The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread

[markhollin]

Nashville Chamber of Commerce travels to Twin Cities to study their successful mass transit system:

http://www.tennessean.com/story/money/homes/2016/06/12/chambers-annual-trip-focuses-transit-successes/85568258/

[markhollin]

BNA set a new record on Monday with over 24,000 departing passengers.  Also set a new single day record processing 16,095 bags.

http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2016/06/14/nashville-international-airport-breaks-record-for.html

[MLBrumby]

CofC backs $5.5B budget buster transit.  From the Tennessean.... http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2016/06/22/nashville-chamber-backs-robust-costly-regional-transit-plan/86157520/

From NBJ...  http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2016/06/22/business-leaders-5-5b-of-light-rail-and-speedy.html

I do find the proposal to relocate the Radnor Yards and LRT to/from BNA to be intriguing. 

 

Edited June 22, 2016 by MLBrumby

[shanky]

I read with great interest the differing proposals for transit on this site, and in the local press. The problem is having a plan that can be executed.  That isn't to say that it can't be done, but the political realities as they currently exist at the state level does not give me much hope in the near term.  The majority political party are so philosophically opposed to mass transit in any form that it renders these ideas simply as a wish-list.  Without funding from the state transit will not happen, and they have not shown any interest in funding. Some day this will no doubt change, but it may take 10 to 20 years.

However, I do appreciate that mass transit is being discussed and some action is being taken.  When the time comes and the city can finally take action and with the cooperation of the state, and do something, hopefully we will have a plan in place.  In the meantime I hope that these guys spend a lot of time stuck in metro Nashville traffic as they meander back and forth from their rural outposts.

[rookzie]

1 hour ago, shanky said:

I read with great interest the differing proposals for transit on this site, and in the local press. The problem is having a plan that can be executed.  That isn't to say that it can't be done, but the political realities as they currently exist at the state level does not give me much hope in the near term.  The majority political party are so philosophically opposed to mass transit in any form that it renders these ideas simply as a wish-list.  Without funding from the state transit will not happen, and they have not shown any interest in funding. Some day this will no doubt change, but it may take 10 to 20 years.

However, I do appreciate that mass transit is being discussed and some action is being taken.  When the time comes and the city can finally take action and with the cooperation of the state, and do something, hopefully we will have a plan in place.  In the meantime I hope that these guys spend a lot of time stuck in metro Nashville traffic as they meander back and forth from their rural outposts.

Hell, Yeah!  That's what I have said all along.  It often takes the misery of "constipation" before anything can get "through".

As has been the rule and the refrain by the choir, far too many opportunities have been forgone with the irreversible loss of "repurpose-able" resources throughout the core and within outlying districts (e.g. Green Hills), such that the costs for even a basic system framework will end up costing up to 4 times as much as it would have, had it been physically implemented as a start, as recently as 8-10 years ago.

Edited June 22, 2016 by rookzie

[markhollin]

Another summary of mass transit options from NBJ besides the link that MLBrumby gave above.  This shows that Gallatin might be the next in line for rail because of right-of-way that is available along Vietnam Vets Parkway:

http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2016/06/22/this-nashville-area-is-best-poised-to-get-newmass.html

[Guest]

The 'majority party' 's reluctance to blindly accept the mass-transit, pie-in-the-sky proposals is actually good governance. Fiscal discipline is why they are not enthusiastically opening the state's wallet to what is historically a boondoggle!

IMO, they need to start by being transparent on funding - select a small part of the project and prove they can complete it on time and on budget. Honesty and competence can go a long way towards convincing the powers that be of a minimal downside.

 

3 hours ago, shanky said:

I read with great interest the differing proposals for transit on this site, and in the local press. The problem is having a plan that can be executed.  That isn't to say that it can't be done, but the political realities as they currently exist at the state level does not give me much hope in the near term.  The majority political party are so philosophically opposed to mass transit in any form that it renders these ideas simply as a wish-list.  Without funding from the state transit will not happen, and they have not shown any interest in funding. Some day this will no doubt change, but it may take 10 to 20 years.

