The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread

[dmillsphoto]

2 minutes ago, nashwatcher said:

What disappoints me is the people who are against transit don't give any viable alternative that could help address this very real, growing issue for our city. I agree we should be prudent and wise, but we also have to move forward with the best solutions we can currently come up with. If you've got a better idea, propose it!

 

He does have a better idea. Buy a car. From him, specifically.

[markhollin]

When Mary Beth Ikard, the Manager of Mayor's Office on Transportation and Sustainability was asked at our last Urban Planet Meet-Up what would happen if this Transit Plan is voted down in May,  she said, "That will be up to the next administration, as Mayor Barry will not try to launch another plan during her term."  So, things could be pushed back quite a few years yet again if no positive action is taken on this.

[Guest]

There are winners and losers in either choice...and each side to a large degree, is supports the policies of self-interest.

It is also quite possible there are principled people on both sides who philosophically hold one position or the other.

Regardless, as stated, some accountability in Nashville government on the transit issue is warranted and if the referendum passes, helps produce a more vetted plan.
 

1 hour ago, BnaBreaker said:

I didn't say he necessarily should support the plan.  I get why he wouldn't.  And I think your 'devil' line is just a wee bit hyperbolic.   All I meant is that in a debate in which the rest of us are discussing how best to alleviate traffic, increase mobility etc. and motivated by a concern for what is best for the city as a whole, I'm not sure  how much the opinions of a guy who's primary motivation is his own bank account really add to the overall debate as far as the general public is concerned.  In other words, the meat guy is well within his rights to oppose the veganism policy, but I'm not exactly inviting him into the board room to shape policy due to the obvious conflict of interest.  

 

[BnaBreaker]

9 minutes ago, nashville_bound said:

There are winners and losers in either choice...and each side to a large degree, is supports the policies of self-interest.

It is also quite possible there are principled people on both sides who philosophically hold one position or the other.

Regardless, as stated, some accountability in Nashville government on the transit issue is warranted and if the referendum passes, helps produce a more vetted plan.
 

 

I agree with that, for the most part.  Well said.  I think most of us who don't have skin in the game, more or less, have the same goals in mind.  It's just a matter of how we get there.  And, as usual, what might seem like a cavernous gap in positions really just boils down to interpretation. 

[titanhog]

1 hour ago, BnaBreaker said:

Well, as far as I can see it, either we get on the transit train with this plan , or we stay with the status quo and wait who knows how long for self-driving cars to become a widespread thing, I guess, which in many ways is in no way a replacement for mass transit.  If we can't get it done now, it won't get done at all.  I completely understand the financial concerns some folks have, but let's be honest, many of them wouldn't support a transit plan if it was half the cost or a quarter of the cost, either.   They'd probably find a way to argue that it was too expensive if the total cost was a million dollars.  Some people have simply been conditioned to oppose  transit. 

But see...the "get on board or we'll get left behind for years" approach doesn't totally take into consideration whether or not this is the best course of action.  I agree we need to do something...but I don't think we just need to do something to do something, either.  Maybe this is the best transit plan we can come up with and it deserves to be implemented...or maybe there are other options that are better.  Hopefully we'll explore all options and then make a wise decision.

[Buildtall]

I can’t understand wanting to use light rail. The electric lines running everywhere just kill the beauty of any street, if that’s what metro is proposing. I myself think a dual monorail  or elevated train running down beside the Interstates, Ellington pky, Gallatin Rd, Vietnam Blvd. Murfreesboro Road etc.... would be nicer looking, quieter, faster and faster to build and not in the way of traffic. They could also let businesses advertise on them to help pay maintenance.  Even Lee beaman could even advertise on them.

 I’ve been on all forms of transit and monorail is by far my favorite. 

[smeagolsfree]

I think Beamans's opposition will likely fail for a couple of reasons.

