The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread

[rookzie]

10 hours 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. 

 

10 hours ago, ruraljuror said:

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.  

The dialog transpired into such a fast CNN flurry, that I nearly overlooked an apparent inference from nashville_bound's first comment.

It may be off the beaten path, but what I gleaned initially from his statement was the premise of a tire-maker's capitalistic role and effect on countering the development of advanced-capacity firms of transit, in a manner reminiscent of the alleged "Great Conspiracy" of the GM-led movement under the guise as "National City Lines", from the late 1920s into the early '50s, and which teamed up with the tire and fuel firms.  The alleged goal of National had been to displace urban-(street-car) and intercity rail as a personal affordable amenity, and once federal litigation had gotten underway, the effects already had become permanent.

So the irony appears in part as tires vs steel-on-rails (roadways vs true rapid transit), not to discount points given otherwise.

Edited June 23, 2016 by rookzie

[PruneTracy]

13 hours ago, SoundScan said:

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.

This brings up an interesting point.

Obviously Garfield is concerned about the future quality of life of his employees vis-à-vis their commute times without transit alternatives. However, all other things being equal, Bridgestone recently had an opportunity to move to a city with a relatively well-developed transit network, yet they declined to do so.

It follows that, during Bridgestone's relocation process, either:

1. Bridgestone failed to account for future commuting options for its employees and has since come to realize their error;
2. Bridgestone determined that, either organically or with the influence of their leaders like Garfield, Nashville would develop a robust transit network in time to mitigate increasing commute times;
3. Bridgestone determined that, from the perspective of its current and future employees, Nashville enjoys some benefit(s) over Chicago that outweighs the difference in transit networks between the two cities, e.g., cost of living, climate, relocation hassles, etc.; and/or
4. Bridgestone determined that, from the perspective of the company and/or its decision-making leadership, Nashville enjoys some benefit(s) over Chicago that outweigh its current and future employees suffering from a lack of transit alternatives.

In any case, it's curious that Garfield, among some other representatives of Chamber members, paint such a dire picture for the future of their employees when their firms are only recently removed from relocation decisions wherein one would assume that employee quality of life must have been a factor.

[RonCamp]

One of the things that always bugs me in this debate is that many people seem to not understand just how much money has been spent on automobile infrastructure over the years.  $5.5B for transit between now and 2040 is $2,750 per person assuming 2M people in the Nashville metro area.  That’s only $115 per person, per year, in today’s dollars. 

One of the reasons we have so many cars, and development patterns that focus on car use, is because car use is subsidized.  Free parking, free highways, etc.  If 50 years ago someone had decided to take the same principles but reverse them, and apply them instead to transit use and investment, we’d have a very different United States and particularly a very different set of cities in the Sun Belt.

I don’t think anyone is recommending that we stop funding roads, and only fund transit.  I’m certainly not.  But there’s a serious case to be made for balancing out funding priorities when it comes to transportation infrastructure.

When you plan cities for cars and traffic, you get cars and traffic. 

[Will]

12 hours ago, ruraljuror said:

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.  

For example, Vanderbilt, the largest private employer in Mid Tenn, has offered employees free MTA bus fare to/from work as well as discounts on Music City Star for years. That would be a start.

[Will]

Another flaw in the debate is that it's assumed that road commutes are somehow mandatory and that congestion is something that happens to perfectly unsuspecting people. The thing is, if you choose to live 30 miles away from work, you assume a risk that you will be delayed by any number of things, congestion included. You do that voluntarily, weighing the perceived benefits of living out there. Even if you choose a place way out in the quiet country that later becomes built up, you've assumed that risk too, unless you want to buy all the property along the roads you travel.

If it's really that bad, change where you live, where you work, or how you work. We're all adults here and we have choices.

[BnaBreaker]

17 minutes ago, RonCamp said:

One of the things that always bugs me in this debate is that many people seem to not understand just how much money has been spent on automobile infrastructure over the years.  $5.5B for transit between now and 2040 is $2,750 per person assuming 2M people in the Nashville metro area.  That’s only $115 per person, per year, in today’s dollars. 

