The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread

[MorganRehnberg]

It’s almost everyday walking downtown that I see someone ride a scooter the wrong way down a bike lane.  Incredibly dangerous. I basically never see cyclists going the wrong way. The only way I can think to solve that (other than ticketing everyone who does it wrong), is through two-way cycle tracks like the one on Commerce.  

[nashwatcher]

What ever happened to the airport/downtown line Metro  was considering? It seems like this could be a first step on the path to investing in transit for our corridors running into the city

[smeagolsfree]

55 minutes ago, nashwatcher said:

What ever happened to the airport/downtown line Metro  was considering? It seems like this could be a first step on the path to investing in transit for our corridors running into the city

Wait for the transit plan to come out. We may see that emerge as a major component.

[PruneTracy]

On 12/1/2023 at 2:41 PM, PaulChinetti said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail_in_the_United_States

Grabbed from this list. 3 miles, 2 tracks, 14 stops. Cost $200 million. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempe_Streetcar

For $3.3 Billion, The mind races, what a shame, that's like 45+ miles of track. You could get lines all over the damn place.  From the Airport to the East Bank, Rivergate to downtown, Brentwood to downtown and probably have some money left over. Hell just start with 2 lines going south and have a cross connector. Our DoT is a stuck in the past. 

The Tempe streetcars carried 800,000 passengers from opening in May 2022 through August 2023, which is an average of less than 1,700 riders per day. A single vehicular lane at max density can carry about 1,700 passenger car equivalents per hour. Right now TDOT can build from 40 to 60 miles of a one-lane highway widening for $200 million.

On 12/1/2023 at 5:31 PM, MLBrumby said:

Right! Somewhere over the past 35-40 years TDOT became very misguided with their "roads to every county seat". 

The county seat connector program is a legislative priority, it was part of the 1986 gas tax increase.

On 12/1/2023 at 10:13 PM, Luvemtall said:

So eventually they will get around to building these “CHOICE LANES “ (toll roads) , how many people will be willing to pay to actually use them ? Best guess maybe 30-40% , and that would likely be local commuters . You would still have the excess amount of though traffic, that wouldn’t go away.

The point of the choice lanes is that you don't want everyone to be willing to pay to use them. If you did, there wouldn't need to be a toll at all. The point is to be able to manage demand on the lanes to keep them free-flow at all times, even during peak periods. If you keep them moving, as mentioned above, you take 1,700 passenger car equivalents per hour per choice lane out of the general-purpose lanes.

[markhollin]

Circuit Court Judge David Briley ruled Friday afternoon that Off the Wagon Tours is permanently prohibited from pulling passengers in its party wagons without the proper licenses. The earliest the company could get the licenses for its four wagons is April 2024, but it’s far from guaranteed that owner Curtis Carney will be able to secure them.

More at The Tennessean here:

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/local/2023/12/01/off-the-wagon-party-bus-company-cant-run-for-months-fined-1500-nashville/71773149007/

[MLBrumby]

31 minutes ago, PruneTracy said:

The county seat connector program is a legislative priority, it was part of the 1986 gas tax increase.

You think priorities might change "a little" after 37 years! 

[PruneTracy]

Just now, MLBrumby said:

You think priorities might change "a little" after 37 years! 

I would think so, but that is the mandate given to the department. They can deemphasize the county seat connectors all they want, but when a state legislator wants them to include a project in their plans because it falls under that program, he is technically correct in doing so.

I promise you all, I am as anti-government as they come, but TDOT does the things they do for a reason. I'm on here using a dick joke from The Simpsons as an alias precisely so I can criticize them when I want to, and I have plenty of that to go around, but especially at the executive level you all are not saying much they don't already know. 

[PaulChinetti]

1 hour ago, PruneTracy said:

The Tempe streetcars carried 800,000 passengers from opening in May 2022 through August 2023, which is an average of less than 1,700 riders per day. A single vehicular lane at max density can carry about 1,700 passenger car equivalents per hour. Right now TDOT can build from 40 to 60 miles of a one-lane highway widening for $200 million.

I'm more on the side of no more road widening regardless of cost. That's why I used a street car example, to use existing lanes. 