However, I do appreciate that mass transit is being discussed and some action is being taken.  When the time comes and the city can finally take action and with the cooperation of the state, and do something, hopefully we will have a plan in place.  In the meantime I hope that these guys spend a lot of time stuck in metro Nashville traffic as they meander back and forth from their rural outposts.

 

Edited June 22, 2016 by Guest

[SoundScan]

Interesting that they seem to be far less reluctant to fund highway projects that generally provide zero relief to traffic congestion issues. America used to take big and bold steps to tackle issues with infrastructure but now can only limp along until the next disaster forces action--at which point the original costs to fix have multiplied. The irony of the "historical boondoggles" is that many (most?) are the creation of the very politicians who use them as a scapegoat, either as a result of no-bid/preferred-bid contracts to their "friends" or forcing the acceptance of lowest-bid contracts through legislation.

[nashvylle]

Can someone please explain to me why we can't have buses on the shoulders of the interstates (from all the outer counties) starting today, right now?

[donNdonelson2]

Because they are not consistently wide enough, especially on bridges and overpasses. Also because shoulders are for emergency pull-overs...flat tires and blown radiators, etc. are still pretty common! 

[titanhog]

1 hour ago, SoundScan said:

Interesting that they seem to be far less reluctant to fund highway projects that generally provide zero relief to traffic congestion issues. America used to take big and bold steps to tackle issues with infrastructure but now can only limp along until the next disaster forces action--at which point the original costs to fix have multiplied. The irony of the "historical boondoggles" is that many (most?) are the creation of the very politicians who use them as a scapegoat, either as a result of no-bid/preferred-bid contracts to their "friends" or forcing the acceptance of lowest-bid contracts through legislation.

But highway projects still are going to help the most people...or the majority of people.  Even if / when we have better public transportation, more people will use the highways.  So...we can't forego the highway infrastructure in place of mass transit. Mass transit has to be an "add-on".  

[nashvylle]

12 minutes ago, donNdonelson2 said:

Because they are not consistently wide enough, especially on bridges and overpasses. Also because shoulders are for emergency pull-overs...flat tires and blown radiators, etc. are still pretty common! 

The buses can still relocate onto the regular lanes if need be, though... 

[PruneTracy]

1 hour ago, nashvylle said:

Can someone please explain to me why we can't have buses on the shoulders of the interstates (from all the outer counties) starting today, right now?

49 minutes ago, donNdonelson2 said:

Because they are not consistently wide enough, especially on bridges and overpasses. Also because shoulders are for emergency pull-overs...flat tires and blown radiators, etc. are still pretty common! 

In addition to the above, TDOT uses a slightly different asphalt mix on the shoulders than they do the travel lanes, which isn't designed to handle the loads of regular traffic. This is why you'll often see contractors overlay the shoulders with new pavement prior to lane shifts for construction projects. Obviously BOS doesn't introduce much extra load onto shoulder pavement, but it will to some extent shorten its useful life.

Another complication is interchanges, particularly off-ramps that may become congested. There are conflict points between BOS and entering/exiting traffic here and use of the shoulder by transit vehicles can violate driver expectations, particularly in new systems.

46 minutes ago, nashvylle said:

The buses can still relocate onto the regular lanes if need be, though... 

In most BOS systems, buses use the travel lanes for the majority of the trip. Most have a hard speed limit of 35 miles per hour while operating on the shoulder; in addition, the speed differential between buses and vehicles in the travel lanes can't exceed 15 miles per hour.

In other words, buses won't use the shoulder unless vehicle speed in the travel lanes is less than 35 miles per hour, and in the worst-case scenario (traffic completely stopped) they have a maximum speed of 15 miles per hour anyway.

If TDOT were to hypothetically do a BOS study of the existing Interstate corridors, they would hypothetically find that the only segments of freeway where BOS provides a travel time benefit (e.g., where travel speeds routinely drop below 35 miles per hour) are segments where physical shoulder constraints (such as bridges, retaining walls, etc.) are common enough to preclude its use.

