The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread

[producer2]

its about revenue, its always about revenue. How much revenue does Megabus bring to the City? How much revenue do the tourists and conventioneers generate. Is that responsive enough for you? 

 

ps...its not my belief, its THE belief if you haven't noticed....

[Guest]

So your point, if I state it correctly, is that indeed, the only difference between MegaBus and the tourist/hotel industry utilizing the same public infrastructure is the one brings-in more revenue. I s that correct?

 

Personally I have a problem with the government picking winners and losers in the private sector. All should have equal access to ply their trade.

 

Just another cause of corporate welfare hurting the small guy.... If you can afford to visit our fair city and stay in Hilton your bus can utilize our public spaces to your convenience, but if you are coming to our city on a budget utilizing the MegaBus we will dump you in the middle nowhere..... makes perfect sense.

[producer2]

In your world that makes sense. In the real world we need private industry to do their fair share to help us pay for the infrastructure they are using.If they are not paying taxes or creating jobs, etc. then they probably are not going to get preferential treatment.  This is not the only issue. Ask the owners of the parking lot, Panera Bread, residents at the Viridian, etc. how this stop effected them negatively. They are not banned from the City just moved from that one location. 

[Nathan_in_DC]

I think we can all agree that the spot MegaBus was using wasn't ideal.  And I would also hope that we can agree that sticking them out at the Fairgrounds, stranding their passengers in a bad part of town, is not an ideal situation either.

 

The biggest question is why didn't the MTA request to move them near the stadium, to a lot near the capitol, etc.?  It really isn't logical for either side to have them out in the middle of nowhere.

 

The tourist buses do bring a lot of money into downtown, however good MegaBus service has the potential to bring a hugely diverse crowd that will be willing to spend money in more places than where their tour guides drop them off at.  Tourist buses aren't bad, they're the hand that feeds much of Nashville, but they seem to me to be quite limited in scope.  That being said, MegaBus can't really expect to have a free for all for any street in Nashville without regard to the impact it will have on neighbors and traffic.  I don't think it's unreasonable to ask them to move from this spot.  I also find it highly unreasonable to send them out to no-man's-land.  That sort of move just makes it look like the MTA is trying to drive them out of town.

Edited January 9, 2013 by Nathan_in_PHL

[Neigeville]

Megabus may have handled the issue badly. We're all talking about this as though all responsibility belongs on Metro. 

 

I'm not saying they belong at the fairgrounds (btw last time I checked their Chattanooga location was a mall far from DT so it's not just Nashville). But I wonder if they 1) are jerks and/or 2) didn't do their homework. They're also expanding very fast and may not be giving things like this the attention they need, hence the failure to work out a reasonable arrangement.

[Neigeville]

To return to a more important topic, BRT, I read where the new Federal guidelines for mass transit funding are revised:

 

http://www.planetizen.com/node/60183

 

"Previously," writes Schmitt, "the FTA relied heavily on 'travel time savings' to judge the merits of a project. The new formula will focus instead on the number of passengers expected to be served. Economic benefits like the impact on development will also be considered."

 

...the new evaluation process will also incorporate the expected effects on public health (including traffic fatality rates) and energy use.

 

This should be good news for Nashville's proposal since we have bad air and lots of accidents, not to mention acres of undeveloped land that will benefit greatly from improved transit.

[Neigeville]

I have to say one final thing about Megabus.  A friend of mine had a friend come in from Chicago via Megabus a few days ago.  The bus broke down on the way and they had to sit for 4 hours.  They got to Nashville at 2:30 am and when my friend got to the fairgrounds to pick up his visitor there was a crowd of people and luggage out there in the freezing cold in the middle of nowhere in the middle of the night.  The driver had told every one they would have to get off, those making connections would have to wait for the next bus to come, in a few hours.  So maybe it's worth paying more for a terminal and some kind of customer service.

[timmay143]

Wouldn't it be nice if Nashville was doing something like this, sigh.

 

 

[BnaBreaker]

It would be so nice...but our city leaders are, for whatever reason, totally content with being in a constant state of having to play catch up with our peer cities. 

[Neigeville]

Wouldn't it be nice if Nashville was doing something like this, sigh.

 Is that Houston?

[timmay143]

 Is that Houston?

Yep, it is.

[UTgrad09]

It would be so nice...but our city leaders are, for whatever reason, totally content with being in a constant state of having to play catch up with our peer cities. 

I think Dean & Co. wanted to do light rail, but the price tag (after dropping half a bill on the MCC) and the feasibility study didn't exactly make it attractive.