[ruraljuror]

1 hour ago, PruneTracy said:

The Tempe streetcars carried 800,000 passengers from opening in May 2022 through August 2023, which is an average of less than 1,700 riders per day. A single vehicular lane at max density can carry about 1,700 passenger car equivalents per hour. Right now TDOT can build from 40 to 60 miles of a one-lane highway widening for $200 million.

Looks like you're comparing apples and oranges. 

If you're going to use the maximum capacity for singular car lane density, then you need to use the max capacity of streetcars too. Alternatively, you can look at the actual passenger figures for the street car and compare them to actual/estimate figures for how many passengers used that same street lane during the same time period and/or the year before, but even then it's a bit of a stretch to think that the first 4 months of streetcar usage data are going to reflect the long-term utility and success of the project.

1 hour ago, PruneTracy said:

The point of the choice lanes is that you don't want everyone to be willing to pay to use them. 

But isn't that kind of a problem for public utilities like roads? 

Can we have a toll lane where users pay a small fee in order to jump the line at the DMV, or the permitting offices, or when voting? 

Would it be ok in your opinion to let some people pay a small premium to get priority access to the public school of their choice, or priority service if their power lines get taken down in a storm? 

In my experience, the old adage that 'a crime for which the only punishment is a fine is really only a crime for the poor' seems to apply just as well to fees and tolls. 

Edited December 4, 2023 by ruraljuror

[Luvemtall]

If public funds are used to construct new roads, and then those roads are Toll Roads they no longer are public roads!! They are roads for those that can afford them, just like private schools and charter schools you need to pay to have the privilege. 

[Luvemtall]

2 hours ago, PruneTracy said:

The county seat connector program is a legislative priority

There’s the issue, as usual. The cronies in the state legislature need not interfere with the work of TDOT. The agency should be its own entity, with its own board that receives funding from taxpayers to provide for the infrastructure needs of the citizens and said taxpayers, without the interference from elected officials that have no experience with engineering . Legislators have no business in making decisions about infrastructure, just as an electrician should never perform brain surgery! 

[PruneTracy]

57 minutes ago, PaulChinetti said:

I'm more on the side of no more road widening regardless of cost. That's why I used a street car example, to use existing lanes. 

That's fine, but neither TDOT nor the state can afford to place streetcars throughout Nashville, much less all urban areas in Tennessee. Using your example, the entire TMA would pay for 45 miles of streetcar service; for comparison I think WeGo's local bus lines add up to something like 150 miles. And the Tempe streetcars, at least through the end of the year, are free to ride.

1 hour ago, ruraljuror said:

Looks like you're comparing apples and oranges. 

If you're going to use the maximum capacity for singular car lane density, then you need to use the max capacity of streetcars too. Alternatively, you can look at the actual passenger figures for the street car and compare them to actual/estimate figures for how many passengers used that same street lane during the same time period and/or the year before, but even then it's a bit of a stretch to think that the first 4 months of streetcar usage data are going to reflect the long-term utility and success of the project.

The maximum capacity for transit only matters if: a) the agency is running cars at that rate; and b) if they can fill them. The rolling stock for the Tempe streetcar can hold up to 32 passengers seated or up to 150 standing, and they are running on 15-20-minute headways currently, which means at best they can move 600 passengers per hour right now. If they ran standing-room-only cars at five-minute headways they could potentially exceed the capacity of single-occupant vehicles in a lane, if the demand were to exist. If you find a transit system of any vintage nationwide that is carrying this volume in dedicated ROW on surface streets let me know.

1 hour ago, ruraljuror said:

But isn't that kind of a problem for public utilities like roads? 

Can we have a toll lane where users pay a small fee in order to jump the line at the DMV, or the permitting offices, or when voting? 

Would it be ok in your opinion to let some people pay a small premium to get priority access to the public school of their choice, or priority service if their power lines get taken down in a storm? 

In my experience, the old adage that 'a crime for which the only punishment is a fine is really only a crime for the poor' seems to apply just as well to fees and tolls. 

So you have a moral objection to DOTs building new tolled lanes to pull people out of the general-purpose lanes but it's fine to take up ROW with vanity transit projects carrying a fraction of the people?