I think the Nashville MPO included some of this information in its managed lanes study, if you care to look.

http://www.nashvillempo.org/publications_docs/activities/view_study.aspx?id=5

[Rockatansky]

2 hours ago, nashville_bound said:

select a small part of the project and prove they can complete it on time and on budget.

Were you not here for the AMP debate? This is exactly why the AMP was proposed - to kick off the system with a small, well supported route that could be used as an example for other routes. But those who oppose transit said there needed to be a comprehensive plan in place first. Now that the plan is starting to emerge, opponents have reversed course with the argument you're making. Le sigh.

Edited June 22, 2016 by Rockatansky

[Guest]

I have been present and accounted on this board for for quite a while...much longer than yourself.

AMP was a failure from the beginning.....minimal input from many of the impacted communities for a plan that was ass-backwards..... they stated the route and mode and then decide to get input from the stakeholders... it did not go as expected. 

Identify a need (say a link from downtown to the airport) hold community input meetings, propose solutions that hopefully takes the non-skewed work product into account, produce the best compromise and DETAIL funding, costs, construction timelines...if they are reasonable and funding is found build the project and then check the final result against the projections. Pretty simple really...

22 minutes ago, Rockatansky said:

Were you not here for the AMP debate? This is exactly why the AMP was proposed - to kick off the system with a small, well supported route that could be used as an example for other routes. But those who oppose transit said there needed to be a comprehensive plan in place first. Now that the plan is starting to emerge, opponents have reversed course with the argument you're making. Le sigh.

 

Edited June 22, 2016 by Guest
typo

[PruneTracy]

11 minutes ago, nashville_bound said:

AMP was a failure from the beginning.....minimal input from many of the impacted communities for a plan that was ass-backwards..... they stated the route and mode and then decide to get input from the stakeholders... it did not go as expected.

As I've said on here before, this was primarily a branding issue. MTA held plenty of public input sessions for what became the Amp, but at the time it was called the Broadway-West End Corridor Study, then the East-West Corridor Study when the extension to Five Points was thrown in the mix.

In the pre-Amp phases, the only given was the general routing from downtown to Belle Meade (though the study looked at Demonbreun and Division as well as West End). The mode was not; in fact, trams or streetcars were the front-runner among MTA and the public alike until the cost estimates came in. The extension to East Nashville was also a product of stakeholder input (a detrimental one IMO as the routing through downtown is technically challenging without providing a lot of benefit, and besides, this is why we have a transfer hub in Music City Central).

Generally, the problem was that, with the name change, MTA presented this plan as a new product, and all of the people who didn't show up for the meetings under the unsexy Corridor Study names saw it as a fait accompli.

[markhollin]

Nashville Post's take on the Chamber of Commerce's recommendations on a bold transit vision:

http://www.nashvillepost.com/business/transportation/article/20826333/chamber-aims-for-bold-transit-vision

Besides adopting the $5.4 billion top plan, here are 9 more primary recommendations:

• Designing high-capacity transit — most likely rail — between Nashville and Clarksville, Franklin and Spring Hill, Gallatin, Lebanon and Murfreesboro
• Urging Metro Mayor Megan Barry to develop a plan for downtown access across all modes of transit by the end of this year
• Recommending agencies giving priority for transit projects to communities with a planning focus on density and with strong public support
• having MTA include a connection to Nashville International Airport on the light rail line planned for Murfreesboro Road
• Working with officials from across the region to move the CSX Radnor Rail Yard from its current landlocked location on Interstate 65 to an outlying community
• Requesting the state develop, fund and staff the Office of Public-Private Partnerships within a year
• Recommending public discussion of transit planning in each Nashville-area county twice annually.
• Having the Metropolitan Planning Organization quantify the investments needed to implement intelligent transportation systems in each jurisdiction
• Recommending that the MTA and RTA report include reference to how to integrate self driving cars into the wider system

[markhollin]

Bridgestone CEO portends "dire" Nashville future without a bold mass transit plan:

http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2016/06/22/bridgestone-ceo-portends-dire-future-without-bold.html

