The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread

[NashvilleObserver]

1 hour ago, SoundScan said:

There is not enough space to build enough roadway to keep up with demand, and induced demand from building more and wider roadways just makes traffic worse. So, the only way you're going to have any effect on constantly increasing traffic and travel-times is to cram more commuters/travelers into the same amount space, aka, mass transit. There is no other way. Nashville (and the region) continues to grow at an accelerated rate; we can't afford to keep thinking that we're going to pave our way through.

I agree that wider roadways don't help in most cases, but I think Nashville should focus on SMARTER roadways. There are many areas around the city where poor road design causes bad bottlenecks, especially during rush hour. Navigating the 65/40 split after the on-ramp from Demonbreun is such a pain in morning rush-hour. In some places, wider exit ramps/more exit lanes would be helpful, like the OHB exit ramp and Harding Place exit ramp coming up 65 from the south.

 

[PruneTracy]

4 hours ago, SoundScan said:

There is not enough space to build enough roadway to keep up with demand, and induced demand from building more and wider roadways just makes traffic worse. So, the only way you're going to have any effect on constantly increasing traffic and travel-times is to cram more commuters/travelers into the same amount space, aka, mass transit.

The space factor works both ways. On the one hand, transit vehicles can undoubtedly carry more passengers than personal vehicles for a given amount of right-of-way, as shown below:

However, the flip side of that is that those transit vehicles have to meet a certain standard of utilization or else the available space is wasted just as it is when it's taken up by single-occupant vehicles.

To use the Amp as an example, the project consisted of removing one lane of general-purpose traffic in each direction on West End Avenue and replacing them with exclusive bus lanes for the BRT system. The maximum capacity for a road like West End is something like 1,600 passenger cars per lane per hour, we'll say each one has one occupant. Assuming the roadway is fully utilized by passenger cars, if you designate that one lane for buses, that means that the BRT system will need to carry 1,600 people per hour in one direction for the roadway as a whole to move the same number of people for its given width. 1,600 people per hour is fully-loaded buses with headways of something like two minutes, which even the Amp planners will tell you is wildly optimistic (the Amp was assumed to attract 2,300 trips per day). Same goes for rail, for which the desirable right-of-way is just a little bit narrower than a two-lane roadway; the Music City Star's max ridership ever has only been about 1,400 trips, in both directions, all day.

One might argue that in spite of this, dedicated transitways are still desirable to promote what potentially is a more efficient transportation system. But if the question is just whether we have enough land to build transportation infrastructure on then we need to take other measures to make sure that our surface systems are better utilized or else they are a net loss for mobility.

[Neigeville2]

Elevated trains have a variety of advantages, they are more pleasant to ride, look cool, are cheaper than subways, and they don't kill anybody unlike light rail running in the street.  

Rapid transit is an amenity real cities offer and we suffer a loss of status by being apparently the largest city in North America without a system.  If we didn't have tourists and business travelers, and didn't care about our image, sure, a few buses for the poor might be all we need.  Charlotte's system, looked at in purely financial terms, may not pay for itself, but people there seem to be very proud of it.  

And transit-oriented development can't start until there is transit.  I don't believe we can be a truly dense city until we've had some kind of rail system in place for a few decades.    

[titanhog]

One of the reasons I brought up the elevated rail idea is that it appears to me we are talking about spending $6 Billion on some type of mass transit in Nashville...but it comes across as throwing inadequate amounts of $ at several different pieces with none getting the amount needed to make the impact it needs to make.  Would it not be better to go all in on one piece that will have the most impact and let it grow from there?

[LA_TN]

17 hours ago, titanhog said:

Am I wrong in thinking an elevated monorail system in Nashville would best serve the most people?  No traffic.  Dedicated.  Looks cool if done right.

I know next to nothing on mass transit...so this is just my thinking without much knowledge.

Honestly? Monorail is slow. But I agree with the elevated tracks. While not as fast and smooth as a tunnel, elevated tracks allow for good speed

[grilled_cheese]

Elevated rail that runs a loop around the city and stops at the airport, Opryland Hotel, Five Points, Downtown, Vandy, 100 Oaks.

[titanhog]

8 minutes ago, LA_TN said:

Honestly? Monorail is slow. But I agree with the elevated tracks. While not as fast and smooth as a tunnel, elevated tracks allow for good speed

As mentioned, I don't know a lot about the difference between monorail, elevated trains, etc.  I'm just talking about a dedicated line without the risk of traffic congestion.