There are P3 arrangements with tolled lanes such that it's possible to have the toll revenue pay for maintenance/operation of the entire facility, including general-purpose lanes (i.e., you get to drive on the GP lanes for free, not just "free" because the gas tax isn't collected at point of use, thanks to the revenue generated from tolls in a few choice lanes). Would you be OK with people jumping line at the DMV if they paid your registration fee? Priority service during a power outage if they covered your light bill? I can guarantee you there will not be any transit projects existing now or proposed in the future that involve using transit fares to pay for vehicular lanes.

Personally if we are going to consider roads as a public utility then we need to give TDOT the power to set usage fees on all state roadways, manage the demand for their roads 24/7, and develop their own revenues and budget. Scrap the gas tax, put the THP and DMV aspects of TDOS under them, and let them cook. I'm not being facetious in saying this, it would almost certainly lead to an improvement in service and more efficient use of the money involved, but it's a paradigm shift that I don't think most people would like.

[Bos2Nash]

On 12/1/2023 at 3:41 PM, PaulChinetti said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail_in_the_United_States

Grabbed from this list. 3 miles, 2 tracks, 14 stops. Cost $200 million. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempe_Streetcar

For $3.3 Billion, The mind races, what a shame, that's like 45+ miles of track. You could get lines all over the damn place.  From the Airport to the East Bank, Rivergate to downtown, Brentwood to downtown and probably have some money left over. Hell just start with 2 lines going south and have a cross connector. Our DoT is a stuck in the past. 

While agree with the notion of light rail. I believe Nashville would be more in the realm of the Green Line Extension for the MBTA's Green Line. Nashville is already pretty tight in terms of finding light rail ROW, plus the property rights here make it exceptionally hard and/or expensive to get. 4.3 miles, 2 tracks, 6 stops, $2.28 billion. The NE is more expensive, so the cost per mile SHOULD be lower, but anything under $1 billion for rail is going to be very unrealistic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Line_Extension#:~:text=The project opened in two,total cost of %242.28 billion.

21 hours ago, smeagolsfree said:

I passed along a few ideas to the mayor's office. One being to bring back the downtown circulator. It does not have to be free. I think if folks had the choice of paying a flat weekly fee of using it, they would. If I were a tourist here and knew I could take a bus instead of Ubering or walking to places I would do it. Especially if the price were reasonable. You make sure the top attractions are on the stops and folks are able to use their debit or credit cards as their bus pass.

You make the one-time user fees cheap enough to encourage use and the passes cheap enough to encourage folks to buy them. This also would discourage the vagrants from using the service and harassing people which was the case with the free service. I would also like to see an increased number of service routes to East Nashville and maybe WeHo along with the Music Row and Germantown area included with the circulator added at a later date. They could also include express buses leaving for BNA and Opryland from the same location as the same location as the downtown circulator. 

Again, scooters and bikes are not for everyone.  I wish they would do an age study to see how many people by age use these. No matter what you do with scooters and bikers downtown Nashville, you will have a high percentage of out-of-town drivers the pay no attention to those modes of transportation and you will continue to have high numbers of injuries with that mode of transit. Due to the type of protection, it offers it is not a safe way of transportation. Riders are not responsible, and drivers are not responsible. This is not Europe and there is no city in the US with a high number of bike and scooter riders that can replace mass transit. I dare anyone to name one. Portland is the only major city to meet that mark and it has mass transit. Bikes and scooters are not a mode of mass transit. It is a mode or personal transit like an automobile and to suggest that is an end to a means is stupid. Ubers and taxis are not mass transit. It is alternative transportation and does not in reality take cars off the road. It is just the same car doing multiple trips but the same number of trips. Same number of trips and gas being used. Maybe even more.

I am not against scooters and bikes but to push them as a main form of transit in Nashville is foolish. Just as Nashville may not be designed for rail it is not designed for bike either as the it is a car centric street congested city that relies on cars. You have too many miles of roads to go and Nashville is too sprawling for it to make sense. Only the most avid bikers will take advantage of the opportunity. Scooters are just dangerous, and most riders are irresponsible based in what I have seen from the idiots riding them downtown. On the greenways there are a lot of folks that ride bikes too fast and blame pedestrians for getting in their way which should be the other way around. The greenways are for pedestrians first, bikers second, and scooters never. E Bikes are another story as they can go way too fast for the greenways and their speed should be enforced but E bike riders many times ignore the rules because they think they are special. Most can go up to 28 mph but some can go up to 40 mph. The higher speed bike is limited and may be illegal to own.