 

One of the reasons we have so many cars, and development patterns that focus on car use, is because car use is subsidized.  Free parking, free highways, etc.  If 50 years ago someone had decided to take the same principles but reverse them, and apply them instead to transit use and investment, we’d have a very different United States and particularly a very different set of cities in the Sun Belt.

 

I don’t think anyone is recommending that we stop funding roads, and only fund transit.  I’m certainly not.  But there’s a serious case to be made for balancing out funding priorities when it comes to transportation infrastructure.

 

When you plan cities for cars and traffic, you get cars and traffic. 

 

Amen.  

[Hey_Hey]

As we move forward with technology (autonomous drive, ride sharing, etc) we need to keep in mind that the goal is NOT to develop a mass transit system.  The goal IS to develop a transportation system that moves people efficiently, safely, and inexpensively from point to point.  Mass transit is one tool used to get us to that transportation system.  Cars are another tool. Bike lanes are one more example. 

I was previously fully on board with traditional mass transit (LRT, BRT, buses), but I am now seriously questioning that approach. I now believe it is probable that traditionally designed transit systems will be largely antiquated in the next 20 years. In the setting of autonomous vehicles and powerful app-based transit tools in palms of our hands waiting on the bus or train will not be viewed favorably. 

Thats not to say that there is no role for mass transit, but it may take a different form. In fact, it could very well increase rail transit demand from people living 15-30 miles from downtown.  Think about an autonomous vehicle from home to train station in Franklin and then another autonomous vehicle from train station to work/church/school. All of which could be perfectly timed to minimize waiting on the train or autonomous vehicle. We may be able to jettison our bus system entirely. Think of the operational cost savings that we would see if that were to happen.  

We should continue to plan for transit and ways to improve our transit system, but we need serious thinkers to plan a step or two ahead as well. 

For those interested, check out Bridj and apply that technology (and inevitable improvements) to Nashville. Three years ago Uner and Lyft were newcomers to Nashville, but in that time frame they have reshape how people live and commute in Nashville.  Something like Bridj could be similar.

Edited June 23, 2016 by Hey_Hey

[kc8501]

1 hour ago, Will said:

Another flaw in the debate is that it's assumed that road commutes are somehow mandatory and that congestion is something that happens to perfectly unsuspecting people. The thing is, if you choose to live 30 miles away from work, you assume a risk that you will be delayed by any number of things, congestion included. You do that voluntarily, weighing the perceived benefits of living out there. Even if you choose a place way out in the quiet country that later becomes built up, you've assumed that risk too, unless you want to buy all the property along the roads you travel.

If it's really that bad, change where you live, where you work, or how you work. We're all adults here and we have choices.

This is true, but often, as is my case, you move somewhere and purchase a home within a reasonable distance to work. Then something happens to the job and the next thing you know, you're commuting 27 miles because that's where the job is.  Fortunately there is a rapid transit bus I can take. That being said, just moving or getting another job isn't always an option. Moving closer brings costs, especially in this market, that are unfeasible and while you can look for a closer job, people have little control over that as well. So we make a choice; I choose to ride the RTA bus, but I would love more options because even on the bus traffic can be ridiculous.

[markhollin]

How bad does business in Nashville MSA want better transit plan?  Chamber of Commerce sees a long, pricey campaign ahead:

http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2016/06/23/how-bad-does-business-want-more-transit-chamber.html?s=print

Transit technology: won't we have flying cars within a hundred years?

http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2016/06/23/transit-technology-wont-we-have-flying-cars-by.html

[Guest]

not just automated personal transportation....total transportation and parking management brought to you by Google...

 

Google/Alphabet spin-of Sidewalk wants to change public transportation and parking...

Edited June 27, 2016 by Guest

[grilled_cheese]

Same excuse, different plan.  They don't want anything to do with mass transit.

