail, but don't want to spend the money to dig all those tunnels, and don't want to be limited in route options by a street grid like you would with a streetcar.  I don't think there is really any need for heavy rail in Nashville though, whether it's elevated or buried.  But the idea that you'd build an elevated rail line to function as a commuter line running down the middle of the expressway is just really, really silly.  It makes about as much sense as building a one-off express subway line from downtown to Murfreesboro.  

Since 1984, Miami also has had a subway (Heavy Rail Transit - "HRT").  Miami's was the next-to-the-last new HRT start-up built in the U.S., LA-Metro being the very last new one).  Dubbed as "Metrorail", it's not a subway per se, but rather, elevated, and connects with the "Metromover" people-mover that PruneTracy mentioned, as well as to the Tri-Rail commuter rail system, to Amtrak's "Silver" Service, and to MIA airport.  During concurrent construction, Miami and Baltimore (Balto Metro opening in '83) were able to garner a shared discount on cost of rail cars, by designing their systems to utilize the same specs in car production.

Miami Metrorail

Miami Metromover

Edited April 2, 2016 by rookzie

[Neigeville2]

1 hour ago, BnaBreaker said:

Interesting!  I'll have to research that.  I honestly didn't realize that MIami had any sort of rapid transit system.  

I just wanted to clarify too that I'm just against monorail because it's more expensive than traditional elevated rail, and offers no real advantages over it.  However, I think there is definitely a place for elevated rail in general.  It works well here in Chicago, and in other cities where there is a high density of residents, and you require the capacities offered by heavy rail, but don't want to spend the money to dig all those tunnels, and don't want to be limited in route options by a street grid like you would with a streetcar.  I don't think there is really any need for heavy rail in Nashville though, whether it's elevated or buried.  But the idea that you'd build an elevated rail line to function as a commuter line running down the middle of the expressway is just really, really silly.  It makes about as much sense as building a one-off express subway line from downtown to Murfreesboro.  

The advantages of being separated from grade should be obvious:  the whole system can be run by a computer, like an elevator, with no drivers.  Over the long haul, the people who run the system, their medical insurance and retirement etc., are said to be biggest expense, although the initial capital outlays seem to be everyone's focus.  

Also if the system stays above grade, it's virtually impossible for it to have an accident.  And if it's monorail, that is the train is wider than the track, it pretty much can't derail.

Another advantage to monorail systems is that they are built far faster than light rail.

5 hours ago, PruneTracy said:

Would be more efficient if the stations were constructed just below ground level and the vehicle utilized ground effect to generate lift. Of course then you'd need long strips of perfectly flat land, of which we have none.

Miami's people mover is the only example that comes to mind of monorail being the best choice in a municipal context: a need for a high-capacity, fully grade-separated, energized system, but on sandy soil where the water table is basically at the ground surface. But even then I don't think it's actually a monorail, I think it's just fixed-guideway buses.

Miami's Metromover is driverless single car trains.  It makes possible a frequency of service you couldn't have with drivers.

[BnaBreaker]

11 minutes ago, Neigeville2 said:

The advantages of being separated from grade should be obvious:  the whole system can be run by a computer, like an elevator, with no drivers.  Over the long haul, the people who run the system, their medical insurance and retirement etc., are said to be biggest expense, although the initial capital outlays seem to be everyone's focus.  

Also if the system stays above grade, it's virtually impossible for it to have an accident.  And if it's monorail, that is the train is wider than the track, it pretty much can't derail.

Another advantage to monorail systems is that they are built far faster than light rail.

Miami's Metromover is driverless single car trains.  It makes possible a frequency of service you couldn't have with drivers.

I was mainly comparing monorail to traditional elevated rail when I said it provided no real advantages.  But you're right, I didn't consider the derailing issue.  Not sure that's worth the extra cost though.  And in reference to Nashville's application of it specifically, where it was proposed to go down the median of the expressway all the way to Murfreesboro, there wouldn't be a need for it to be elevated since there wouldn't be any at-grade crossings.  Great points all around though.