I'll re-iterate this just like I stressed it during the referendum vote in 2018. THE POINT OF TRANSIT IS NOT TO RELIEVE TRAFFIC CONGESTION! The purpose of Transit (whether Mass Transit or personal transit) is to provide options to citizens (residents/tourists/etc) to move around our city. We have plenty of car space. We currently have a bus system (that does need work). What we lack is pedestrian/cyclist space. Transit as a whole is an equality thing! The public ROW should be safe for all modes and that include bikes/pedestrians. This is going to require a rethinking of how our public ROWs are designed. While we are not Europe - nor should we really aspire to be IMO - we need to start understanding that what our cities have done in the US is not working. While I havent gone through the Connect Downtown plan, I know there are initiatives in other cities for flexible curb space for loading/unloading, dedicated cab stands (which should also be ride share at this point). items like "Don't Block the Box" and Right on Red which should be enforced via cameras. 

Nobody is suggesting that bikes/scooters will be the end to our transit dilemma. That kind of statement is being dramatic. But we need to find space on our public ROWs for those uses. Things like Connect Downtown, EN Spokes, and others are parts of efforts to bring more equality to our streets rather than just cars to our streets. This notion of doing nothing because "You have too many miles of roads to go and Nashville is too sprawling for it to make sense" is what is hurting our city because that is holding us back from making any progress. These solutions won't are almost never part of this pretty picture plan that is wrapped up in a pretty bow (or in development a rendering). Another example of a forth coming opportunity to get things right, will be the ultimate redesign of Main Street/Gallatin Pike when they do the water main replacement. A process that we should expect to start this year (design, not construction).

I know I scared a few folks when I mentioned taking a lane away from cars to create the space we need, but in many instances we don't even need to reduce the lane count to incorporate these modes. Many of our traffic lanes are striped at large widths. According to NACTO, you should provide 11' lane width where we want transit (buses) and 10' lane widths for vehicles. On many Metro streets, we have 12' to 15' lanes that if re-configured properly wouldn't even remove lanes (Jefferson is a great example of this). We also have the center turn lanes on downtown streets (I know these have been discussed previously), which is just silly and is ROW that could be returned to non-vehicle users. NATCO also talks about design vehicles for our streets. Part of any plan for loading zones or what not within our city needs to look at the design vehicles. While I may not call for a full on ban on larger vehicles in a city, we should absolutely not design every single street for them. This also applies to our civil service vehicles. For years, fire departments (biggest culprit because they have the biggest vehicles) have gotten larger and larger vehicles and as a result of roads have been designed to accommodate them.  The reality should be the inverse. Fire departments should be working on getting vehicles designed for their urban streets. This may require smaller and smaller vehicles. 

The biggest obstacle right now is we have been designing a certain way for so long, that it is going to cost a pretty penny to change course now. Just like with the sidewalk discussion, any redesign of roads isn't just a surface conversation. The implications on stormwater and other underground utilities drives up costs tremendously. To deal with this, we need folks in office who are willing to take on the political hot potato and spend the money to fix these things and change our direction for the better. How we efficiently find those funds, I am not sure. Similar to how Davidson County use to emissions testing, do car registrations go up in price to provide a  dedicated stream? Do our taxes (whether that is commercial or residential or both) go up? I think these questions will be coming up in the next year as part of any referendum that Mayor O'Connell proposes will ultimately have dedicated funding for transit (not just Mass Transit, but transit). That plan will almost certainly NOT include new train system (hopefully Music City Star improvements, but that is existing train), but I would expect improvements to the bus system, more Complete Streets, Congestion Management, etc. 

[Luvemtall]

The biggest obstacle to any successful solution is MINDSET!! It’s almost impossible to teach people to accept a new approach to something that they have been brainwashed and doing their whole lives. Just like finding solutions to alternative energy sources ( they are taking our gas from us! We are all going to die) taking junior out of his truck , or sharing the road  space with other forms of transportation are foreign subjects and almost always met with objections right from the start. 