 

http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/local/williamson/2016/06/27/brentwood-committee-votes-against-additional-commuter-bus-stop/86437392/

Edited June 28, 2016 by grilled_cheese

[Nathan_in_DC]

9 hours ago, grilled_cheese said:

Same excuse, different plan.  They don't want anything to do with mass transit.

 

http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/local/williamson/2016/06/27/brentwood-committee-votes-against-additional-commuter-bus-stop/86437392/

Quote:  "I struggle with the cost of ridership versus what the average Brentwood citizen pays in city taxes," Commissioner Mark Gorman said. "I struggle with someone receiving more benefit than what they're paying with taxes."

Seriously? SERIOUSLY? I'm as libertarian as they come, but that's such an asinine comment, it's infuriating. Anyone who somehow manages to get more out of the government value-wise than the amount they pay into the system in taxes is somehow scamming it? As in, anyone who, let's say, makes $25k a year, but uses roads to get to work? Or a poor family who rents an apartment but sends their kid to public school? This guy just doesn't get it. If you're going to have taxes, you're going to have some people who pay more than others, and some who get more out of the system than they pay out. It's just how it works.

Edited June 28, 2016 by Nathan_in_DC

[farm_boy]

Rookzie can probably clarify the details:

Brentwood had a stop on the bus route in Brentwood (I think on Maryland Farms) until the city council decided last year to stop funding it, because of very low ridership. I believe this was an attempt to regain a bus stop on this route, but this time it would be on Concord Rd.

The numbers are about the same 40k+ for the stop. Was averaging 7-8 riders per day before. Honestly, I think it's hard to say either way anything good or bad about this - so it is not appropriate to ridicule the council members. I think we would all like to see it as an alternative solution to driving; but the numbers don't add up. Unfortunately, some of the previous riders had disabilities and other reasons that made the stop invaluable; but that is lost on Concord Rd.

[PruneTracy]

2 hours ago, farm_boy said:

The numbers are about the same 40k+ for the stop. Was averaging 7-8 riders per day before. Honestly, I think it's hard to say either way anything good or bad about this - so it is not appropriate to ridicule the council members. I think we would all like to see it as an alternative solution to driving; but the numbers don't add up.

It would be interesting to see an breakdown of what RTA would do with the nearly $88,000 Brentwood would have paid over two years for this service.

How much of this cost directly goes to supporting the additional ridership from this stop? In other words, how much additional money does it cost RTA to stop at Concord Road and pick-up/drop-off a certain number of Brentwood commuters versus bypassing the city?

Or, is the subsidy intended to have Brentwood pitch in for the entire route (as I assume Franklin and perhaps Metro do as well)? If this is the case, is the additional money Brentwood pays into the system, beyond the actual costs of the service, worth the real and intrinsic benefits of providing another transit option for a certain number of their residents?

[Guest]

PT, all great questions...
The consultants and studies that the MTA and RTA tout to recommend these routes should provide reports detailing selection criteria before the routes are approved and user/cost information annually ... otherwise how is any efficiency being monitored?

Edited June 29, 2016 by Guest

[Nathan_in_DC]

13 hours ago, farm_boy said:

Rookzie can probably clarify the details:

Brentwood had a stop on the bus route in Brentwood (I think on Maryland Farms) until the city council decided last year to stop funding it, because of very low ridership. I believe this was an attempt to regain a bus stop on this route, but this time it would be on Concord Rd.

The numbers are about the same 40k+ for the stop. Was averaging 7-8 riders per day before. Honestly, I think it's hard to say either way anything good or bad about this - so it is not appropriate to ridicule the council members. I think we would all like to see it as an alternative solution to driving; but the numbers don't add up. Unfortunately, some of the previous riders had disabilities and other reasons that made the stop invaluable; but that is lost on Concord Rd.

I should clarify: I don't have a problem with the removal of the stop per se, especially if it only has a couple of riders per day. I have a problem with Mark Gorman's quote above. 

[PruneTracy]

10 hours ago, Nathan_in_DC said:

I have a problem with Mark Gorman's quote above. 

