The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread

[Hey_Hey]

I believe Birmingham is mentioned frequently because of the existing route to Atlanta. I think Nashville would have to be on the short list of cities to get HSR for a couple reasons. First, the population base justifies it, and it is one of the fastest growing metros in the country meaning that its influence and relative size are increasing in relation to other cities. Secondly, for there to be a connection between Atlanta and the Midwest there will have to be a line running through Tennessee, and if there is a line running through Tennessee then it wouldn't make any sense at all to leave Nashville out. Atlanta will likely be positioned as the "hub" of the Southeast, so a direct connection to Chicago would be a must. I see a line running from Atlanta to Chicago with stops being Chattanooga, Nashville, Louisville, and Indianapolis.

[nashvillwill]

Edited for off topic rant. Sorry.

Edited July 5, 2012 by nashvillwill

[producer2]

Stop making sense, it fools some people!

[East Side Urbanite]

I'm headed to Cleveland this week to ride the HealthLine BRT and report back.

WW

[Hey_Hey]

I'm headed to Cleveland this week to ride the HealthLine BRT and report back.

WW

Maybe I'm too much of an optimist, but I've always though Nashville's E/W corridor should be significantly more successful than the HeathLine in Cleveland. While I've never ridden the HealthLine in Cleveland, I have travelled Euclid Ave in Cleveland that it runs on. I was last there in December, 2008, so things may have changed some since then, but I wouldn't expect that much change. Compared with the proposed E/W Corridor, the Euclid Ave corridor seemed almost deserted in spots. On one end of the HealthLine sits the Cleveland Clinic and University Hospitals, which are very dense, and on the other sits downtown, which is obviously dense (I have not been all the way to East Cleveland where the terminus is). However, in the middle it seemed to have several empty buildings, urban decay, and it felt unsafe. That being said, the HealthLine has seems to be a major success . Ridership is over 14,000/day, and new housing and development has sprung up.

It seems to me that the E/W Corridor is much denser, more walkable, and has a more "active" street presence. There are restaurants, hotels, offices, Vandy, apartments, neighborhoods, and parks for the entire length of the corridor. There isn't an area along the E/W Corridor that feels unsafe for pedestrians in terms of crime. It seems to me that ridership should explode once the BRT is open. The projections of 4500/day for the E/W Corridor seem small to me when considering that Cleveland is getting 3x that amount. I'm sure Cleveland's citizenry was more mass transit geared than the Nashville citizenry, but hopefully that soon ends.

[timmay143]

From Transit Now Nashville:

We're looking for a few volunteers tomorrow night to help canvass East Nashville. 7PM in the 3 Crow Parking Lot. We have to let everyone know about the public meeting on this very important East-West Connector project.

[timmay143]

Upcoming meetings for the E/W BRT connector:

TNN friends: Please plan to attend these public meetings and share your support for in transit in Nashville. Your presence is really necessary and very needed!

Wednesday 07.11.12, 5:30 pm; East Nashville Community Center, 601 russell st.

Tuesday 07.17.12, 11:00 am; Downtown Library, 615 church st.

Wednesday 07.18.12, 11:00 am; West End Methodist Church, 2200 west end ave.

[timmay143]

Here's a TN article on the first meeting:

No lack of opinions at bus rapid transit forum

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20120709/NEWS01/307090033/No-lack-of-opinions-at-bus-rapid-transit-forum?odyssey=tab%7Cmostpopular%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE&nclick_check=1

[Guest]

I wanted to attend the meeting as I was next door coaching soccer, but the games ran late.

I actually agree with all the opinions in the article. I think it could be a winning opposition but specific details are required before a judgement, based in reality, is to be made. I can not tell if the reported just did a lame job covering these questions or if the information was not available.

1. They may not know the to the penny fares but they need to estimate fare cost.

2. How do you hold a public forum and not give specifics regarding funding mechanism? Again, a 'special' property taxing district is mentioned.... this seems to be the one repeated again and again..... surly they have a clue as to the what this would look like.

