The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread

[Neigeville]

...  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...

 

Hmmm.  One idea that occurs to me is that the center lane BRT would severely limit or block left turns, which would be a benefit on West End as high speed left turns in front of traffic are very dangerous (especially for pedestrians who may not be seen by a turning driver focused on finding a gap in the oncoming traffic).  If the BRT runs on the sides, I think there's a lot more of a collision risk as cars could freely turn both left and right and could hit a bus either way.  And to the average idiot, that'd be the bus's fault, whereas a driver hit by the bus in the center lane was almost certainly doing something illegal. 

 

Personally I strongly favor putting a little curb on either side of the bus's lanes except at major intersections.

 

Actually, with side lanes, everyone's route who uses the street will conflict with a bus's at at least one point on their journey making the bus more of an inconvenience for drivers sharing the road with it.  Also, drivers are used to being hyper-alert during left turns, but no one looks behind and to their right before making a right turn.  (You could put up a sign saying "look behind you before turning"!  That'd solve the problem.  Just like the sign at work that says "Do not dump food in sink".  /sarcasm)  The more I think about it, "tricky right turns" begin to seem alarming and dangerous.

 

If you're blocking left turns, you're going to specifically enable U-Turns at lights, right?  So people's conflict-with-the-BRT turns will be light regulated.  Whereas you can't have a light at every right turn spot.

 

I read of a BRT line with signal control in LA (I'm too lazy to look for the reference after a trying day at work) which had so many accidents with cars going thru red lights that they now require the bus to slow down at lights, which has reduced its average speed over the entire route from 35 mph to 17mph. I think that's a lousy response--I'd replace the red lights with a giant LED sign that screams "YOU WILL DIE!".  The trains in Houston (which go up to 55 mph in outer areas) have hit lots of cars--there's a signal but people try to outrun it--but the authorities in Houston have taken a more Darwinian approach to this problem.

 

I'm also afraid that side lanes will lead to not building proper stations, there's no room, they block the sidewalk, etc.  Without platforms level with the floor of the vehicle it begins to be just a bus.  The light rail in Denver, which did not impress me, has this problem, you have to climb about 2 1/2 feet up some stairs about a foot tall and 4" wide, and there's a little wheelchair ramp up to the frontmost door only.  You wait on the sidewalk.  It has a kind of half-a$$ed quality compared to a proper platform.  Platforms in the center offer the potential to design something aesthetic that will change the look of the city, whereas squeezing them onto the sidewalk just makes clutter.

 

I'm also thinking transit advocates should be sifting thru West End for allies and getting them organized and vocal.  They need to break the narrative that every single person in this neighborhood is anti-transit, which can't possibly be true.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Neigeville

[timmay143]

May not be a huge thing, but to me it seems center stations would have pedestrians only cross a couple of lanes either way while side stations would have pedestrians cross 4 to 5 lanes to get to the other side.  

[MidTenn1]

They should, at least, route it down Church Street from 8th to the end of Elliston Place at Centennial Park. Midtown traffic volumes on Broadway and West End are well over capacity already and there is no way any reasonable professional engineer or planner could ever believe that  traffic flow won't be significantly impacted in a very negative way. What happens along the Broadway-I-40 interchange?

 

This is a great corridor for this system, just the wrong road.

[chelovek]

 

Its about LRT and Detroit, but it talks about some of the reasons center lane is in demand for rapid transit.

[UTgrad09]

This latest development is the reason why I don't think we should rush into this. There are a lot of things to consider, and if we're going to drop a load of money on public transit, we need to make sure it has a chance to succeed (so that will hopefully spur more lines or even different modes).

Obviously with West End Ave being the most prominent street in town, it is a popular choice from a visibility perspective. From Vanderbilt to downtown, I don't think there's much of a question of the viability of this route.

But the councilman's concerns are certainly valid. Past 440, West End transitions into a very wealthy area, and one that I believe at this time is not a good candidate for any sort of public transit use. There's a 1.5 mile gap between around Murphy Road and St. Thomas where I can see there being very, very little use. And on top of that, will St. Thomas get that much traffic? I can't really see MBA or the catholic schools drawing ridership. Really, the only point in going out there is for the shopping centers and the small amount of dense residential that has risen up out there.