I guess it depends.

To elaborate on my comment above, there are two ways this could go down.

One is that the money that Brentwood would pay into the system would only cover the costs of providing that additional stop to Brentwood residents. In that case, the money from Brentwood tax coffers would be spent on Brentwood residents, and while those residents would likely receive more in benefits than they paid in taxes, that is, indeed, sort of the point.

But the other is that Brentwood pays more than the operating costs of the stop, meaning that Brentwood tax money goes to the operations of the 91X route, or perhaps the RTA system as a whole. Money that crosses municipal boundaries is a different ballgame. Do Brentwood residents want their city tax money used to benefit residents of other cities? Are they willing to pay on principle, in the name of reducing congestion, air pollution, etc.? In the case of the route, is that money sent outside the city worth the benefits of reducing pass-through traffic on I-65 and Franklin Pike? Can those benefits be quantified? Given retail sales and traffic citations, is that even a benefit?

To be clear, I think the quote means what I assume you think as well: the guy doesn't want to spend money on people who he believes aren't paying it in, period. Sort of an odd philosophy, since that more or less eliminates the need for government. But it brings up an interesting point about the role of satellite cities in the regional transportation network. By necessity, residents of these cities aren't exactly civic-minded when it comes to the region, and we often complain about the unsustainability of suburban sprawl. But to what extent can we expect them to use municipal taxes on regional projects?

[Will]

Definitely important issues to understand for the RTA. Maybe Brentwood and other municipalities will decide they don't want to contribute to the RTA pot since they will always suffer at least a perceived lack of benefits compared to Nashville under a regional transit budget. If so, another approach would be some kind of Nashville congestion charge or priority highway lane pricing, which would be a very tangible incentive to alter commuting patterns and modes. People would hate it, but it could work.

[MLBrumby]

The RTA plans to get behind a recommendation to relocate Radnor Yards to free the CSX lines through Nashville. CSX has not shot down the idea.  It would cost an estimated $767 million to relocate and build a new freight yard, but it appears less expensive than building completely new lines along as-yet-determined rights of way.  Could be a win-win-win for CSX, the community and businesses that use the yard. Smyrna is one place mentioned. Glad multiple options are being explored. 

From the Tennessean: http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2016/07/04/moving-radnor-yard-could-game-changer-nashville-transit/86468984/ 

[Neigeville2]

1 hour ago, MLBrumby said:

The RTA plans to get behind a recommendation to relocate Radnor Yards to free the CSX lines through Nashville. CSX has not shot down the idea.  It would cost an estimated $767 million to relocate and build a new freight yard, but it appears less expensive than building completely new lines along as-yet-determined rights of way.  Could be a win-win-win for CSX, the community and businesses that use the yard. Smyrna is one place mentioned. Glad multiple options are being explored. 

From the Tennessean: http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2016/07/04/moving-radnor-yard-could-game-changer-nashville-transit/86468984/ 

A very exciting idea.  It not only clears up tracks for transit, but opens up 500 acres for transit-oriented development.  It's like Maytown without any excuse for Nimbys to gripe, since anything short of a meat-packing plant is a better neighbor than what's there now.  As an office park area it could be more alluring than Cool Springs and cheaper than downtown.  And it allows some percentage of truck traffic to bypass Nashville.  If the details can be worked out, this could be a good long term investment for the city.

[markhollin]

^ ^ ^ As a point of reference, here is a map showing exactly where Radnor Yards sits, and how its 500+ acres is distributed around the 100 Oaks area.  This is a very exciting possibility.

[volsfanwill]

need to move the downtown yards too, by union station. for a new centralized train station.  what is that one called Rookzie?

[rookzie]

I'm actually a bit unresolved to think that a clear and conclusive solution lies with the goal of relocating Radnor within Middle Tenn.  Until I can hear or read about some well-defined rationale in a plan to handle the geographic movements of main-line freights through the area as a whole, then I really am not convinced of any real resolution with such a move.

