The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread

[nashvylle]

2 hours ago, nashville_bound said:

Adding this without commentary - just FYI

Emerging technologies for commuting

Nashville can't build underground for the hyperlope. 

Nashville has too many telephone poles for the drone cars! (Wish I was kidding).

[MLBrumby]

More on the proposed LRT on Gallatin Road (and other routes)... http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2017/04/28/what-could-light-rail-nashvilles-gallatin-pike-look-like/100976216/

[markhollin]

Proposed Metro ordinance would require traffic studies from developers:

http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2017/05/01/proposed-metro-ordinance-would-require-traffic.html

Here is the full text of the proposed ordinance:

http://www.nashville.gov/mc/ordinances/term_2015_2019/bl2017_721.htm

[rookzie]

On 4/29/2017 at 7:25 AM, MLBrumby said:

More on the proposed LRT on Gallatin Road (and other routes)... http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2017/04/28/what-could-light-rail-nashvilles-gallatin-pike-look-like/100976216/

 

From that Tennessean article:

Quote

"...When compared to other modes of transit like bus rapid transit, which operates on wheels, he said he believes light rail has greater potential to spur new development. "

I'm finally glad to have my doubt clarified that BRT's run on wheels, compared to LRT trains.  I always thought LRT's just floated... ツ=-

(Of course, Mr. Bland hadn't intended to be misinterpreted...)

Edited May 1, 2017 by rookzie

[AronG]

56 minutes ago, markhollin said:

Proposed Metro ordinance would require traffic studies from developers:

http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2017/05/01/proposed-metro-ordinance-would-require-traffic.html

Here is the full text of the proposed ordinance:

http://www.nashville.gov/mc/ordinances/term_2015_2019/bl2017_721.htm

Although I can understand the instinct to legislate something like this, it sounds like a bad idea that would yield negative results. Particularly in the dense areas of town, it's just going to provide another rallying cry for NIMBY resistance to any sizable development, and it's not going to result in any real useful mitigation options. In big cities with lots of people, the roads get crowded. The mitigation strategies that scale up beyond our current size are (A) mass transit, and (B) people choosing to live close enough to where they work that walking and biking become viable options. I don't see how it helps either of those to make every development bigger than 75 dwelling units jump through extra hoops and face additional scrutiny, but I do see how it would add a subtle nudge for developers to scale down their ambitions and/or displace some projects towards superhighways instead of dense street grids.

[volsfanwill]

On 4/27/2017 at 5:31 PM, PaulChinetti said:

Everyone seems to think, we can just snap our fingers and boom public transportation will happen. It'll have to be woven into the fiber of the city, we have all these disconnected areas (the area around rose pepper, midtown, the area around Melrose) and once they are connected those areas will build up and there will be winners and losers for sure but just doing nothing is beyond short sighted. 

I always want to scream and bonk people over the head who shout, that doing anything that's not perfect right away is not worth doing. It's gonna take time, the NYC or Underground or any of the big ones weren't built in a day. It's gonna take time and pain but in the end it'll be worth it. 

/rant, Draft time! #titanup

Ironically, a street car used to service the area of Rose pepper Cantina.  Here is a map I posted back in 2013. with the lines over the current street grid.

trolleys1913all by willfry, on Flickr

[PaulChinetti]

@volsfanwill I would love that very much right now. 

I would think that, that would take a serious amount of cars off the roads.

[Guest]

Knoxville seems to be looking in the right direction....

Olli coming to Knoxville

[nashvylle]

we have buses now.. not having to pay a driver will be cheaper for Metro, but it won't help our main problem - transporting more people throughout our city faster. 

[Guest]

Isn't a major thrust of the 6 Billion dollar (...we know it will cost much more) plan an increase in Bus service via BRT? 

I think people are too quick to dismiss the emerging transportation technologies. 

Personally, some questions I would ask are -

1) Cost per passenger mile of Ollie vs. BRT. Capital and ongoing operational.

2) Does the autonomy allowed by the technology increase or decrease the passenger experience? Does the smaller size allow for more frequent service and/or more flexibility in routing?

3) How many cars would Ollie remove from the roads? How does that compare to bus service? LRT?

4) Does Ollie have a less negative or more negative impact on drivers?
 

[fieldmarshaldj]

4 hours ago, PaulChinetti said:

@volsfanwill I would love that very much right now. 

I would think that, that would take a serious amount of cars off the roads.

I doubt it would even reduce traffic by 5-10%, if that. Very few want to give up the convenience of their cars, and why spending what would be in the billions for light rail is a boondoggle and dreadful waste of taxpayer money. A large reason the trolley lines were removed was because they were an impediment to auto traffic.