Edited December 4, 2023 by Luvemtall

[Armacing]

On 12/2/2023 at 7:43 AM, samsonh said:

There will another referendum this year. It will pass. 

I hope it does pass.  I would love to see Davidson County self-finance the entire system and leave the rest of the state out of their plans... That way we can avoid a huge inter-regional political battle within the state government and just let everyone pay for their own rail/bus projects at the local level.

The only thing the state of TN needs to do is allow for the construction of toll roads.   Orlando is the perfect model for how this could work.

Also, I agree with the other poster who said TN needs to finish the North Loop of 840... That's a no-brainer.

[Luvemtall]

In all seriousness, Metro can go the route of the Brightline and get a fully private funded transit system in place. Relieving the burden on the taxpayers , and opening up the possibility of future expansion for a cross state system. Anything is possible, with the right attitude and management.

[KJHburg]

Here is a lesson from NC on tolled express lanes what you call Choice lanes.  Our tolled express lanes along I-77 in Charlotte opened before Covid and it was private partnership with Cintra a Spanish firm and of course the NC DOT.   Nashville and TNDOT needs to build some of these and I know they want to.  I hate tolls personally but when I need to get somewhere on this route at a certain time I hop on and off to speed past slower points which are are at some of the major intersections and the causeway section over Lake Norman (where people slow down to look at the big lake and I am not kidding)   The implementation of these tolled lanes was not without controversy.  The city of Charlotte and the Governor were  for it and residents and political leaders of the towns to the north of Charlotte and around Lake Norman were against it.  They thought it should have been widened for free with no tolls.  NCDOT has made it clear that in the major NC urban areas widening expressways will include toll lanes.  There is a 50 mile 2nd beltway around Raleigh that will be 2/3 tolled and another tolled highway from Research Triangle Park there.  Here in Charlotte right now and opening soon is a tolled express along I -485 south our beltway.  Plans to widen I-77 south of uptown Charlotte will involve at least 4 tolled lanes.   People have gotten used to them if they want reliability in travel times.    In my opinion you need tolled express lanes on I-65 from I-840 south of Franklin to the downtown splits and along I-24 from I-840 towards downtown and on I-40 east and west into the city.  

The tolling is variable rate and you can hop on and off at multiple points along the 26 mile route from uptown Charlotte to Mooresville Lake Norman. 

Here is an recent article and press release from the private public partnership.

""By I-77 Mobility Partners
Apr 28, 2023
The I-77 Express corridor is continuing to move people and goods at a faster, more reliable pace despite being utilized by a record number of vehicles.

On March 31, 2023, the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) rate of cars and trucks on the corridor reached its highest level ever of about 123,000 – an increase of 13,000 from the same time the previous year.

Even so, because of how I-77 Express constantly manages the flow of traffic by convincing drivers to move in and out of its express lanes, the average speeds in all lanes are faster than they were prior to the start of construction on I-77 Express in 2015.

“We’re very proud of this accomplishment,” said David Garcia, CEO of I-77 Mobility Partners, the company that designed, built, and manages I-77 Express. “Every time a driver chooses to use the express lanes, that frees up space in the free general-purpose lanes. That means all drivers are benefitting from the construction of the corridor.”

Faster speeds

A first of its kind for North Carolina, I-77 Express is a public-private partnership between the North Carolina Department of Transportation and I-77 Mobility Partners that developed an innovative solution to a critical transportation corridor that was often plagued by congestion. After responding to a competitive state-led procurement process, I-77 Mobility Partners secured more than $500 million in private financing – money that did not come from taxpayers’ pockets – allowing the NCDOT to make major improvements to 26.2 miles of I-77 roughly 20 years of ahead of schedule.

Those improvements have decreased travel times for all drivers – not just those who choose to use the express lanes. For example, prior to the start of construction in 2015, drivers needed about 45 minutes during the morning or evening rush hour to travel from Charlotte to Mooresville. In the free general-purpose lanes, the same trip now takes about 30 minutes.

Improved safety

What’s impressive is the dramatic improvement in safety throughout the corridor. Despite the increase in vehicles, the accident rate has fallen from 196 accidents per 100,000,000 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) in 2015 prior to the start of construction to 103 accidents per 100,000,000 VMT in 2022. That’s a more than 90% drop.