3. Is the existing MTA bus service on West End (3, 5) going to be impacted when the EWC-BRT is up and running? If so how? (eliminated, frequency, fares...)

4.They mentioned 17 stops approx. a 1/2 mile apart .... are these stops finalized? If so they need to be listed. If not what are the choices and how are they being evaluated?

What is the consultant doing if not answering the same questions I listed? Their work product is what the meeting should be discussing, IMO.

Edited July 10, 2012 by Guest

[Guest]

The mayor and other proponents of the EWBRT recently visited Eugene, OR and their BRT operations.

Eugene started a 'special district' to implement a payroll tax to fund mass transit and like any tax it increases regularly....

• The payroll tax rate was set at .006 ($6 per thousand) when the District was formed.

• The payroll tax rate was not always at the maximum; LTD lowered the tax a couple of times.

• LTD did not implement the self-employed portion of the tax until the mid-1990s in an effort to develop a grant match fund for capital projects. The first project funds were used for the development of the Eugene Station.

• The legislature approved an increase to .007 in 2003. LTD did not begin the phased increased until 2006. The phase-in will be complete in 2014.

• The legislature approved an increase to .008 in 2009. This increase also is to be phased in over a 10-year period; however, the LTD Board has not determined when the increase will begin. It takes a “finding of economic recovery” in order for the District to begin the phase-in of the higher rate. LTD has discussed this with the Eugene Chamber of Commerce, who also was involved in the discussion when the legislature adopted the increase in 2009.

• The District’s long-range financial plan anticipates using revenues from a phased-in rate increase.

I assume this would include the nearby hotels and restaurants ... I have to wonder if P2, both a huge BRT advocate and a high hospitality industry insider, is in favor of this taxing scheme?

http://yesemx.com/

[barakat]

The women in the Tennessean video are quite combative, to be so early in the game. Asking for traffic studies and things, when this project is not even funded! I'd be embarrassed.

[Guest]

They are combative because there does not seem to be any information...just pretty pictures. If those video snippets are the most relevant exchanges that took place at the meeting then everything is premature.

These meetings should wait until a funding mechanism has been proposed, debated, and secured.

Edited July 10, 2012 by Guest

[Guest]

I do love the older gentleman that states, "Figures don't lie, but liars figure".

Ha

[Shuzilla]

The throwing around of population numbers is as best uneducated, at worst disingenuous. The vast majority of projected population increase will be in surrounding counties. Some of that migration may well be fuled by the "what else can we spend tax money on to make downtown awesome" attitude that steers some people from Nashville suburbs to surrounding suburbs.

I don't mind the idea of a BRT at all. But where will the growth in DaveCo be in relation to the BRT? From Belle Meade into town things are fairly well built up. Is one aim of mass transit to densify the surrounding area? That would make a special taxing district a reasonable proposition since the potential is there for redevelopment. But how do you sell a BRT to a skeptical public, most of whom under any scenario will not be using it, that the result of the $100+ Million they are asked to spend is that the Harding-West End-Broadway corridor will look nothing like it does now as well as be unfriendly to cars. The open area in front of Overbrook/St Cecilia/Aquanis might well become apartments or office buildings. The homes along the section between MBA and I-440 might all be replaced with condominiums as well. If not, where will all the growth materialize that will generate the revenue required to fund construction, operation and maintenance of the system? Or, is the thought of public investment actually paying for itself not a serious consideration?

So people try to drive into Nashville from surrounding areas, say to work or shop. The routes having BRT are a no-go because the desired density surrounding the BRT has increased local traffic, and yet the left turn lanes are gone, so people in the left (express) lanes are constantly stopping. If you've ever driven down a 4-lane in town with no center turn lane you know how frustrating that can be. Well, you can't just park the car and hop on the BRT without adding expansive parking lots at the terminus. So the net results of slowing automobile traffic along the BRT corridors will be either more traffic on the interstates OR more commerce moving into the suburbs.