The counter argument would be the access to the shopping centers would be wonderful for the Vandy students and for residents in the Midtown area that don't want to have to use their cars to get out there. But even with this I see driving to retail to remain to be the primary choice, simply because I think the bus will not be as attractive time-wise.

Now the main argument for Charlotte/Sylvan Park is that ridership could be a bit higher. There is also a tremendous opportunity for new development in this area over what can be gained on West End. In a sense, the system could pay for itself simply through sparking new development. Will it? Who knows. But it's certainly conceivable. There are plenty of cases where new transit systems like this have sparked major development...and the Sylvan Park area of Charlotte has some good bones to work with for creating a cool mix of old and new.

I like Brett's idea of having the BRT skip over from Charlotte to West End...but I think starting at White Bridge/Nashville Tech might make the route a bit far. It would add 2 miles to the route. It can always be extended, so for right now, I'd just start around 54th. I would at least run this down to the potential OneC1ty development and the connector (even if that doesn't get built, eventually I think something nice will). But here's something else to consider...that 31st/Blakemore @ West End intersection is a nightmare, and is already a difficult spot to turn left during heavy traffic. If the BRT rumbles through there, it would likely elminate that single left turn lane...which could create quite a traffic snarl (and/or lead to a lot of accidents).

What about this...continue the BRT down Charlotte to 23rd, opening the potential for a few more blocks along an essentially abandoned portion of Charlotte. 23rd is a much more minor street. It's actually wide enough to run a couple of lanes on each side of the dedicated bus lanes through the Centennial complex. Beyond that, the right of way (NOT including sidewalks) is close to 50 feet...so it would be a tight fit, but if you get rid of the grass strip, you might just have enough to make it work and keep it open for regular traffic. The benefit here is that you pass right by the new Elliston 23, and you are still not far from Park Central (or whatever they are calling that thing on Brandau) and the Sportsplex.

Now you would miss most of the Vandy commercial district...but that's really the most congested area...so it might not be a bad thing in terms of trying to keep the rapid in rapid transit. And you would still hit the edge of Vandy, giving students access, as well as the Midtown hotels.

The other positives about taking 23rd as opposed to 28th/31st is distance. Taking 23rd is a little more than a half mile shorter in terms of distance...and it avoids an acute angle turn at West End at a busy intersection.

In regards to Charlotte being too narrow...I don't know. Using the google maps ruler (which I certainly don't contend is 100% accurate), the roadway at West End has spots that are about 72 feet wide. Charlotte actually has really wide outside lanes...so for two lanes less, it still ends up at 59 feet (more or less a wide lane's difference). Factor in that Charlotte's sidewalks also appear to be a very generous 9-10 feet on each side and you have close to an 80 foot cross section. With 10 foot lanes and 5 foot sidewalks, this would allow for 30 feet for two BRT lanes...which should be more than enough. For comparison's sake...the narrow portions of West End (in Midtown) are about 90 feet wide from sidewalk to sidewalk).

I think it would work.

As for my thoughts for using the center lanes and which routes should be taken downtown or on the east side, I'll leave that to another post.

[MidTenn1]

The long term plan has always been to terminate the transit line at White Bridge Road. This would allow a connection to a possible commuter rail line from the west, which is supposed to use existing (relatively lightly traveled) CSX rail lines.

[UTgrad09]

The long term plan has always been to terminate the transit line at White Bridge Road. This would allow a connection to a possible commuter rail line from the west, which is supposed to use existing (relatively lightly traveled) CSX rail lines.

And you could still do that. I just wouldn't start out with that.

Plus, taking Charlotte, you could connect to the tracks near OneC1ty/HCA. So that may not even be necessary.

[po-boy]

I think the city needs to decide what its priorities are with the BRT and that may lead to an easy conclusion regarding which route to take.

 

If the goal is to make the route highly visible and encourage "choice riders" (i.e. those who could drive but choose to take the BRT) in an effort to make this the first of many lines, then I think the West End/Broadway route is best.  That is clearly the highest profile and densest street.  People are more likely to see it and try it out.