I think light rail is cool, but I think it would be an absolute money pit until we boost our core population by a lot.

I think Charlotte has a nice line for their light rail -- but what works there might not necessarily work here.

I get what you say about playing catch up, but I do not think it would be wise to make an impulsive decision. I think BRT is in our short term future -- light rail may be a ways off. I'd rather see us work on commuter rail than light rail, anyways.

[BnaBreaker]

I get what you're saying, and I agree for the most part.  Don't get me wrong.  I am pleased with the BRT plans I've seen so far and I think it'll be huge for the city, and there is obviously something to be said for frugality.  I guess, in general, I just get irritated when the city shys away from big plans due only to the cost.  I mean if there really is no money for it then okay, but sometimes it feels like saving as much money as possible, and not doing what is truly best for the city, is the number one priority. 

[SoundScan]

I understand some of the frustration about Nashville being a bit behind some peer cities in a few areas, but the slow, steady, and deliberate pace has worked out well for us over the long term. Think back to 2008 and the complete crash that some cities experienced. Nashville (and Tennessee in general) was hit too, yes, but not nearly as hard, and was able to recover much more quickly. That's part of the reason why everyone is so high on Nashville right now as an "it" city. Starting a project we can't afford, while it may feel like a big, progressive step forward could end up financially crippling the city's finances for years and just push us two steps back. California is a state that doesn't shy away from ambitious projects, but we all know of the dire financial position they're currently in, even with their absurdly high tax rates.

[Neigeville]

I understand some of the frustration about Nashville being a bit behind some peer cities in a few areas, but the slow, steady, and deliberate pace has worked out well for us over the long term. Think back to 2008 and the complete crash that some cities experienced. Nashville (and Tennessee in general) was hit too, yes, but not nearly as hard, and was able to recover much more quickly. That's part of the reason why everyone is so high on Nashville right now as an "it" city. Starting a project we can't afford, while it may feel like a big, progressive step forward could end up financially crippling the city's finances for years and just push us two steps back. California is a state that doesn't shy away from ambitious projects, but we all know of the dire financial position they're currently in, even with their absurdly high tax rates.

 

As long as the medical insurance & for profit hospital scams are allowed to bleed the country dry, Nashville will be somewhat insulated from recession.  I do think Nashville has done a lot in terms of zoning and overlays on a steady basis over the years to create an environment that encourages good development without creating unnecessary obstacles and I think that accounts for a lot of our itty-ness.  You're always going to have some whining from developers but I'm really struck how easy it is for a large project like the Buckingham deal to get done.  In some cities it's a huge fight to build something like that.  Of course a lot of that is the lack of Nimbyism since we destroyed our core neighborhoods long ago.

 

I see BRT as a stepping stone to something more complete--as the rapid transit system grows, it must spread to places like Green Hills where there's no room for BRT, so eventually we'll end up with some other modes, and the East-West Connector may eventually be converted to rail.  But for it to succeed, they have to make it real, full BRT--platforms level with the bus floor, several wide doors on each bus, pre-boarding fare collection, dedicated ROWs, etc.  If they go all the way, it could be better than some light rail systems.

Edited January 25, 2013 by Neigeville

[UTgrad09]

I get what you're saying, and I agree for the most part.  Don't get me wrong.  I am pleased with the BRT plans I've seen so far and I think it'll be huge for the city, and there is obviously something to be said for frugality.  I guess, in general, I just get irritated when the city shys away from big plans due only to the cost.  I mean if there really is no money for it then okay, but sometimes it feels like saving as much money as possible, and not doing what is truly best for the city, is the number one priority. 

lol, I think you're stuck in the perspective of an urbanite. Not that it's a bad thing. I want to see us spend more on transportation and infrastructure in general. Sidewalks, buried utilities, improved public transit, greenways, bike lanes, streetscaping, etc.

But if you ask a lot of people in this county what the number one priority is, you will get a shout in your ear of "SCHOOLS!"

Not that schools aren't important, but I have a feeling we could devote 100% of our budget to schools and only make modest gains. It's not an issue money solves (or not completely).

The other major obstacle is taxes. While Davidson County is seeing it's tax rate increase a little bit, we're still mostly a "low tax" place for a major city (talking property taxes, primarily -- but our other fees and services aren't really higher than elsewhere in the state). While some people will be fine with an increase in taxes for an increase in services, there will naturally be a lot of resistance. And if we jack taxes too quickly, I fear a lot of people with money (non-renters) will just flee to the suburbs, leaving us worse off than before.