I repeat myself, but Nashville needs a comprehensive plan to accommodate one million people (roughly a 60% increase from today) to capture most of the growth projected to go out of county, including an exhaustive study of land use and population density. The BRT proposal outside of such a comprehensive plan may well prove to be a spoke without a wheel to attach to.

Edited July 10, 2012 by Shuzilla

[timmay143]

I think the E/W corridor is just one step. A foundation which will spur additional corridor options. I wish we could build the wheel all at once, but we can't even have a simple forum without huge opposition. How much density is "necessary" before mass transit options become viable?? I don't think there is an answer. Knocking down the wall of people's perceptions will be the hardest thing to accomplish. I think once mass transit options are in place people will see the difference and other areas of town can benefit from similar developments. It's hard for people to pay up front for preventative measures because they may not see what would have happened and the costs associated. It's also hard to trace every dollar amounts towards positive and negative in these situations. I think the positives trickle down to where some cannot link the two.

Just curious as those who oppose or are not favorable to the E/W or BRT, what are some other options instead?

They are combative because there does not seem to be any information...just pretty pictures. If those video snippets are the most relevant exchanges that took place at the meeting then everything is premature.

These meetings should wait until a funding mechanism has been proposed, debated, and secured.

I think these meetings are to educate and feel out the people's perception so they can then have the capability to then propose, debate, and secure funding. These are just the smalls steps. Getting the feet wet. Plus they are following some guideline in order to receive federal funding so this may be some sort of weird process.

They have 3 other meetings which you could try and attend in order to attempt getting some answers. I'm just the messenger and trying to get people involved and giving people who might be interested whether for or nay or undecided a notice of the on-goings in the community.

[Guest]

Timmay

I appreciate your post. It may be a chicken and egg paradigm but they must know more than what is on the website....again pretty pictures and videos...

If they truly want this up and running in 2-3 years I would suggest that these gatherings should be more productive; in my mind that means answers to questions raised by citizens that will be directly impacted... for the good and bad.

Would would tackle this endeavor without an pro forma of some type to share with those attending?

Edited July 10, 2012 by Guest

[FrankNash]

I was at this meeting. Jim McAteer and his team were over-whelmed by a small percentage of very condescending naysayers. They barked things like " you are lying about the number of people that will use the BRT" and just out of the blue things like" this will never work". It was very uncomfortable. At the next meeting his team needs to be ready for more detailed questions about every aspect of the project like, left turns, park and ride, sidewalks, where the stops would be, how long will it take, and on and on. My gut feeling is that the problem will be from 440 to whitebridge road, They are less likely to use the service and see it as in the way of car traffic. If you are supportive of the BRT I would suggest being at the meetings to help push this along, otherwise the folks that are not going to use it anyway will win. This is a great opportunity to make Nashville a easier place to get around. Y'all go to the meetings!

[Guest]

Yes, Yes and Maybe

Jim and his team must have detailed answers or they will look foolish.

Everyone pro and con should get involved and let their voices be heard.

I would say until the questions are answered we do not know if this is a great opportunity or a bullet to be dodged....

[nashvylle]

Yes, Yes and Maybe

Jim and his team must have detailed answers or they will look foolish.

Everyone pro and con should get involved and let their voices be heard.

I would say until the questions are answered we do not know if this is a great opportunity or a bullet to be dodged....

Dodge a bullet and get hit by a missile if we don't do anything for mass transit.

The exact locations of the stops are minute details at this time. The most important thing is that we get BRT funded and Nashville gets as many effective mass transit options available.

Honest question- are there concrete examples of cities that invested in mass transit and then later admitted it was a flop? I'm sure there were crazy naysayers in Portland, Charlotte, Dallas, even DC... In all of those cities, the citizens came to understand the importance of mass transit and support it.

Edited July 10, 2012 by nashvylle

[Guest]

To Nashvylle

Mass transit now! At any cost!