"With growth comes traffic congestion and gridlock. And so today we are at a crossroads. Do we address our aging and obsolete transportation infrastructure, or do we not? If we do nothing, our quality of life in Middle Tennessee will necessarily decline substantially. Our (average) daily travel times will grow from 48 minutes today to an hour and 36 minutes, by 2040. It means parents will often miss a child’s bedtime or Little League game because of traffic gridlock. Businesses will start to add jobs in other cities, outside of Middle Tennessee and Nashville, because it is too difficult for employees here to get to work. And as traffic congestion grows, our air quality will decline, and in turn, so will our health. Parents, and entrepreneurs starting a business, will have an increasing difficulty finding a place to live because the cost of housing … will continue to grow precipitously. This is our likely future if we do nothing. That will be the price of inaction."    -Gary Garfield, CEO, Bridgestone

[Guest]

I love that Bridgestone built downtown... However I find it highly hypocritical that a company would accept a 20-year property tax abatement and $100 MIL in tax incentives and then cry that Nashville must invest in infrastructure ..... they add to the congestion and then absolve themselves of paying for the solution?!?! |
Crony Capitalism at its finest.

 

[SoundScan]

You're right. Instead Bridgestone could have moved their operations to Chicago (the other leading relocation candidate) where there is already a substantial and mature multi-modal transit infrastructure. The financial and tax incentives would have been similar. We'd of course lose out on 1500 high-paying jobs, but at least we wouldn't have to worry about investing in our own infrastructure, because no one would be here to use it.

[Guest]

SS - maybe you should reread my post, 

"I love that Bridgestone built downtown..."

That does not absolve them of their hypocrisy...well not in my eyes... I will not speak for you.

[ruraljuror]

1 hour ago, nashville_bound said:

SS - maybe you should reread my post, 

"I love that Bridgestone built downtown..."

That does not absolve them of their hypocrisy...well not in my eyes... I will not speak for you.

As SS pointed out, the subsidies provided to Bridgestone would have been matched or surpassed by many other cities in the running for the HQ.  This is a natural result of cities/states in direct competition.  Is it a race to the bottom or do those subsidies represent the fair market value of the HQ based on the speculative economic impact of such a relocation? I don't know, but in either case it's pretty hard to blame crony capitalism considering all the other bidders were governments as well.  Pretty hard to blame Bridgestone too, other than whatever small part they've contributed to the lobbying campaigns that have led to the point where these kind of incentives are not only permitted, but expected and necessary to close the deal.  

I also think it should be noted that the 1500 employees that Bridgestone brings downtown will be paying taxes, which in turn will help fund the transit system.  Those taxes will only be one degree removed from Bridgestone's profit line, so it's not like they're not contributing to the cause.  As you know, this is one of the main reasons that urban planning enthusiasts like us are so pro-density--it increases the tax base and can help fund infrastructure improvements.  

More importantly, the statements by the Bridgestone CEO that we're talking about here were not in response to a fundraising request.  For all we know, maybe Bridgestone corporate would be willing to chip in?  After having made this strong of a public statement on the matter,  I suspect they'd pretty much have to provide some resources to support the effort were anyone to ask.  That said, IMHO it just sounded like the CEO was pointing out a very obvious issue that should probably be addressed by the city if we want to continue growing and flourishing.  Given that he's the head of a company that produces tires, I would guess that he has less of a vested interest in promoting generalized mass transit solutions than he does in making sure Nashville thrives so that building a skyscraper here doesn't seem like a bonehead move in 5 years.  

 

 

[Guest]

RJ, I hope you are correct. It seems the chamber announcement would have provided just the stage for Nashville's Corporate community to have announced their funding to jumpstart the race for the money. I will drop this subject and save my virtual breath. 

[ruraljuror]

3 minutes ago, nashville_bound said:

RJ, I hope you are correct. It seems the chamber announcement would have provided just the stage for Nashville's Corporate community to have announced their funding to jumpstart the race for the money. I will drop this subject and save my virtual breath. 

Good point.  A lot less talk and a little more action would have gone a long way to drive the point home on Bridgestone's part.  

[Dale]

Proof-positive that flagging infrastructure deters neither relocations nor rapid population growth. Corporations and people belly-ache about it ... and keep coming. Look at Tampa for another example.