Yes, Radnor itself would be gone, but that in and of itself does nothing to divert these movements passing through the city from the several railway sub-divisions ─ West, NNW, NNE, SE and South ─ spoking into CSXT Nashville Terminal, which includes Radnor.  Not all the movements passing through the city pass through Radnor, and in fact many bypass Radnor, so I don’t quite buy TDOT’s argument with Joffrion’s statement of the purported benefit of relocating Radnor for that purpose.  Nissan is not the only bread and butter in the region for CSXT, as there also is GM as well, in Spring Hill, on the S&NA (North and South Alabama Sub-Division).  Logistically, the freights on these various main-lines cannot be easily diverted around Nashville, without some major infrastructure addition or without some disadvantage to the carrier incurred with circuitous re-routing to bypass the city as, the tracks are now established, and nearly all these (if not actually all) routes provide a remote interchange point for freights with other lines (Memphis, Birmingham, Cincinnati, Louisville, Chicago, Chatta,...)

And this is only an aside from the mention of long-term "environmental" impact on the concentration of activities on the West- and East Banks of downtown (which pale in comparison to the around-the-clock activity of Radnor). Then there's the Cockrill Bend Industrial complex, which is no small operation.  All this customer base collectively constitutes rail activity which requires the classification procedures handled by a facility like Radnor, where freight cars to and from a major classification yard must be handled by local switching.  If they want to do away with Radnor, then they also need to deal with Kayne Ave in the Gulch, since Kayne is the primary staging point for local switching in the districts just mentioned, an intermediate point of handling for locally confined movements of cars to and from Radnor as the “final-“or “initial- terminal” break-up or assimilation of main-line trains.  To relocate Radnor, say, to Rutherford Co., would mean higher tariff rates to local customers for drayage and car spotting along stub spurs.  This could ramify favorably with the result of a CSXT election to abandon these local districts and with a takeover purchase by a regional short-line, such as the passenger-friendly Nashville and Eastern RR.

My point is that relocation of a major railroad facility as Radnor affects collaterally the remaining brick-and-mortar mercantile operations, which the city seems totally oblivious to within its own backyard.  The CSXT couldn’t really care less about the calculable effects on local business in Davidson Co., since it cares most about its lucrative mineral- and intermodal (containerized) movements. I’d be all for re-purposing Radnor, but not without a more comprehensive analysis of collateral ramifications on the local industrial eco-system, and TDOT and other proposal makers need to re-scope they vision, if they’re entertaining the concept with such a huge order of magnitude in funding.

 

Edited July 6, 2016 by rookzie

[bigeasy]

I think this just kinda shows how big of a failure AMP would have been. Buses just are not "sexy" enough for people in Nashville. I am kinda surprised to see that there even was a bus route in Brentwood. Is there a statistic somewhere that shows what the average riders per bus is for Nashville? Not just that one route, but overall. And then to another point, what areas have the highest amount of usage?

I live in Lenox Village and we have a stop there and in the two years I have lived there I have never seen one person on the bus. I am sure it gets used some at previous stops, but it is always crazy seeing one pull up with two sections and not one rider gets on/off. 

[shanky]

I think the AMP could have succeeded but the flaw with it, (as far as I'm concerned) was that the route was designed to go where it wasn't wanted.  There are socio-economic factors to be considered when designing mass transit.  It should be in place where people are going to use it.  Had Dean taken a practical approach and proposed it for Charlotte as opposed to West End, there would have been much less resistence to the idea, and had it actually been built would have served a population that actually would have used it. 

The same could be said for MTA routes to Brentwood.  There's a reason people in Brentwood don't use transit;  their not poor enough.  And to be perfectly honest, there's a stigma attached to using transit in areas like Brentwood.  This isn't to say that it wouldn't succeed there eventually, but we need to start alleviating traffic in ways that are significant now, meaning taking it to those areas where people will use it.

There are obvious political obstacles in the way for mass transit here, but till we consider the socio-economic advantages, transit will struggle to get going.