You do know that we have MTA Busses that currently run this route.

But lets spend $175,000,000 to make it more palatable to those that do not currently take the MTA bus.

No, they need to prove its worth to earn my vote and that it will not do more damage that good....

Here is a great piece posted by Transit Now Nashville -

http://www.theatlant...s-america/2510/

Edited July 11, 2012 by Guest

[Neigeville]

From what I've read about the experiences in Dallas, Portland and elsewhere, there is a big political hurdle to be overcome in getting a rapid transit system started, it's usually a big and nasty fight, so get ready. Once it's up and running though, only a few cranks grumble about it and people who don't have it in their part of town are clamoring for the system to be extended to them.

If the BRT can 1) overcome the haters during the approval process and 2) convince people it's not a bus, it'll become an amenity Nashvillians will be proud of. In places like Chicago, the rapid transit system is something people consider a basic part of their city's identity, even if they don't use it much themselves.

These meetings are just a start, it's early days yet and we don't know if we'll get federal money or whether some private sector entities will partner in building the stations, for example. You can't have final answers on those things yet.

I hope the platforms are highly visible and distinctive looking, big and substantial and screaming "Permanent Structure! Not a Bus Stop!". They are also a great public art opportunity and could become a big part of the look of the city.

As for the idea that the new million people are mostly going to be out in Murfreesboro or something, I'm not convinced the future is going to look entirely like the past, but in any case, if Nashville is going to attract its share of the new residents it needs rapid transit. The city will attract both residents and visitors (and even employers) by focusing on urban amenities the suburbs can't offer.

[Guest]

Per the request - It is hard to find examples of BRT 'failures' because what defines failure in a government project? It is not designed to make money.... If the budget is blown the government increases the subsidy to cover the loss....if rider projections are shown to be pie-in-the-sky, they are not going to dismantle the large investment once constructed.....

Here is a critique of BRT from another transit group....

BRT Fails to Attract Riders

Statistics show that busways attract only 33 percent of projected ridership, but rail lines exceed initial estimates by 22 percent. Notwithstanding, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), in concert with the highway and motor bus industry, has continued to advocate for BRT. In order to justify continued expansion of BRT, supporters have used rail planning models to predict bus patronage. Even though busway supporters have sponsored trips to places such as Curitiba, Brazil, to view what in their minds is a successful application of BRT technology, nowhere in North America has this mode of public transport attracted such rail passenger boardings.

BRT Costs More to Build

BRT systems also cost more to construct than many light rail lines, but less than subways or totally aerial lines unless the busways are also in subway or on aerial structures. In those cirspritestances, they will cost more than LRT facilities. The new 14-mile Orange Line BRT north of Los Angeles cost $350 million or $25 million a mile. The line is neither equipped with block signals to prevent rear end collisions nor crossing gates. At the same time, new light rail lines in Denver, Portland, Salt Lake City and St. Louis, with signals and crossing gates, were constructed at an average cost of $23 million a mile. New busways in Boston, Ottawa and Pittsburgh cost more than $50 million a mile. When one considers that light rail cars have a 40-year life compared with 15 years for buses, LRT is much less costly as well as more attractive and safer.

BRT is Not as Productive as Light Rail Transit

A study by the General Accounting Office (GAO) revealed that light rail vehicle was 15.5 percent less costly to operate than bus, all other factors being equal. Low floor light rail cars have a larger capacity than low floor buses of comparable length. The average capacity of a 40-foot low floor bus is only 37 seated passengers due to space that is taken up by the wheel wells which intrude on interior space that otherwise could be used for fare paying riders. While an articulated two-section low floor bus contains more seats, it will still have less capacity than a low floor light rail car. Unlike BRT, a light rail line can increase line capacity by adding more cars to a train, resulting in an increase in operator productivity. The only way to increase the capacity of BRT is to add more buses, each of which will require another driver resulting in higher operating costs.