[rookzie]

The suggestion by Bill Ketron of building a monorail per se is only one of glamor, as monorails generally are impractical for anything of performance, speed, or scalable capacity, with anything over 50 mph.  Why?  Monorails use rubber tires for engaging to their guideways, and to enable tractive effort practical for acceleration and deceleration.  The tires therefore are usually much smaller than those of standard roadway vehicles, and acceleration is achieved at the expense of speed, sustained practical speed usually limited to below 60 mph.  For this reason, wheeled beam-guided vehicles (straddle-type monorails) are suitable for only short runs, such as Las Vegas' [NV] RTC, a relatively new but elaborately built straddle-type system.  Additionally, mechanical faults are not uncommon with such monorails, and moving a stranded vehicle of this type from fouling a main-way is not as simple as dialing for a Triple- A tow truck or as coasting to the side of the road to allow others to pass (even though beam switches could be built to allow emergency cross-over).  I can attest to that first hand, after riding the LV RTC monorail for nearly a week, and on at least three different occasions, a train on which I was riding had faulted and stalled (commonly due to thermal electrical overloading during the mid-late afternoons), with people cussing and whatnot ─ in one incident, riders having to de-train on a platform and stand in the summer desert heat, until another train could be brought in on the opposed-direction track and operated in reverse to allow passengers to complete their trips.  At least our train actually halted at a station during that eventful run.  An extension of the RTC monorail had been (is being) considered, which I believe would permit service to UNLV.  Perhaps the only reason that such a proprietary system is even being candidate for expansion is that it already has been built as an complex development, although extremely costly.

The only practical "higher-speed" monorails are the grossly expensive Mag-Levs such as those ultra-high-speed jobs of Japan and China, with top sustained speeds approaching 300 mph.  These use rubber tires for slow-speed "taxi", and the trains literally hover above the straddled beam as it tracks along at those high speeds.  Even the "cheesy" monorails cost much more per mile to construct than with LRT, and monorails generally must be electrically propelled, unlike with LRV which can be the more familiar electric (with overhead suspended single wire or mesh catenary) or the newer DMU (Diesel Multiple Unit), as seen in Escondido (CA), Denton (TX), and Camden (NJ)

Finally, being pretty much always proprietary in design throughout, and along with what was just stated, monorails are not made to be substituted with standby and possibly older equipment, as are conventional steel-on-rail equipment, and they also are assembled as fixed-length train-sets, a constraint which makes them unscalable in capacity, unlike with standard practice.  People movers, in many cases, operate as “horizontal elevators”, unless built as the high-capacity stout-bodied, rubber-tired  Montreal “Metro”, which counts as an HRT and utilizes couple-able cars.

Edited April 2, 2016 by rookzie

[MidTenn1]

An interesting article about Austin Texas and it's quest for mass transit. You can almost substitute Nashville for Austin in the story and it will sound about the same.

http://austinrailnow.com/2016/03/29/why-spending-4-7-billion-trying-to-improve-i-35-is-a-waste-of-money/

And it addresses several subjects discussed at the monthly meet this am.

[nashwatcher]

My main concern with investing in mass transit is the technological innovation in transportation that seems to be fast approaching and not knowing what it's effect will be. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Mass transit is a big investment, and I'm all for it if it's what's needed for Nashville, but I don't want to hurt our city's financial health if there's an alternative on the horizon.

On another note, what are the returns on investment for improving a city's street grid? Seems like this would be something to continue to work on (driverless cars could take advantage of the improved connectivity)

[markhollin]

The MTA/NTA Public Meeting regarding an integrated mass transit plan at OneC1ty this morning was good. 35 folks attended.  Nearly 100% were in favor of the top option (cost would be $5.9 billion).  Good discussion as well.  If you would be interested in attending the TV taping for Nashville Public Television of another meeting this Wednesday, here's the info:



 

[rookzie]

1 hour ago, PHofKS said:

An interesting article about Austin Texas and it's quest for mass transit. You can almost substitute Nashville for Austin in the story and it will sound about the same.

http://austinrailnow.com/2016/03/29/why-spending-4-7-billion-trying-to-improve-i-35-is-a-waste-of-money/

And it addresses several subjects discussed at the monthly meet this am.

,,Those of us who have motored along 1-35 to San Marcos, TX, either from Austin or from San Antonio, can almost kiss the Surface Transportation Policy Project (STPP) for its insight in galvanizing attention to Texas-DOT's own driven propensity for massive road-widening project vision, a stance which pervades state DOTS nationwide (with notable exceptions).  And according to the article, all this the STPP had documented nearly 20 years ago.

"...when an area is congested – additional lanes or roads do not provide congestion relief.
... It is also well documented that additional lanes increase traffic, and that new highways create demand for travel and expansion by their very existence...."