It's frustrating for those of us looking for the city to make big changes...but those guys are in a pretty tough spot, to be honest. Traffic and mass transit are trivial to most people when compared to crime/safety and schools.

I want a lot more, but I'm happy as hell that they're spending any attention at all on things like BRT and urban zoning. There are a lot of good ideas out there. I think part of the onus is on us, as citizens, to make things like this a priority for our government. Otherwise, this stuff just stays on the drawing board.

Make some noise, y'all.

[timmay143]

Yeah, you guys are right.  Glad there are plans in place and progress is being made.  It's just frustrating sometimes, but slow and steady is the pace and has been good to us.  I just hope the hype doesn't backfire.  Dang this cold weather!

[timmay143]

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130128-the-future-of-urban-transport

[bigeasy]

I would ride a cable car in a heartbeat to work!!! That would be so much fun especially if they could use the ones from Opryland I would feel like I am at an amusement part every morning.

[nashveit]

CP article from Monday. Regarding route/funding for BRT

 

http://nashvillecitypaper.com/content/city-news/brt-route-set-or-it

[timmay143]

CP article from Monday. Regarding route/funding for BRT

 

http://nashvillecitypaper.com/content/city-news/brt-route-set-or-it

Nice!  I like the option of WE along with Charlotte!  Just want to see some dirt move soon.

[bwithers1]

CP article from Monday. Regarding route/funding for BRT

 

http://nashvillecitypaper.com/content/city-news/brt-route-set-or-it

How about having the BRT start at White Bridge/West End, but instead of going down West End, go north on White Bridge to Charlotte (with a stop for Nashville Tech), then down Charlotte to the 28th/31st Connector, then down that to West End/31st and continue the route as planned.  That would get the Charlotte Pike residents who would use the BRT, connect with One City (if that ever happens), but still hit the Vanderbilt campus and West End hotels in MidTown area on the way to downtown.  It would also route the BRT away from Elmington Park and all of that area that doesn't seem to want the BRT.

 

To me, the only problem with Charlotte is that if you remove 2 dedicated lanes, it would essentially be a 2-lane road along the Sylvan Park area.  That's assuming that the BRT would go along the sidewalks in that stretch and not in the center.  So if you had a BRT-dedicated lane and a regular bus on the road at the same time, traffic would come to a complete stop.  I'm not a fan of having the BRT use center lanes (essentially 3 center lanes) even on West End, much less on the narrower thoroughfares.  I am more in favor of having the BRT go along the sidewalks even though a little widening might be in order.

Edited January 30, 2013 by bwithers1

[Neigeville]

How about having the BRT start at White Bridge/West End, but instead of going down West End, go north on White Bridge to Charlotte (with a stop for Nashville Tech), then down Charlotte to the 28th/31st Connector, then down that to West End/31st and continue the route as planned.  That would get the Charlotte Pike residents who would use the BRT, connect with One City (if that ever happens), but still hit the Vanderbilt campus and West End hotels in MidTown area on the way to downtown.  It would also route the BRT away from Elmington Park and all of that area that doesn't seem to want the BRT.

 

To me, the only problem with Charlotte is that if you remove 2 dedicated lanes, it would essentially be a 2-lane road along the Sylvan Park area.  That's assuming that the BRT would go along the sidewalks in that stretch and not in the center.  So if you had a BRT-dedicated lane and a regular bus on the road at the same time, traffic would come to a complete stop.  I'm not a fan of having the BRT use center lanes (essentially 3 center lanes) even on West End, much less on the narrower thoroughfares.  I am more in favor of having the BRT go along the sidewalks even though a little widening might be in order.

I favor the West End route because it will go farthest to fight the perception that transit is just for poor people.  BRT if done properly will bring the quality of service up to the level where people with a choice will use the system, which they never will with regular buses.  Obviously other arterials will be added to the system, it won't really come into its own until there are several connecting lines and Charlotte does seem to have room for BRT unlike some other streets, but the area's largest employers are along West End, and tourists will be able to use it as well.  I just really object to the idea that we should only build transit in poor areas.  That's a recipe for a substandard system because people don't care if the poor are getting bad service.  If you want the system to provide good service you've got to get the middle class in on it and that'll never happen with a bus that runs every 40 minutes. 

 

Also as much as possible I'd like the lines as they develop to follow roads instead of meandering about.  In other words, I think a system that serves only the inner part of West End and the outer part of Charlotte is not as intuitive, esp. for out of towners and occasional users, as one where there's a West End BRT, a Nolensville line, a Charlotte line, a Gallatin line, a Murfreesboro line, etc.  The whole system as it evolves should be super easy to understand, which the current bus system is definitely not.