“It makes perfect sense,” said Garcia. “If traffic is moving at a more reliable pace, driver behavior becomes more predictable and there’s less risk of accidents caused by brake-tapping or erratic movements.”

Garcia also said he hopes to decrease that number even further. Each year, I-77 Mobility Partners invests millions of dollars in new safety equipment, such as cameras that use artificial intelligence to spot potential safety hazards. And more is on the way. Garcia’s goal is to create the safest, most technologically advanced highway in North Carolina, if not the entire southeast.

I-77 Mobility Partners LLC financed, developed, designed, constructed, operates and maintains the 26-mile I-77 Express corridor as part of the first-ever public-private partnership with the North Carolina Department of Transportation. NCDOT retains ownership of the roadway and helps ensure I-77 Mobility Partners adheres to the standards of their contractual partnership.""

[donNdonelson2]

Transportation from the past-from the Time Machine called Facebook 

[chc3]

10 hours ago, KJHburg said:

What’s impressive is the dramatic improvement in safety throughout the corridor. Despite the increase in vehicles, the accident rate has fallen from 196 accidents per 100,000,000 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) in 2015 prior to the start of construction to 103 accidents per 100,000,000 VMT in 2022. That’s a more than 90% drop.

I lived in Orange County for 30 years and I can attest to the value of The Toll Roads Authority and its 4 tollways. It reduced the time to get from South County to SNA and the Irvine/Newport Beach business hub by at least half by avoiding the awful 5 to 405 El Toro “Y” and the rest of the 405 up to MacArthur Boulevard. 

[smeagolsfree]

I saw a snippet on one of the TV stations that democratic lawmakers were trying to stop implementation of the toll lanes because they said local municipalities needed a say. Again no one can get along with which way to go. You would think the Dems would be all for this but because it is a Republic an idea the figured they might as well be Bat crap crazy for a change.

 

[PaulChinetti]

Not sure why Dems have to play nice but Repubs don't... Unrelated though. 


@KJHburgthanks for that, seems like tolls lanes can work. I am still unclear of the TDOT plan and how and where it would be implemented. 

Just give us a Netherlands style public transportation system, is that too much to ask?

[downtownresident]

Living in Dallas, I can attest to the usefulness of choice lanes, or tolled express lanes. They are definitely helpful in a pinch if traffic is backed up. 

[ruraljuror]

On 12/4/2023 at 11:46 AM, PruneTracy said:

The maximum capacity for transit only matters if: a) the agency is running cars at that rate; and b) if they can fill them.

These statements are equally true of car lanes, which is why you either need to compare maximum capacity of both options or compare the actual/projected uses of both options in order to make an apples to apples evaluation.

As I said, however, even then I don't think it's particularly meaningful to compare ridership numbers for modes of transportation where one option is 4 months old and the other has been entrenched and heavily subsidized for a century already regardless.

On 12/4/2023 at 11:46 AM, PruneTracy said:

So you have a moral objection to DOTs building new tolled lanes to pull people out of the general-purpose lanes but it's fine to take up ROW with vanity transit projects carrying a fraction of the people?

I'm not personally familiar with this streetcar project so I don't know much about whether it's a vanity project or not. For context, did you think the AMP was a vanity project, as well? 

And I wouldn't say I have a moral objection here so much as a practical one. Government shouldn't adopt a freemium model for public services because it inevitably leads to worse service for those who don't buy into the up-sell. If people with more money have the option to opt out of poor public services, then they have no incentive to improve the shortcomings of those services but are very much incentivized to widen the gap in quality between the free option and the premium option in their favor.  Look no further than what private and charter schools have done to the public school system, which used to be one of the biggest advantages the US wielded on a global scale as recently as the 1960s and 1970s. It took 50 years, but bad public schools are now everyone's problem, just as worse public roads would be.

On 12/4/2023 at 11:46 AM, PruneTracy said:

There are P3 arrangements with tolled lanes such that it's possible to have the toll revenue pay for maintenance/operation of the entire facility, including general-purpose lanes (i.e., you get to drive on the GP lanes for free, not just "free" because the gas tax isn't collected at point of use, thanks to the revenue generated from tolls in a few choice lanes). Would you be OK with people jumping line at the DMV if they paid your registration fee? Priority service during a power outage if they covered your light bill? 