BRT a Failure - Four Cities' Experience

Detroit was one of the first cities to adopt BRT was Detroit. Until the mid-1950s, Detroit had a fleet of modern PCC streetcars which operated swiftly on busy trunk lines on wide avenues leading from downtown to the suburbs. The streetcars were abandoned and plans were announced for a 60-mile-an-hour BRT replacement system to be placed on the John Lodge and Edsel Ford freeways. Bus stops were incorporated in the freeways with pull-off lanes, but vehicular congestion became so intense during the rush hours traffic that bus drivers were instructed to avoid the freeways in favor of the less-congested local streets. Since then, all express bus service in Detroit has been discontinued and that city now has the lowest transit ridership per capita and the highest cost per passenger mile of any major American transit system. A similar BRT service was provided in St. Louis; however, ridership declined over the years and it too was eventually discontinued.

Pittsburgh announced plans in 1963 for the construction of a busway to the eastern suburbs. Projected initially to carry 80,000 weekday passengers, the latest figures show that it is only attracting 28,000 weekday riders. Total bus ridership on the Pittsburgh transit system declined by 26 percent despite the construction of busways. When the light rail line serving the South Hills area of Pittsburgh was shut down for reconstruction, extra bus service was provided on the nearby South Busway. The 8,000 weekday LRT passengers declined significantly to a mere 1,500 on the busway. The South Busway anticipated 32,000 weekday passengers, but it never achieved those lofty figures. During the second energy crisis of 1980, it attracted as many as 20,000, but that fell 25 percent to 14,500, which is less than the number of bus riders that was carried in the corridor before the busway was built. The newest BRT line in Pittsburgh is the West busway. Initial cost estimates were $325 million, but when a $515 million bid was received, a shorter busway was constructed. Originally planned to carry 50,000 weekday passengers, only 7,500 daily riders are using the new line.

Los Angeles constructed a $500-million BRT system along the Harbor Freeway between San Pedro and downtown Los Angeles. Before it was built, the California Department of Transportation (CDOT) predicted that it would carry as many as 74,000 daily passengers; however, eight years after the line opened, ridership stands at just 3,000 passengers a day. The eight stations on the line are largely deserted and have become havens for vagrants. The station at Carson Boulevard serves an average of 20 people a day. Competition from the nearby LRT Blue Line route is believed to be a factor in the low Harbor Freeway busway ridership. That rail service carries more than 70,000 riders each day. Surveys revealed that many of them would rather be on a smooth running train than a freeway bus.

Ottawa constructed a large network of busways for the Canadian capital. As the system expanded, the ridership actually declined. This was reversed when diesel light rail cars (DLRT) began operating on a rail line that feeds the busway. The success of the diesel rail service convinced the City Council to approve the construction of a 59-mile electric light rail system. The new light rail service is expected to provide a higher quality service than the busway, relieve the downtown congestion caused by hundreds of buses from the BRT clogging the streets, and provide for expected population growth.

BRT Safety Inferior to Light Rail Transit

The safety record of light rail transit is far superior to busways. Pittsburgh's three busways have no grade crossings. Nevertheless, at least seven people have been killed on them. One was a bus driver who did not slow down quickly enough in the snow. Another accident killed four people including another driver when two buses collided head on. A busway in Miami, Fla., has grade crossings like a rail line and has had so many accidents at these crossings that buses are now forced to slow down as they approach each vehicular crossing. Consequently, in November 2002, voters approved the replacement of these buses with an LRT system. A new busway in suburbs north of Hollywood, Calif., also has many grade crossings which have produced so many accidents that speed restrictions have been imposed on the buses using the BRT line. The downside is that the slower speeds reduce the attractiveness of the line to passengers.

BRT is Affected by Adverse Weather

Buses also do not perform as well as rail cars in inclement weather. Boston has had to remove the articulated buses on its Silver Line BRT because they fishtail dangerously in the snow. In the most recent snowstorm in February 2006, NJ Transit shut down its entire intrastate and interstate bus system, but the light rail lines in Newark and Jersey City continued to operate. As already mentioned, snow was the major factor in a fatal BRT crash in Pittsburgh.