 

I'm curious why you are against BRT using center lanes?  Some transit advocates don't even think a system should be considered BRT unless it uses center lanes.  I'm not sure what all the issues are with the lane placement, would like you to expand on this.

 

As to the people who "don't seem to want it", every proposal brings out the Negative Nancies first and they are always louder than advocates.  To begin with we don't know how representative the Negatives are, and we don't know how opinions will change if people become more informed. 

 

I also don't get Holleman.  He seems to be unwilling to advocate for any proposal.  He's mentioned as a possible future mayor.  Where is his vision?

[nashvillwill]

I'm curious why you are against BRT using center lanes? Some transit advocates don't even think a system should be considered BRT unless it uses center lanes. I'm not sure what all the issues are with the lane placement, would like you to expand on this.

Well, I know you weren't asking me, but ill take a stab at this one.

I don't think it's ideal for any transit system to use the center lane. Please note the difference between "dedicated lanes" and "center lane". I'm all for BRT having dedicated lanes. Ideally, they wouldn't be in the center of the road, simply because this creates a physical barrier (fast moving traffic) between the system (center lane) and the user (sidewalk pedestrians). It's a pretty intense psychological barrier for a person to overcome. "I have to go stand OUT THERE?!" That's a normal reaction for humans when faced with a perceived danger. Ideally, for the easiest user-to-system interface, there would be dedicated lanes against the sidewalk.

Meanwhile, I think the center is the only practical and proven place for a transit line to operate. There are just too many traffic management problems closer to the sidewalk (on a heavily used road at least). The only alternative is to go underground and that's not going to happen in Nashville in my lifetime.

[bwithers1]

Yeah, the psychological aspect is definitely one reservation that I have about using the center lanes.  Transit advocates are one thing, but Nashville's (potential) transit users are another. 

 

Plus, it seems to me that the infrastructure needs for the center lanes are much higher.  At the presentations that I attended in East Nashville, it was explained that since the stops would be mid-block (which I do support), that there would have to be installed a second traffic signal with a pedestrian crossing mid-block to get the pedestrians from the sidewalk on each side of the street over to the island.  So this adds more traffic signals (albeit timed with the cross-street traffic signals), and at a cost of over $100,000 each (using costs given to me by the Traffic & Parking Commission during meetings on other topics), that pretty quickly adds a couple of million dollars to the price tag.

 

At the same presentation that I attended, the route was going to go along the sidewalk in some places anyway.  So I was left wondering why it couldn't just do that all the way and just use up what are now parking lanes.  The other component of having the island in the center is that instead of using two lanes (one against each sidewalk), the areas where stops are located would use the equivalent of three lanes of traffic because of the dedicated lane in each direction plus the space for the stop.

 

And the route does skip around a bit downtown and particularly over in East Nashville.  So it's not necessarily a straight-line run from start to finish.

 

Now I am not absolutely opposed to the center lanes, but noone has explained to me (or I haven't grasped) what benefits come from using the center lanes that couldn't be achieved by using the side lanes.  It just seems to me that instead of vehicular traffic having tricky left turns along the route, that the vehicles would have tricky right turns.  The only problem with the side lanes that I can foresee would be potential conflicts with curb cuts that are along those lanes.  But couldn't the cars pulling in or out just cross the BRT lane when it is clear?  My understading is that even the dedicated center lanes aren't going to be raised or anything.  So cars could technically still cross them except where the stops are to be constructed.

 

Really that is not so much an objection as a question that I am open to learning about.

 

In terms of the potential routing along Charlotte for a portion of the trip, I see lots of benefits to running the thing down West End, but at the same time if there are users along Charlotte who really are ready to use it, while the residents along West End are really opposed to it, then to me it makes financial sense to go where your day-to-day paying customers are likely to be rather than to fight with a bunch of property owners on West End who are clearly opposed to the thing in the first place and are going to vote en mass and with their pocketbooks to oppose it, no matter how unfounded some of their fears may be.  Charlotte Ave, particularly in the Sylvan Park area, is not necessarily a poor area of town by any means.  Compared to Richland-West End yes, but so is just about everybody outside of Belle Meade.  But those home values in Sylvan Park are well above the city's median home value.  The poorer areas are north of Charlotte but largely across the interstate from Charlotte anyway.

Edited February 1, 2013 by bwithers1