[nashvylle]

19 minutes ago, fieldmarshaldj said:

I doubt it would even reduce traffic by 5-10%, if that. Very few want to give up the convenience of their cars, and why spending what would be in the billions for light rail is a boondoggle and dreadful waste of taxpayer money. A large reason the trolley lines were removed was because they were an impediment to auto traffic.

They were an impediment to auto traffic when they were removed.

More people now do not want to be a slave to their cars. That's why you see so many more cities investing in mass transit. 

[PaulChinetti]

I think it's started changing but it's not gonna happen at all once but we have to start changing peoples minds about cars, gotta start somewhere. 

I would love to not have to drive my car around the city, I try to do it as little as possible now.

[claya91]

Trolleys could be the difference between someone driving impaired down Nashville's arteries and getting that ride they need. They'd also be perfect for those not looking to pay 10 or 20 dollars for a 1 or 2 mile trip. Nashville is too dependent on ridesharing and parking options are shrinking. If we kept the scale of the lines small, they might be an affordable option for transportation in and around Downtown. 

[fieldmarshaldj]

37 minutes ago, nashvylle said:

They were an impediment to auto traffic when they were removed.

More people now do not want to be a slave to their cars. That's why you see so many more cities investing in mass transit. 

That first comment makes absolutely no sense. Trolley cars impeded traffic and would frequently cause jams and accidents, especially when more and more people owned autos. Go look at old film footage of city traffic in the early to mid 20th century. When given the opportunity to go places on their own schedule and convenience, people preferred cars. You may have a small number of folks that feel they are "slaves" to their cars, but the overwhelming majority do not. People hate traffic, to be sure, but the auto represents freedom, and the overwhelming majority won't stand for being coerced to bend their schedules and freedom to a government-set public transit schedule. Unless you can find a way to make it more convenient to folks and cost-efficient, it won't be anything more than pie-in-the-sky.

3 minutes ago, claya91 said:

Trolleys could be the difference between someone driving impaired down Nashville's arteries and getting that ride they need. They'd also be perfect for those not looking to pay 10 or 20 dollars for a 1 or 2 mile trip. Nashville is too dependent on ridesharing and parking options are shrinking. If we kept the scale of the lines small, they might be an affordable option for transportation in and around Downtown. 

It just won't sell for the billions in costs to the taxpayer.

[RonCamp]

43 minutes ago, fieldmarshaldj said:

...but the auto represents freedom...

I would argue that freedom to choose between various viable transportation modes to get you between your current location and desired destination - i.e. you could walk, bike, take BRT, take light rail, take a rideshare, or drive - would really represent freedom.  If a private car is your only option for getting from Point A to Point B, well, that isn't really freedom at all.

[claya91]

50 minutes ago, fieldmarshaldj said:

That first comment makes absolutely no sense. Trolley cars impeded traffic and would frequently cause jams and accidents, especially when more and more people owned autos. Go look at old film footage of city traffic in the early to mid 20th century. When given the opportunity to go places on their own schedule and convenience, people preferred cars. You may have a small number of folks that feel they are "slaves" to their cars, but the overwhelming majority do not. People hate traffic, to be sure, but the auto represents freedom, and the overwhelming majority won't stand for being coerced to bend their schedules and freedom to a government-set public transit schedule. Unless you can find a way to make it more convenient to folks and cost-efficient, it won't be anything more than pie-in-the-sky.

It just won't sell for the billions in costs to the taxpayer.

The development of interstates allowed for the suburbanization that made Nashville so car dependent. Why do you think BNA is the sprawling metro it is today? This dependence made trolleys less feasible then and it's also the reason we are "enslaved" today. We all prefer cars but why people endlessly defend them given the insurmountable issues they present in urban areas, I will never understand. I also disagree that the automobile represents freedom given the ongoing decade long discussion on Nashville's traffic problem. In the mid 20th century people commuted to Nashville. DT was nowhere near as dense, had nowhere near as people living there, and didn't have mobs of tourists on every block of Broadway and Demonbreun trying to get around the core. Taxpayers wouldn't get hit with a multi billion dollar tab for such a project and you could charge a fare to recoup some of the cost. I would wager the trolleys would be a hit.

Edited May 3, 2017 by claya91

[PaulChinetti]

@claya91 this exact moment in time is how things have always been and how they will always be so why the hell would we ever try to improve them or make them better?!?! 

/sarcasm

Seriously though, I'm glad Mayor Berry is pulling the trigger on the Gallatin project, something has to get started, is it going to be perfect, not at all. Public trans isn't going to work perfectly for everyone but that doesn't mean you can't try. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/08/10/what-cities-would-look-like-without-cars/?utm_term=.ab57cfec6f78

I've always liked this example, look at the gif a bit down the page for some more details. 