Summary

In summary, a Bus Rapid Transit system does not provide any positive benefits over Light Rail Transit because:

• Buses are slower.
  
• Buses carry fewer passengers.
  
• BRT systems fail to meet ridership projections.
  
• Busway capacity expansion can only be provided by additional vehicles with additional drivers.
  
• Bus-only roadways are usually more expensive to build than rail rights-of-way.
  
• Buses on reserved roadways have inferior safety records to rail lines on rights-of-way.
  
• Buses are not dependable in snow.
  

Conclusion - BRT is Not Suitable for New Jersey

While the initial perception remains that Bus Rapid Transit systems are attractive for use between densely populated urban and less densely inhabited suburban areas; evidence collected has proved conclusively that claims for its effectiveness have been greatly overestimated. The admitted ability of independently guided buses to collect and distribute passengers from suburban and rural areas has been largely offset by the preference of the riders for fixed rail transit systems. Again and again, passengers have voted with their feet, and when they have, Light Rail Transit has been their overwhelming choice - not Bus Rapid Transit.

Here in our state, whether it is the electrically powered Hudson Bergen light rail line, the Newark City Subway, or the unique Diesel Light Rail River Line, New Jerseyans have voted for their candidate - Light Rail Transit!

Copyright 2006 NJ-ARP

Edited July 11, 2012 by Guest

[MTSUBlueraider86]

I cannot find the link on the Brookings Institution website, however NPR reported the story this morning. Nashville ranks 84 for public transportation. One of the worst in the nation.

Maybe one of you can find the link, I tried forever to find it!

[Guest]

A link to the study -

http://www.brookings...obs-and-transit

The article on the Brooking institution study comes out and says what I have been arguing .... There is plenty of existing service downtown. The BRT is redundant and costly just to convince those that turn-up their nose at the MTA to ride the bus, albeit a spaceship looking bus.

Brookings’ study suggests Nashville’s urban core has widespread access to mass transit. In fact, nearly 90 percent of Nashville’s urban core has access to transit now, said Adie Tomer, the study’s author.

Exactly

But public transportation thins out beyond the city limits.

Exactly

Nashville has a lot of magnetism in its central core. The transit there is quite good,” Tomer said. “In Nashville and across America, the growing pattern has been suburb to suburb commuting,” he said. “And sometimes there’s a complete lack of service in those areas.

Exactly

The city’s proposed $175 million bus rapid transit network would be a step forward for the region, Tomer said, although it doesn’t address suburban demand.

This rings untrue. Why is it (EW-BRT) a step in the 'right' direction? The study slammed us for a lack of suburban connectivity and yet his statement proclaims that we are about to spend $175,000,000 and it will not address the studies main complaint.

Edited July 11, 2012 by Guest

[nashvylle]

Nashville_Bound-

thanks for the info. I 100% prefer Lightrail or streetcars to BRT, but I also 100% prefer BRT to NOTHING. If we do not move ahead with BRT, we do not have a plan B. I am glad Mayor Dean is being proactive with mass transit (although I wish he chose streetcars vs. brt), but if BRT is not implemented, we go back to Nothing, and I hope we get a Mayor who is proactive on mass transit....

The streetcar system I preferred was $275mm projected to construct vs. $175mm for BRT, so I'm not sure how your argument that lightrail/streetcars are less expensive (maybe in the long run yes...). All your other points on ridership, I completely agree. However, cost is a huge concern and that's why I think Mayor Dean chose BRT.

I hope if we implement BRT, it will someday lead to Lightrail. That would be an easier transition that doing nothing now, and then in who knows how long we try to build Lightrail, and many might say let's do BRT because it's cheaper upfront...

I just want SOMETHING. I don't think BRT is perfect, but it is a step in the right direction.