 

If the goal is to encourage growth/development along the route, then Charlotte makes more sense b/c that route is not as developed.  But I think it would run the risk of reinforcing some negative stereotypes about transit.

 

Regarding the location of the lanes and stations there are several reasons for them to be in the center.  1.  You can have one station with buses on both sides as opposed to needing two stations (one for each direction) on opposite sides of the street.  2.   Having it in the center also minimizes conflicts with vehicles stopping/parking, pedestrians and bikes that spill into the road, etc.  3.  Having stations in the center will be easier for transfers b/c a passenger won't have to exit the station, cross a street, and enter another one (not a big deal with the first line, but will become more important if/when the system expands.)

[UTgrad09]

po-boy, on 01 Feb 2013 - 12:21, said:

I think the city needs to decide what its priorities are with the BRT and that may lead to an easy conclusion regarding which route to take.

If the goal is to make the route highly visible and encourage "choice riders" (i.e. those who could drive but choose to take the BRT) in an effort to make this the first of many lines, then I think the West End/Broadway route is best. That is clearly the highest profile and densest street. People are more likely to see it and try it out.

If the goal is to encourage growth/development along the route, then Charlotte makes more sense b/c that route is not as developed. But I think it would run the risk of reinforcing some negative stereotypes about transit.

Regarding the location of the lanes and stations there are several reasons for them to be in the center. 1. You can have one station with buses on both sides as opposed to needing two stations (one for each direction) on opposite sides of the street. 2. Having it in the center also minimizes conflicts with vehicles stopping/parking, pedestrians and bikes that spill into the road, etc. 3. Having stations in the center will be easier for transfers b/c a passenger won't have to exit the station, cross a street, and enter another one (not a big deal with the first line, but will become more important if/when the system expands.)

I don't see why you couldn't take the best of both worlds. I understand what you're saying about the potential negative stereotypes, but Sylvan Park has become a pretty decent urban hood, comparable to several sections of East Nashville. There's some rough stuff in the area, but that's true with every one of the corridors leaving downtown, with the exception of West End and 21st. Even 12th and 8th have several blocks of bad before you make it to the good.

The more I think about it, a hybrid Charlotte/West End route makes a lot of sense. Like I said in my previous post, I think the opportunity for residential ridership drops off tremendously once you cross 440 on West End. I think the stretch from Vanderbilt to downtown is a very obvious choice for this type of transit mode. And, as you say, it will be highly visible. It will serve the hotels and the job centers.

But is this system for the tourists or residents? What about both? You can serve the hotels/entertainment districts in the evening and at night (I would propose having a late night service with an abbreviated route that just runs from Downtown to the Midtown hotels from 10pm to 2am). You are also bookending this route with two popular residential areas with plenty of room for growth and development.

I'm not sure which route(s) they plan to use through downtown, but I would definitely take it at least to the edge of the entertainment district (5th and 4th). This way, you serve the arena and you're only a block away from the convention center. Alternately, you could run it down 8th to KVB and directly serve the convention center...but I think that would end up being a headache with the roundabout and my previously mentioned reservations about this system making a turn at a busy intersection.

I think you also want to consider putting in a stop at the bus terminal, simply because it would be a major transfer point. It would also add the Municipal Auditorium to the route, another entertainment venue.

So my proposed route:

Western terminus - Charlotte Ave near 54th (for the sake of it, let's just say the West Police Precinct)

-Charlotte to 23rd Ave

-23rd Ave to West End Ave

-West End/Broadway to 5th (eastbound) or 4th (westbound)

-Music City Central (bus terminal)

-modified BRT specific entrance/exit onto James Robertson Parkway straight out of the terminal (cutting off this triangular park)

-JRP/Main St/Gallatin Ave to E Trinity Lane (rather than 5 Points...this gives access to many, many more riders, more commercial space, Nashville Auto Diesel College, and the YMCA -- plus it's a much wider street than Woodland).