[markhollin]

Nashville businesses getting creative in addressing parking problems:

http://www.tennessean.com/story/money/2017/01/12/nashville-businesses-get-create-solve-parking-crunch/96217276/

[jmtunafish]

I wonder how something like the suspension railway in Wuppertal, Germany would work in Nashville.  It's only 8.3 miles long but has 20 stations and carries 80,000 passengers a day.  It's been in operation since 1901 and looks pretty groovy.  Something like this could easily be built on top of the CSX lines throughout the city.

[tragenvol]

12 hours ago, Neigeville2 said:

Rapid transit is an amenity real cities offer and we suffer a loss of status by being apparently the largest city in North America without a system.   

I recall when Nashville was the largest city in the U.S. without a zoo.  Perhaps "rapid transitless" Nashville will also be history sooner than later.

[VSRJ]

Am I the only one who thinks the elevated railways/monorails are incredibly unsightly? Whenever I hear about them my mind immediately goes to Detroit and Las Vegas. I certainly appreciate the potential alleviation of our transit woes, but it would come at the cost of blocked sight lines. But I'm sure someone could design one that's easier on the eyes, so I'll try to keep an open mind.

[Vrtigo]

53 minutes ago, VSRJ said:

Am I the only one who thinks the elevated railways/monorails are incredibly unsightly? Whenever I hear about them my mind immediately goes to Detroit and Las Vegas. I certainly appreciate the potential alleviation of our transit woes, but it would come at the cost of blocked sight lines. But I'm sure someone could design one that's easier on the eyes, so I'll try to keep an open mind.

Is there an example of a conventional elevated train currently in-service that was built in the past half century? Aesthetics (and the priority of such) were much different 100 years ago, so it isn't a surprise that the elevated trains which come to mind are considered ugly by today's standards. I think a lot of the sex-appeal of a "monorail" is as much as anything simply due to the fact that it's a more recent idea and those in existence are built to more modern aesthetic standards.

I absolutely agree with your last sentence that someone could design a more conventional elevated train and make it more visually appealing. In fact, I expect that any elevated trains built in the future will be exactly that.

Edited January 13, 2017 by Vrtigo

[markhollin]

Here are the key people in the legislature that need to get on board of the State is going to back a transit plan for the area:

http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2017/01/13/if-middle-tennessee-wants-transit-it-has-to-get.html

[Neigeville2]

7 hours ago, VSRJ said:

Am I the only one who thinks the elevated railways/monorails are incredibly unsightly? Whenever I hear about them my mind immediately goes to Detroit and Las Vegas. I certainly appreciate the potential alleviation of our transit woes, but it would come at the cost of blocked sight lines. But I'm sure someone could design one that's easier on the eyes, so I'll try to keep an open mind.

I don't think they're unsightly at all, in fact that Wuppertal thing is fantastic.  The gritty old cities like Chicago of course have gritty old elevated trains, but even there I think they contribute magnificently to the character of the cities.  Personally I can't stand everything to be too slick and sanitized.  Anyway I think it's a lot more appealing to have trains whizzing around overhead than hiding them underground.  Trains look cool.

[Canuck87]

7 hours ago, Vrtigo said:

Is there an example of a conventional elevated train currently in-service that was built in the past half century?

From what I can tell, the BTS Skytrain in Bankgkok, which began operating in 1999, is the most recently constructed elevated rapid transit system. The solid concrete-looking supports may not be the most aesthetically pleasing design, but overall, I don't think it's too unsightly. In fact, I tend to agree with Neigeville2 that having above ground trains could be cool.

My number one preference would still have to be a conventional underground metro, like most cities. But if forced to choose between above ground rapid transit and no rapid transit, I would accept a skytrain.

 

Edited January 14, 2017 by Canuck87

[titanhog]

^^The only thing I don't like is how noisy it is.

[VSRJ]

People complain about the power lines running across the downtown riverfront. I just can't imagine how an elevated concrete trough running anywhere near downtown would look any better. I think there's a reason why the last of these was built in 1999.

If other cities can built street-level light rail into their infrastructure, so can we.

[BnaBreaker]

Its definitely an acquired taste, but i love having the El tracks running right through my neighborhood here...provides loads of character and sense of place, and i also love hearing the noise at night of the trains passing...though admittedly if i were closer than two blocks away it might be a bit too noisy.  Haha

[Hey_Hey]

2 hours ago, VSRJ said:

People complain about the power lines running across the downtown riverfront. I just can't imagine how an elevated concrete trough running anywhere near downtown would look any better. I think there's a reason why the last of these was built in 1999.

If other cities can built street-level light rail into their infrastructure, so can we.