Sounds like you know more about the proposal and various options than I do - is the gas tax being eliminated? Currently, assuming that I fill up my 13 gallon tank once a week, I pay a little less than $170 in gas tax a year. Is that all going away? If not, by about how much would you expect it to be reduced? 

And while I think you're probably a little off base with your DMV comparison - I would guess the analogy would be more like letting someone cut in line in exchange for somewhere between 3 and 30 cents - your 'light bill payment for priority service during a power outage' hypothetical is really throwing me for a loop.  For one, imagining a bidding war to get power reconnected during an ice storm with old people and poor people falling to the back of the line in exchange for like a couple hundred bucks strikes me as a bit dystopian. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure the poorest among us are already at the back of that line more often than not even without a priority service option, but seeing the concept in writing being used as a positive example in support of the point you're trying to make was not something I was expecting.

On 12/4/2023 at 11:46 AM, PruneTracy said:

Personally if we are going to consider roads as a public utility...

What do you consider roads to be if not a public utility? 

Edited December 5, 2023 by ruraljuror

[PruneTracy]

8 hours ago, ruraljuror said:

These statements are equally true of car lanes, which is why you either need to compare maximum capacity of both options or compare the actual/projected uses of both options in order to make an apples to apples evaluation.

As I said, however, even then I don't think it's particularly meaningful to compare ridership numbers for modes of transportation where one option is 4 months old and the other has been entrenched and heavily subsidized for a century already regardless.

We know when a vehicular lane is fully utilized; it's when there's congestion. In fact, a traffic jam is demand exceeding capacity, which is partly why the I-24 SMART corridor, for example, includes variable speed limits: lane density and therefore capacity is maximized at 30-40 miles per hour. You will be hard-pressed to find a non-congested roadway along an existing or proposed transit corridor at peak periods, especially considering that reducing traffic congestion is often one of the purported benefits of a new transit project.

As for the duration of service, the highest annual ridership of the New York City Subway, the oldest and perhaps most well-known transit system in the country, occurred in 1946. It almost returned to the post-WWII high in the 2010s but halved during covid and has not much recovered. (On the other hand, the city is looking at congestion pricing for downtown Manhattan roadways starting next spring, with the proceeds adding to the $9 billion MTA already receives from government funding annually, so there is hope yet.) 

8 hours ago, ruraljuror said:

I'm not personally familiar with this streetcar project so I don't know much about whether it's a vanity project or not. For context, did you think the AMP was a vanity project, as well? 

And I wouldn't say I have a moral objection here so much as a practical one. Government shouldn't adopt a freemium model for public services because it inevitably leads to worse service for those who don't buy into the up-sell. If people with more money have the option to opt out of poor public services, then they have no incentive to improve the shortcomings of those services but are very much incentivized to widen the gap in quality between the free option and the premium option in their favor.  Look no further than what private and charter schools have done to the public school system, which used to be one of the biggest advantages the US wielded on a global scale as recently as the 1960s and 1970s. It took 50 years, but bad public schools are now everyone's problem, just as worse public roads would be.

I worked on the Amp and it was a vanity project, particularly when it came to the light rail and streetcar options operating in dedicated lanes. The BRT-lite option had similar ridership projections to the other options for far cheaper; this is a common issue in transit planning and I would bet came up in Tempe as well. (The motive behind the push for streetcars or LRT-style vehicles, even buses that mimic the look of either, is the perception by planners and citizens alike that only poor people ride the bus, which is, if not the textbook definition of vanity, at least the same for a self-fulfilling prophecy.)

And I'd like to point out again that the roads aren't "free", much like public schools aren't "free". You and I are paying for both with taxes; gas taxes in the former case and property taxes in the latter. The use of choice lanes or similar models to supplement/replace the tax income shouldn't change the fact that you and I are paying into the system and want our money's worth any more so than people who send their kids to private school (among corporations, childless people, and others who pay property taxes) aren't also paying for a public school system they don't personally use. And if you want to say it's a public good then that ought to make their stake in it that much more important, but if they are fed up with it to the point where they are willing to not only pay for it but pay not to use it, I'm not sure the answer is just to make them use it even when they don't want to just to prove a point.