Eastern terminus - Gallatin Ave near E Trinity Lane

I think this sort of system would package our needs for public transit very well. It would have the "look" and the visibility for the casual riders and office workers in Downtown and Midtown. It would service the hotels and entertainment areas for our tourists. But most importantly, it would serve our residents in areas on each end of downtown that would actually want to use something like this on a daily basis. That, and Charlotte Pk and Gallatin Ave/Main St offer the best potential for transit oriented development arising as a result of this (West End is more built up, and the land is already more expensive).

As for center lane vs. outside lane, here are my thoughts:

I think there are pros and cons for both. For center lane, you can obviously use a single station rather than having two as opposed to the side lanes...but any sort of efficiency created here is lost with the addition of walk signals mid block that drivers may or may not pay attention to. Nashville is not known to be especially pedestrian friendly in the first place, so it could be very intimidating for people to venture out to an island in the middle of a busy highway -- even if they do have a signal. I think the addition of a walk signal would also slow down traffic, as it creates an extra stop. I think part of the idea of having a BRT in place is to make sure traffic flows smoothly. If traffic is jammed up, I can almost assure you the BRT will encounter "obstructions" slowing it down and making it less effective.

Aside from that, a center lane BRT would make left hand turns quite an adventure for anyone to do so. Possible solution...left turn lanes at major intersections are shared? Even if it is just a 150 foot section (6-7 cars worth) at only the busiest crossings, that could help...and I don't think it would destroy the spirit of the bus lane.

For the outside lanes, the major benefit is curbside service for passengers. While you would need to have twice as many shelters, you would eliminate the need of creating an island, which would bow out and create the need to widen the ROW in certain sections. Unlike left hand turns, right hand turns can be made much more easily without having to wait. Drivers would, however, need to be careful that they aren't cutting off a bus as they turn right. Possible solution...like the left hand turns, allow drivers a certain amount of space to "share" as they turn right. Since right hand turns are so easily made, there's less of a chance that the bus would get stuck behind cars. But the problem could still remain from people ignoring the bus lane rules and there could be other obstructions, such as idiots or delivery drivers parking in the bus lane.

Something to consider as an argument for right lane bus lanes: on narrower stretches, where there may not be enough space for 2 bus lanes and 4 car lanes (talking Charlotte and Gallatin and most especially the Victory Memorial Bridge - James Robertson)...you could solve some of this problem by having a 3 lane road with an interchangeable lane (see: Victory Memorial Bridge; Hermitage Ave), which could help traffic flow tremendously. You could also incorporate a "bus only" signal into the lights.

Edited February 1, 2013 by UTgrad09

[nashveit]

I wrote about this topic on my blog last fall. It's really good to see the discussion ramping up on this forum as well as in the local media. I don't know that we'll get the route changed, but we're at least making a good case for Charlotte to be next on the planning sheet. These are some points that I made about why I think BRT would be successful on Charlotte. Forgive me if some of these points have already been beaten into the ground.

 

Charlotte Avenue for the most part, runs parallel to the proposed route and still touches most of the major institutions within the proposed corridor footprint (Charlotte and West End are separated by less than
two miles at the widest point, with a majority of their separation distance being less than a mile).

 

• The Charlotte corridor stands to benefit far more in the way of economic development than does West End.
• Charlotte BRT would be closer to campuses in North Nashville (TSU, Fisk)
• Charlotte BRT would be closer to the medical district (including Metro General)
• Charlotte BRT would avoid going through pedestrian choked Lower Broad, but still close enough to walk to/from
• Charlotte BRT would retain the same route as the current proposal once you cross the Cumberland
• Charlotte BRT would have potential Park & Ride sites that are closer to I-40 (on the west) and NOT in already congested areas
• Charlotte BRT would still go through the main bus terminal, Music City Central (it’s ON Charlotte!)
• Charlotte BRT could still marry up with Woodland St./Main across the river
• Charlotte BRT would go past the Legislative Plaza and state office buildings
• Charlotte BRT would go past the new Public Health Center (Lentz being constructed at 26th Ave)
• Charlotte BRT would go past Nashville West and adjoining retail (West End lacks a retail destination this size)
• Charlotte Avenue is full of vacant properties - you could practically have a plethora of choices of where to put your Park & Ride sites, as opposed to cramming them into already congested areas along West End (White Bridge & Elmington Park).
• You could potentially go FURTHER WEST along Charlotte in the future and capture more ridership among residents in Hillwood and Bellevue. West End route will stop at White Bridge - do
you honestly see Belle Meade letting a BRT line come through?
• BRT along Charlotte would also better serve the communities it bisects. The population that lives along the Charlotte corridor would be much more open to using mass transit than the demographic that lives in the West End corridor (read middle class vs. affluent).