 

The first is the political landscape has changed in Nashville over the last decade and a lot since the Amp was proposed. They may be thinking this will be a walk in the park like the last time, but the State and regional leaders are behind this plan. TDOT is behind the plan and they stopped it in the State legislature. It has already overwhelmingly passed Metro and has momentum on its side now. This is a county wide plan, not just into his precious Bell Meade.

The other reason is partly one I mention above about momentum, but the Mayors office put a lot of thought and public input into the plan unlike the Dean administration just sprung it on everyone with little input.

[SoundScan]

Strange that Lee Beaman never mounts any public concerns about the billions and billions and billions of dollars spent on road and highway infrastructure. If out of control government spending is his supposed primary concern then his silence is deafening. I'm all about both sides of the fence having a seat at the table to discuss and shape a transit plan that makes practical and financial sense, but it seems this particular opposition group may be better served with less transparency.

[grilled_cheese]

When will Lee Beaman's transit plan be unveiled?

[Chris Lee]

27 minutes ago, grilled_cheese said:

When will Lee Beaman's transit plan be unveiled?

His plan is to sell you a car.

[nashvylle]

I'd feel a lot better about this plan if we could not build light rail on certain sections (Donelson, Charlotte, etc.) but instead put BRT and decrease the price tag a few billion.. therefore we can get a plan in place without it all being lightrail for every corridor or nothing. 

[PruneTracy]

13 hours ago, Buildtall said:

I can’t understand wanting to use light rail. The electric lines running everywhere just kill the beauty of any street, if that’s what metro is proposing.

There exist systems that use an energized third rail at the ground surface or embedded in a conduit. This is similar to most subway systems, but with measures to allow the third rail to be walked or driven over without frying the public. This was previously accomplished by either burying the rail in a narrow trench or insulating the top (with trains making contact on the side or bottom). Some newer trams in France have sensors that only energize sections of the third rail when the train is passing over, which obviates the need for those measures. But the problem with these is that they are more expensive both to construct and maintain.

[jmtunafish]

2 hours ago, PruneTracy said:

Some newer trams in France have sensors that only energize sections of the third rail when the train is passing over, which obviates the need for those measures. 

Just about every city in France has trams.  Even my grandfather's hometown of only 45,000 has trams.  The network even goes out into the countryside to little villages.  I love trams.  Even though I had a car when I lived in France, I loved the freedom of not having to rely on it all the time.   I don't think for a minute that Nashville needs a streetcar network that goes to every little town and suburb outside of downtown, but my background does explain why I'm all in favor of Megan Barry's plan.  I do wish it wouldn't cost so much.

    

[Rockatansky]

Just to be clear, the $9B is the cost of construction and operations. Only $5.4B is for construction. Typically operational costs aren't included in purchase price. If that was the case, my car would cost $90k (purchase cost + 10 years of ops), not $10k.

Edited January 17, 2018 by Rockatansky

[smeagolsfree]

Again, this was misreporting on the part of the NBJ, as the 9 billion number has always been out there.  We were told this at the meet. Its just the idiots trying to invent their own version of FAKE NEWS. I hate that term, but it works in this case.

All sides of the political spectrum use false and misleading number to attempt to prove their stand and its no different here. 

[jmtunafish]

Re-viewing the pictures I posted, the 3rd one shows that there's just one tramway track in that particular village because the road is so narrow.  I wonder how much cheaper it would be to construct Nashville's system if some of the sections had just one track.

[PruneTracy]

3 hours ago, jmtunafish said:

Re-viewing the pictures I posted, the 3rd one shows that there's just one tramway track in that particular village because the road is so narrow.  I wonder how much cheaper it would be to construct Nashville's system if some of the sections had just one track.

This was studied early on for the Amp.

The main benefit isn't so much cost as it is the reduced street width dedicated to the track. On West End, for example, a single track would have opened up the possibility of retaining three vehicular lanes in each direction east of I-440 (thereby eliminating one of the loudest functional complaints about the proposal). Or the width could have been dedicated to bicycle lanes or wider sidewalks.