[Rockatansky]

18 hours ago, dmillsphoto said:

The government,

Federal, State or Local?

[fieldmarshaldj]

19 minutes ago, RonCamp said:

I would argue that freedom to choose between various viable transportation modes to get you between your current location and desired destination - i.e. you could walk, bike, take BRT, take light rail, take a rideshare, or drive - would really represent freedom.  If a private car is your only option for getting from Point A to Point B, well, that isn't really freedom at all.

What about the freedom for those that don't wish to be forced through high taxation to fund something they have no wish or need to use ? Now if public transportation (i.e. light rail/trolleys) were funded through private enterprise... In any event, unless light rail/trolleys (or buses) cannot carry you right from your home to your desired destination, for the overwhelming majority, it will not be a viable, convenient option or boon for "freedom."

[PaulChinetti]

5 minutes ago, fieldmarshaldj said:

What about the freedom for those that don't wish to be forced through high taxation to fund something they have no wish or need to use? 

Can't the same be said for more roads/highways/interstates though too?

I definitely see your point though, just don't agree 

Edited May 3, 2017 by PaulChinetti

[fieldmarshaldj]

22 minutes ago, claya91 said:

The development of interstates allowed for the suburbanization that made Nashville so car dependent. Why do you think BNA is the sprawling metro it is today? This dependence made trolleys less feasible then and it's also the reason we are "enslaved" today. We all prefer cars but why people endlessly defend them given the insurmountable issues they present in urban areas, I will never understand. I also disagree that the automobile represents freedom given the ongoing decade long discussion on Nashville's traffic problem. In the mid 20th century people commuted to Nashville. DT was nowhere near as dense, had nowhere near as people living there, and didn't have mobs of tourists on every block of Broadway and Demonbreun trying to get around the core. Taxpayers wouldn't get hit with a multi billion dollar tab for such a project and you could charge a fare to recoup some of the cost. I would wager the trolleys would be a hit.

This is not so simplistic. By the middle part of the 20th century, especially following WW2, many people did not wish to remain effectively confined to inner cities with their dirtiness and old and deteriorating housing stock. This was not just true of Nashville, but almost everywhere in America (check the peak population of many cities occurred in that period, with rapid outgrowth after 1950-60. Old Nashville City peaked in 1950 and registered a decline in the 1960 census, why the city leaders were in a panicked fury to approve Metro). Take it back even further, you had trolleys themselves that fostered outmigration out of the dense inner CBD core even in the late 19th century. So suburbanization (especially for the upper and middle classes) began earlier on.

But, hey, I mean I find trolleys utterly charming. I like the clang-clang sound (I even enjoy the distant sound of the trains at night, although well over a mile away as the crow flies from my house, I can hear each little clickety-clack over the rails). But I'm not going to let my like for them blind me to the fact that when it comes to costs and overall convenience, for the most part, it simply isn't. And yes, the taxpayers will be stuck footing the costs for both construction and subsidization, and it will be astronomical. You'd probably have to charge $1k per ride to begin to make it feasible. Until then, cars will remain the best, and, indeed, only viable option for personal transportation, regardless of how certain folks may feel about them.

[PaulChinetti]

@fieldmarshaldj Do you have any suggestions of what to do about the traffic/congestion/public trans in Nashville, or do you suggest just leave it as it is?

[fieldmarshaldj]

29 minutes ago, PaulChinetti said:

@claya91 this exact moment in time is how things have always been and how they will always be so why the hell would we ever try to improve them or make them better?!?! 

/sarcasm

Seriously though, I'm glad Mayor Berry is pulling the trigger on the Gallatin project, something has to get started, is it going to be perfect, not at all. Public trans isn't going to work perfectly for everyone but that doesn't mean you can't try. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/08/10/what-cities-would-look-like-without-cars/?utm_term=.ab57cfec6f78

I've always liked this example, look at the gif a bit down the page for some more details. 

No one is suggesting innovation not be tried, if it can be improved upon. The issue here is costs, and specifically costs to the taxpayers. Nobody is talking about the obscene amount of money for a fanciful method of transportation that only a small amount of individuals will use, and that it will have virtually no impact in reducing traffic in any appreciable amount. Showing photos of how fewer amount of people would be on the streets as above doesn't change the fact that most of those people prefer their cars.

[fieldmarshaldj]

17 minutes ago, PaulChinetti said:

Can't the same be said for more roads/highways/interstates though too?

I definitely see your point though, just don't agree 

Sure, for some, but those are generally the basic expected functions of government that bring the most amount of benefit to citizens and are a necessity. In the case of public transit, that's for a far more limited amount of people with extraordinarily high costs.