• Since Charlotte lacks the current development/retail traffic that WEnd has, the impact that construction will have on day to day comings and goings of drivers/pedestrians would also be lessened.

 

A list of west side neighborhoods a West End BRT would directly service:

• Cherokee Park
• Whitland
• Whitworth
• Richland/West End
• Hillsboro/West End
• Vanderbilt

A list of west and north side neighborhoods a Charlotte BRT would directly service:

• West Meade (northern portion)
• Hillwood
• Croleywood
• Beacon Square
• Charlotte Park
• White Bridge
• Urbandale/Nations
• Sylvan Park
• Sylvan Heights
• College Heights/Clifton
• Hadley/Washington
• FANG
• Watkins Park
• Hope Gardens

 

bwithers made a great point. While Charlotte has it's eyesores and rough spots, a good majority of the neighborhoods along Charlotte are not poor communities by any stretch of the imagination. So I really don't think that having "Charlotte Ave folks" riding the BRT is going to continue to label mass transit as something "only for poor people". If the bottom line here is ridership=success, then the MTA stats in the article alone make this a no-brainer. 100,000 more along Charlotte than on West End?

 

UTGrad09 - I really like the hybrid idea you suggested. It makes a lot of sense.

[bwithers1]

Thanks, everyone, for your help in explaining the center lanes thing.  I'm still not entirely sold on the additional traffic signals with mid-block  crosswalks.  Couldn't the station just span the whole block and use (or install where they don't exist) the end-block crosswalks?  Most Nashville blocks aren't that long to begin with! But that's a relatively minor quibble in the grand scheme of things. 

 

I've never actually seen a BRT, so that is part of my difficulty in visualizing exactly how that works.

[timmay143]

This is SLC's light rail system.  I know it's not exactly the same, but maybe it will help with visualization.  I'll try to find some BRT too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TRAX light rail in Salt Lake City by Steven Vance, on Flickr

 

Huntsman Center, Salt Lake City, Utah by SkylineScenes, on Flickr

[timmay143]

Cleveland's BRT.  I couldn't find many pictures showing what we're looking for.  Anyways,

 

NM, found some decent ones.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[timmay143]

I like the look of this "bus"

 

Proposed Denver BRT

 

[timmay143]

Eugene, OR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[timmay143]

I think we might be missing the point here.  Why should we cater to car-oriented benefits?  Isn't the point of mass transit corridors, to remove car loads?

 

I think we're going to have to get over being able to do just about anything with your car at every place, especially mass transit corridors.

 

I think for BRT or LRT to be successful for the WE/Charlotte corridors, turns and such are going to have to be limited.  Left turns are going to be sparse.  People are going to have to slow down for pedestrians so this is not going to be a car friendly corridor(s).  Lights and the buses/street cars are going to have to be synced to be efficient and fast.

 

Also, while reducing left turns what if parts of WE/Charlotte were only dedicated to one ways?  Similar to having lanes which are directional (Hermitage/Victory/Gateway).  Or have both.

 

Another idea could be to place both transit lanes on one side of the street only.

[UTgrad09]

I think we might be missing the point here.  Why should we cater to car-oriented benefits?  Isn't the point of mass transit corridors, to remove car loads?

 

I think we're going to have to get over being able to do just about anything with your car at every place, especially mass transit corridors.

 

I think for BRT or LRT to be successful for the WE/Charlotte corridors, turns and such are going to have to be limited.  Left turns are going to be sparse.  People are going to have to slow down for pedestrians so this is not going to be a car friendly corridor(s).  Lights and the buses/street cars are going to have to be synced to be efficient and fast.