In short, overwhelming evidence from diverse studies during the last 3 decades tends to lead to a postulated conclusion on the counter-intuitive effect of increasing the number of lanes on a highway.  I recall having read a similar conclusion, while visiting Chicago and Northern Indiana during 1995, for both modest surface-road improvements, as well as for larger-scale expansion along freeways.  I would discount changes implemented to rectify roadway safety concerns, although some can be determined to bear a relationship to congestion itself.  For a long time in this forum, it has been emphasized that political might will be paramount to any wholesale shift from a mentality to focus nearly exclusively on roadway expansion that often tends to respond favorably to the benefit of land developers and road contractors.

With massive departmental funding shortfalls leading to a conviction that proposed and earmarked roadway projects will never get "caught up" on ─ quite the case in Texas and in Tennessee ─ this also tends to vilify the government as a stereotype for spending on old, non-effective solutions as a de-facto standard in the way it does business.  Congestion ALways will remain, whether the focus remains or becomes shifted.

 

[Neigeville2]

5 hours ago, nashwatcher said:

My main concern with investing in mass transit is the technological innovation in transportation that seems to be fast approaching and not knowing what it's effect will be. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Mass transit is a big investment, and I'm all for it if it's what's needed for Nashville, but I don't want to hurt our city's financial health if there's an alternative on the horizon.

On another note, what are the returns on investment for improving a city's street grid? Seems like this would be something to continue to work on (driverless cars could take advantage of the improved connectivity)

I don't believe it would be wise to postpone investment because there may be some new technology coming, for three reasons.  

1) There's no way to know when a technology will actually be ready to implement.  Thirty years ago virtual reality was the next big thing.  It still is.  Back in the 80s genetic manipulation was going to lead to all manner of new organisms; we have yet to see so much as a blue rose.  The vacuum tube transit technology currently known as "Elon Musks's Hyperloop" has been around over 100 years and never a single practical application (at human scale).  (And another thing, just because there may be new technologies on the way, doesn't mean older technologies are stagnant; train technology has advanced in recent years, while flying on the other hand has just become more and more uncomfortable.)

2) It is incredibly unlikely that any new transportation technology will lead to the quick demise of others, that cities like London and NYC will see their subways abandoned for other modes of transport, for example.  Consider how the cost of natural gas and solar has dropped so dramatically it's unlikely coal will ever be competitive again; nevertheless we will be burning coal as a legacy technology many years hence.  Even the revolutionary horseless carriage shared the road with its equine predecessor for decades despite massive government investment in car-friendly streets, tearing down buildings for parking lots, changing laws to favor cars over pedestrians, etc.  It's not likely a new technology will get that kind of government support nowadays.

3) Borrowing money in the future is likely to be more expensive than it is now.

Nashville is already at the scale as a tourist and business city that we need to offer the kind of transit amenities we don't have currently.  Debate the details, but we should have acted long ago.  And we can afford it.  We are a prosperous city.

[SoundScan]

Relevant excerpt from the posted link:

 

By analyzing TTI’s data for 70 metro areas over 15 years, STPP determined that metro areas that invested heavily in road capacity expansion fared no better in easing congestion than metro areas that did not. Trends in congestion show that areas that exhibited greater growth in lane capacity spent roughly $22 billion more on road construction than those that didn’t, yet ended up with slightly higher congestion costs per person, wasted fuel, and travel delay. The STPP study shows that on average the cost to relieve the congestion reported by TTI just by building roads could be thousands of dollars per family per year. The metro area with the highest estimated road building cost was Nashville, Tennessee with a price tag of $3,243 per family per year, followed by Austin, Orlando, and Indianapolis.

 

Ouch.

 

[grilled_cheese]

18 hours ago, nashwatcher said:

My main concern with investing in mass transit is the technological innovation in transportation that seems to be fast approaching and not knowing what it's effect will be. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Mass transit is a big investment, and I'm all for it if it's what's needed for Nashville, but I don't want to hurt our city's financial health if there's an alternative on the horizon.

On another note, what are the returns on investment for improving a city's street grid? Seems like this would be something to continue to work on (driverless cars could take advantage of the improved connectivity)

Are you saying that we do nothing?  Even if driver-less cars are widespread in ten years it's not like every single person is going to own one.  With the current growth of Nashville we have to do something now.  Not sit around and wait for something that might be ready in 20 years.