8 hours ago, ruraljuror said:

Sounds like you know more about the proposal and various options than I do - is the gas tax being eliminated? Currently, assuming that I fill up my 13 gallon tank once a week, I pay a little less than $170 in gas tax a year. Is that all going away? If not, by about how much would you expect it to be reduced? 

And while I think you're probably a little off base with your DMV comparison - I would guess the analogy would be more like letting someone cut in line in exchange for somewhere between 3 and 30 cents - your 'light bill payment for priority service during a power outage' hypothetical is really throwing me for a loop.  For one, imagining a bidding war to get power reconnected during an ice storm with old people and poor people falling to the back of the line in exchange for like a couple hundred bucks strikes me as a bit dystopian. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure the poorest among us are already at the back of that line more often than not even without a priority service option, but seeing the concept in writing being used as a positive example in support of the point you're trying to make was not something I was expecting.

Let's suppose it costs TDOT $10 million per year, annualized, to maintain, for example, the four-lane stretch of I-65 between US 412 and I-840 south of town. We'll say this is currently funded through the gas tax.

A private corporation or JV shows up at TDOT's door, says that they will build two reversible lanes with dynamic tolling in the median on this stretch of I-65. It's going to cost them $100 million to build, but they believe they can generate $10 million in revenue each year from the tolls. They want to build it on their own dime, then operate it themselves and collect the tolls for 15 years. TDOT contracts with them to do it.

Gets built, the corporation/JV gets their money back in tolling as projected, turns the facility over to TDOT when the contract period is up. At this point TDOT has two extra managed lanes on I-65, that they didn't pay for, that they can generate $10 million in revenue from each year. In other words the toll revenue from the managed lanes is functionally paying for maintenance for all of I-65 in this area, which means that you get to drive in the GP lanes for free, real free and not "free", and the gas tax that would have gone to maintain it can now be used for capital improvements elsewhere or, inconceivably in any state but this one, be reduced.

Or, let's say the corporation/JV says they will build two managed lanes and two GP lanes for 25 years of tolls. Now you have an extra free lane that you didn't have before, and the tolls in the other lanes that you don't have to use are paying for it, meaning your level of service went up for, again, real free.

That was my point: you can argue that utility customers, who are in certain cases equal stakeholders in a partnership, shouldn't get unequal service even if one party is willing to pay a little extra, but the game changes if said party is covering the service altogether. I am positive that most people wouldn't appreciate not getting their power reconnected in a timely fashion because others paid a little extra to get theirs, yet I'm also positive this contingent would dramatically shrink if they weren't paying anything at all for their power in the first place. Actually, they'd probably still complain, but their moral advantage would be reduced.

8 hours ago, ruraljuror said:

What do you consider roads to be if not a public utility? 

You can call them whatever you want, but they aren't a utility in the sense that your electricity, gas, telephone, or cable/Internet provider is a utility. DOTs don't control their own revenue streams, gas taxes and the like aren't user fees, and their capital improvement plans are based on political considerations rather than maximizing their user base and level of service.

There was a guy named Phillip Tarnoff who wrote a book a few years back called The Road Ahead where he advocated turning DOTs into privately-operated corporations. They issue their own licenses to drive on their roadways, they police their own roads with their own highway patrol, they collect fees from users in the form of a VMT or tolls, and they control their own revenue and capital expenditures. The problem with this approach is that it's too large of a leap from what we have; it's far too easy for those with skin in the game (i.e., politicians and government planners) to convince the public this is not in their best interest. It would also kill transit options on these roadways in the same manner that CSX et al. impose prohibitive conditions for passenger service on their privately-owned rail lines. You can argue the social, environmental, etc. benefits of transit, but a profitable venture it is not.

[Luvemtall]

I have to say Prune Tracy , you just explained things in a way that’s starting to make a believer out of me. After all my years on the road crisscrossing this country making a living, that last post was the first time things actually made sense. I have to admit and apologize for some of my earlier post, and fess up to the fact that maybe all them years of road weary days soured my perception. Thank you for the insight, I will definitely still say that the I-840 north loop still needs to be completed.