 

Also, while reducing left turns what if parts of WE/Charlotte were only dedicated to one ways?  Similar to having lanes which are directional (Hermitage/Victory/Gateway).  Or have both.

 

Another idea could be to place both transit lanes on one side of the street only.

I understand that argument, but I'm not sure I agree with it. I mean, the idealist in me agrees with it. But I think we have to balance our ideals with reality. The reality is that Nashville is very car-centric, and I don't believe efforts to "get cars off the roads" by forcing them off of the main arteries will ultimately be successful. I think it will have a very negative side effect on businesses in the area. We must realize that we that live in the city are not the only ones who use our streets and patronize our businesses. It's not that we should be bowing down to the mighty car -- but rather create alternative options to help free up our roadways. I've seen Eugene's system...and it's really great for such a small city. And they don't have the traffic issues we deal with. Actually...it's fairly easy to get around by car. But they still have a BRT.

For our public transit network to truly work, we need to build it from the core out...and provide the opportunity for those who live and work in the core -- or visitors who choose to not rent a car -- a viable and inexpensive option for getting around town. In order to make it viable, we need to boost our core population...which is extraordinarily low for a city our size. But we can't just sit and wait for this type of development to build up -- we need to work on our PT infrastructure now -- and hopefully it will help spark even more of the urban development that we are seeing built right now.

I get what you're saying about having more straight line corridors...and you are right. Turns aren't easy for these huge double buses. But they can be made. And they will have to be made. Nashville has a screwy street grid, and downtown, there's not one corridor that really goes through (8th really being the exception to the rule...and it still jogs on James Robertson). While using real world examples and past experience is great, we have a sort of unique makeup to our city (a jacked up grid, rolling hills, and mostly narrow corridors compared to a lot of cities), so I think we need an innovative solution. Trolleys, street cars, light rail, BRT...all of these were innovative solutions for some city at some time, when there was no template for what would work. What is stopping us from creating our own solutions that are catered to our own needs?

One thing to think about (Eugene's system reminded me of this) is the possibility of just having a single BRT lane. Obviously this would require a highly organized system, a dispatcher, and a lot of signals...but if this system is designed to act like rail, then why can't we treat it like rail? That possibility would open up BRT to some smaller streets and corridors.

The point of this is it should be the beginning of an expanded transportation network. Outside of the core, I would like to see more limited-stop "BRT lite" put in place along all of the major corridors...and eventually they would transition to dedicated lanes as they got closer to the core (generally speaking, inside of Briley/Thompson/Woodmont/Whitebridge). I would also like to see commuter rail lines to our most populous suburbs. If we can get people in the farther out communities to take a train into town, and then transfer to bus/trolley/BRT to get to their final destination, that will ultimately have the greatest effect on reducing car traffic (and pollution).

[smeagolsfree]

Nashville has 11th worst traffic in nation for commutes.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/blog/2013/02/report-nashville-traffic-11th-worst.html

 

Now the big issue here is look at the top 9 as we are tied with Miami.

 

1) Washington, D.C. Annual commuter delay: 67 hours

 

2) The San Francisco-Oakland area and Los Angeles (tie). Annual commuter
delay: 61 hours

 

4) New York-Newark. Annual commuter delay: 59 hours

 

5) Boston. Annual commuter delay: 53 hours

 

6) Houston. Annual commuter delay: 52 hours

 

7) Atlanta and Chicago (tie). Annual commuter delay: 51 hours

 

9) Philadelphia and Seattle (tie), Annual commuter delay: 48 hours

 

All of these cities have regional transportation systems. Nashville does not.

All of these cities have significantly more population. So Nashville is on the list because we don't have a viable regional mass transit system. I have said and will keep saying that a lot of problems can be solved  for the CBD if we had a regional system. The best model for this would be to have a local BRT system in the inner city and commuter rail coming in from the burbs on REGULAR basis.  All of the midstate counties and municipalities have to take an equal share in the responsibility.