It's all about benefit vs harm.  The harm is the unsightliness of it.  The benefit is that we have mass transit with unobstructed right of way and no interaction with pedestrian or auto traffic.  To me, the benefit far outweighs the harm. In many cities, streetcars aren't much faster than a bus, so why spend 50x as much to have something only marginally better than a bus?

[titanhog]

9 minutes ago, Hey_Hey said:

It's all about benefit vs harm.  The harm is the unsightliness of it.  The benefit is that we have mass transit with unobstructed right of way and no interaction with pedestrian or auto traffic.  To me, the benefit far outweighs the harm. In many cities, streetcars aren't much faster than a bus, so why spend 50x as much to have something only marginally better than a bus?

And...I bet there's a way to make it less "ugly" than some of the older versions.

[rookzie]

3 hours ago, Neigeville2 said:

I don't think they're unsightly at all, in fact that Wuppertal thing is fantastic.  The gritty old cities like Chicago of course have gritty old elevated trains, but even there I think they contribute magnificently to the character of the cities.  Personally I can't stand everything to be too slick and sanitized.  Anyway I think it's a lot more appealing to have trains whizzing around overhead than hiding them underground.  Trains look cool.

I hate trains and having to ride them, you have long figured out already.

[grilled_cheese]

2 hours ago, Hey_Hey said:

It's all about benefit vs harm.  The harm is the unsightliness of it.  The benefit is that we have mass transit with unobstructed right of way and no interaction with pedestrian or auto traffic.  To me, the benefit far outweighs the harm. In many cities, streetcars aren't much faster than a bus, so why spend 50x as much to have something only marginally better than a bus?

Exactly.  The West Ender's didn't want to lost their precious turn lanes so the only other option is elevated as below ground is too expensive.  Checkmate NIMBYs.

[fieldmarshaldj]

4 hours ago, BnaBreaker said:

Its definitely an acquired taste, but i love having the El tracks running right through my neighborhood here...provides loads of character and sense of place, and i also love hearing the noise at night of the trains passing...though admittedly if i were closer than two blocks away it might be a bit too noisy.  Haha

And every time I see the trains passing, I think of Tom Cruise and Rebecca De Mornay "getting it on."

[rookzie]

On 1/13/2017 at 11:08 AM, Vrtigo said:

Is there an example of a conventional elevated train currently in-service that was built in the past half century? Aesthetics (and the priority of such) were much different 100 years ago, so it isn't a surprise that the elevated trains which come to mind are considered ugly by today's standards. I think a lot of the sex-appeal of a "monorail" is as much as anything simply due to the fact that it's a more recent idea and those in existence are built to more modern aesthetic standards.

I absolutely agree with your last sentence that someone could design a more conventional elevated train and make it more visually appealing. In fact, I expect that any elevated trains built in the future will be exactly that.

There are no new "elevateds" per se, in the conventional since.  All "EL's" or "L's" are specifically defined by their historically turn-of-the-20th-Century style (or earlier) elevated pure or structurally dominating steel girders and supports, much of which includes the open-lattice "scissors" box-girder style supports, which in some case still may found in a number of locations on Chicago's CTA.  As such, the moniker "L" refers only to "Heavy Rail Transit" (HRT), as opposed to Light Rail and does not include "Commuter Rail" by definition.  Only a handful of American cities ever operated lines which were true "L's" ─ New York, Philly, Boston, and Chicago.  While DC's WMATA "Metro" and the SF Bay Area's BART could be labeled as "elevated", they are simply "aerial", with some segments entirely so, along with segments at and below grade.

Since Boston's MBTA dismantled the last of its "L's" during the mid-late 1980s, only three cities remain with "L's", while Philly's SEPTA maintains the least percentage of elevated structure of these three (on its Market–Frankford line).  With "L" construction being a thing of the distant past, Chicago at least has managed to maintain its "L", following a period of fierce opposition against once-proposed dismantling during the 1970s.  It has managed to replace all aged, corrosion-deteriorated structural members, including total rebuilding of the supporting structure in many areas, such as along Lake Street, west of the Loop.  And while no new "L" has been constructed during most of our remaining lifespans, Chicago actually has built an entirely new "L" line ─ the Orange Line (Midway Airport-Loop) which opened in 1993.  It is not entirely elevated, however, and much of the elevated portion consists of concrete and steel in line with modern practice.

CTA's Orange (Midway-Loop) Line "L" shown with mix of old and new elevated support structure at 18th Street in the South Loop, Prairie District, the westerly branch (toward the left) partly split from the Green Line (below-right) to the South Side.

Edited January 14, 2017 by rookzie

[markhollin]