The main drawback is the hard limit on capacity, can't run trains in the opposite direction on the same track. You need more stations to increase the number of passing sections (and in turn the capacity), but more stations degrade the speed and capacity of the service, so there is a delicate balance that can't easily be adjusted as demand warrants. For example, if you want more trains running in one direction than the other (e.g., commuter peak periods) you have to have extra trains to park at the end of the line since you can't easily get them back to where you need them.

Of course it's possible to construct additional passing sections outside stations, to a degree perhaps where the single track is the exception rather than the rule. It would be good to have this in the current plan as a value engineering option in the more densely-developed areas where you just can't give up any right-of-way, as long as you can still site stations where there is both space and demand.

[markhollin]

The consultants for the opposition group to the mass transit plan are all from out of town:

https://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2018/01/18/meet-the-high-powered-consultants-behind.html

[Guest]

The MTA spokesperson who came to address our most recent meet-up was very confident in their budget projections which include $1.5 billion in federal dollars yet to be approved; the unknown cost of procuring right-of-way access for the trains, BRT, and station; and the unprecedented task of digging a tunnel under downtown Nashville.

What is plan 'B' if costs exceed projections? She stressed not tapping the property tax revenue directed to local services and education, but with the referendum (if approved) already hoisting the highest sales tax in the Nation on Nashville, what other option is available?

Case in point -

Ouch...this is an update on the continuing saga of the budget- and schedule -busting California dream train. It seems every update is the drip-drip-drip of worsening coset-overruns and schedule slips. The worry is these ills are the norm concerning multi-billion dollar transportation projects. 

Bullet Train Cost Overrun -'Worst-case scenario has happened'

[nashvylle]

44 minutes ago, nashville_bound said:

The MTA spokesperson who came to address our most recent meet-up was very confident in their budget projections which include $1.5 billion in federal dollars yet to be approved; the unknown cost of procuring right-of-way access for the trains, BRT, and station; and the unprecedented task of digging a tunnel under downtown Nashville.

What is plan 'B' if costs exceed projections? She stressed not tapping the property tax revenue directed to local services and education, but with the referendum (if approved) already hoisting the highest sales tax in the Nation on Nashville, what other option is available?

Case in point -

Ouch...this is an update on the continuing saga of the budget- and schedule -busting California dream train. It seems every update is the drip-drip-drip of worsening coset-overruns and schedule slips. The worry is these ills are the norm concerning multi-billion dollar transportation projects. 

Bullet Train Cost Overrun -'Worst-case scenario has happened'

Do you (or does anyone know) if the referendum is passed in May, and if the first leg built is a disaster, we can decide not to build any other legs (I believe this happened in Dallas?), or are we building all legs at once?

[PruneTracy]

22 minutes ago, nashvylle said:

Do you (or does anyone know) if the referendum is passed in May, and if the first leg built is a disaster, we can decide not to build any other legs (I believe this happened in Dallas?), or are we building all legs at once?

The system gets built in phases over a number of years. But I think the better question is whether Metro and MTA, having already secured funding for the other legs, would ever make that decision. If you open up a revenue stream that isn't contingent on a performance metric, there's no reason to decline to spend that revenue based on performance.

Edited January 19, 2018 by PruneTracy

[Guest]

I believe a huge part of the problem is the length of time from proposal/referendum to implementation. The taxes will be paid for years before anything is constructed, and it will be additional years before anything success/failure rating is proclaimed. Very few of the current politicians advocating for the 9Billion dollar plan will be held to account.

[nashvylle]

valid point. I am afraid that is true with any lightrail implementation, however. 

[MagicPotato]

I'm not really sure about the underground tunnel portion of the plan.  It seems a little too "extra".  Maybe an alternative? 

[MLBrumby]

The tunnel is a part of Mayor Barry's plan (so far) at an estimated cost of $900M. Depending on the referendum outcome, it may turn out to be a chit. At this time however, it is very much a part of her plan; to run under 5th Avenue from Lafayette all the way to James Robertson Pky. with two stops in between.