[bigeasy]

^ I was just about to post that link. It is very depressing to see us at the same level of cities that have double the population. We are worst in the nation for cities in the "Large Urban" category.

[UTgrad09]

I think a lot of this is the product of having our suburbs extending farther and farther down the interstate. This is why I would like to see more of a push for commuter rail.

[dmillsphoto]

Agree with Kev. It would make more sense given we already have a lot of rail infrastructure along those paths that are easily accessible. The trick again, though, is CSX.

[UTgrad09]

Agree with Kev. It would make more sense given we already have a lot of rail infrastructure along those paths that are easily accessible. The trick again, though, is CSX.

 

The trick would be our area congressmen/women...but...yeah.

 

I was reading some report about our rail infrastructure/lines being at or near capacity...perhaps we could get the Feds involved to help with a 50/50 public/private initiative to double track all sections that would be used by commuter rail (I say 50/50 because I really don't see either side going all in with this). During rush hours, it would be dedicated to commuter trains...during other hours, it would help alleviate CSX's busy lines.

[timmay143]

Interesting regarding the discussion about Megabus and Greyhoud, etc.
 
http://www.change.org/petitions/greyhound-don-t-put-customers-at-risk-for-hypothermia-and-frostbite?utm_source=action_alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=18219&alert_id=HPKsngDegI_VplwnMzzVH
 

Recently, I took a Greyhound bus ride where the company put me and other passengers at serious risk for hypothermia and frostbite by leaving us outside a closed station in the middle of the night in subzero temperatures. I started this petition to ask Greyhound to always keep stations open when customers have a layover, so no Greyhound rider has to risk their health ever again.

On Friday, February 1, I was returning home to Bloomington-Normal, IL from Minneapolis, MN by taking a Greyhound bus. The bus left at 12:01 a.m on Friday from Minneapolis and was scheduled to arrive at Des Moines, Iowa at 4 a.m where I would wait at the station for my five hour layover until my bus to Bloomington-Normal arrived at 8:55.

When I boarded the bus, the driver told me that the Des Moines bus station would not be open until 5 a.m and that me and the other people with layovers would have to wait outside for an hour. In January. In Iowa. Greyhound knowingly abandoned us outside a closed bus station in negative 17 degree weather.

When I bought the ticket, I knew the overnight layover wouldn’t be fun, but the ticket was affordable, and I figured I’d pass the time waiting with a book or a nap in the warm and well-lit station. I did not expect to be spending the first hour outside, since I had made the fair assumption that if Greyhound was going to schedule a bus to arrive at 4:00 am then they would have the common sense to have their station open and ready for their passengers.

The wait made me nervous -- at temperatures that cold, even a few minutes of exposure can mean serious hypothermia or frostbite, and since we had no idea we’d be left outside, no one was prepared for the weather. To keep from freezing, I put on all the clothes I had with me. The other strangers and I huddled together for warmth, wrapping our heads in t-shirts to keep our ears from going numb. When one woman began shaking uncontrollably from the cold, another passenger gave her his jacket.

My experience wasn’t an isolated incident. Several other Greyhound customers have logged complaints on company message boards, saying they were left at closed stations in the middle of the night for several hours, often in temperatures that carry significant hypothermia and frostbite risks, including reports of being left out in the snow. Greyhound does not provide warnings on tickets that passengers might have to wait outside in cold or poorly lit areas, without safe shelter from the elements. At the very least Greyhound could have informed us before we bought tickets that we would have to spend some time outside.

Please, join me in asking Greyhound to keep their stations open when customers have layovers.

[timmay143]

Visualization of center and side BRT.

 

[Guest]

Thank you for finding and posting Timmay. This short video segment answer a question, that to date, had not been addressed in a forthright manner by MTA and BRT proponents. 

The speaker confirms that the #3 MTA bus (and I can only assume the the #5 MTA bus will share its fate) that my son currently rides will be eliminated as part of the process of forcing rides onto the BRT. So at the end of the day, the plan will be to force me (again depending on the local tax plan which has STILL not been announced) to pay for a system that is LESS usable to my needs based on station location and cost.

Check please...