The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread

[nashvylle]

"So no, my concern is not about making sure we don't hurt the poor feelings of the car commuters. My concern is to make a safe, effective, and efficient public transportation system that encourages ridership. How can adding a bus lane in the first place be catering to the car traffic? You're taking away a lane of traffic. That in itself congests things. And the idealist thought that forcing a traffic jam to encourage PT ridership is equally wrong. If this were New York...maybe even Chicago, Boston, or DC...the fact is, if you don't live on this line, more traffic will make you less likely to patronize businesses on West End. Maybe some day in the future, that will work. Not today. Not in two decades. The transit infrastructure just is not there."

 

I might be reading your thoughts incorrectly UTGrad, but if you are against the dedicated lanes then I strongly disagree. Nashville drivers have the whole city to drive where they please, and making one street have a dedicated bus lane is vital for the success of the BRT in Nashville. The bus could be free, but if it sits in traffic with the cars, no one would use it. West End will still have a lane in both directions for cars, and I don't think the BRT will hurt West End businesses, but rather help them. 

 

Again, I could be reading your post incorrectly, but if you are against buses with dedicated lanes, I suggest you visit Los Angeles, which has a very extensive bus system, but no dedicated lanes (from what I saw). Buses sat in traffic with the millions of other cars, and no one was riding the buses. 

 

Nashville BRT needs dedicated lanes for the system to be successful. Nashville drivers will adjust and be ok. 

Edited February 21, 2013 by nashvylle

[UTgrad09]

I might be reading your thoughts incorrectly UTGrad, but if you are against the dedicated lanes then I strongly disagree.

I am not opposed to dedicated lanes. I realize that is pretty much the sticking point of the R in BRT.

It's the placement of the lanes (center or side), placement of the stations (mid or end block), and the specific route that I am discussing. Make no mistake, I am definitely pro-BRT, and I want it to be safe, attractive, efficient, and practical. Spending more time and money is fine with me if it ensures that we have the best possible set up, with planning for all contingencies. I'm not one to take the haphazard "just do it" approach.

[nashvylle]

Im in agreement with you on that. 

[smeagolsfree]

Thanks - I was surprised when Duane contacted me about contributing to the article. I agree, I think a hybrid line that touches Charlotte AND West End would be a good compromise, although dropping south that far west will neglect North Nashville and their campuses (an area that's painfully used to neglect). UTGrad09 made some suggestions similar to this in an earlier post, but had it coming down 23rd. That is a wide corridor until it gets past Centennial. I like that it would go by Elliston 23, but there would have to be some major widening past Patterson. 

 

I think the biggest issue here with the route as it's planned is where in the hell are they going to put park and rides at the western terminus? I'm glad that Charlotte is getting the attention it deserves.

I happen to have heard there is a possible plan in the works for the Western terminus and I dont have the details so I cant comment but a member of this forum may know the answer if he can talk about it. There is a lot of stuff under wraps right now and the city has already spent a fortune in engeneering fees for the project. If you look at the sidewalk it is marked along the entire route.

[smeagolsfree]

Here is another article in the NBJ from today about the BRT

 

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/blog/2013/02/bus-rapid-transit-route-expected-to.html?ana=e_du_pub&s=article_du&ed=2013-02-21&u=ml+EifejNKTk6m0nrsqtJGA6+Y&page=all

[nashvylle]

I honestly believe the implementation of the BRT will be the most important issue for Nashville. The BRT will spur billions in development and it will truly help connect downtown and midtown, east and west Nashville. I pray the BRT get secured fast. 

[East Side Urbanite]

This info reveals how far behind we are in the mass transit game. So many cities have "gotten on board" with the so-called "modern streetcar." Read here. 

 

WW

 

Save the Hull

[timmay143]

Does anyone know what would be a good corridor and historic streetcar line?  Maybe a grass root effort could be made at some point to restore and implement.

[UTgrad09]

Does anyone know what would be a good corridor and historic streetcar line?  Maybe a grass root effort could be made at some point to restore and implement.

 

It depends on if you are looking for something tourist oriented (like Lower Broad/2nd) or resident/historic oriented (like Church/4th or 5th).

[UTgrad09]

My suggestions:

 

Single line (two way) -- Centennial Park (actually run the line into the park) up Elliston Pl/Church to 1st, then down to the old thermal site/Riverfront Park (again, into the actual park). Connects the parks (book ends, essentially), public library, Baptist Hospital, several large residential buildings, several large office buildings, crosses The District. Approx 2.9 miles (5.8 miles of track). I think this would better serve the residents/office workers in Nashville.

 

Loop (one way - counter clockwise) -- 2nd @ Demonbreun to Chruch @ 2nd, west to 21st Ave, south to Broadway/Division, east to the Musica Roundabout, east down Demonbreun to 2nd. Connects the Frist, the MCC, Bridgestone Arena, CMHoF, the Schermerhorn Symphony Hall, Pinnacle, The District, residences on Church, the main library, Baptist Hospital, Loews, Vanderbilt, the new Buckingham project, the tip of Music Row, and skirts across The Gulch. Approx 4.1 miles (4.1 miles of track). I think this would be absolutely ideal to promote as a tourism line.

[timmay143]

I'd like to see some streetcar effort next after the WE BRT connector.  I think it could be ideal for shared access since streetcars (traditionally at least) were embedded into the road.  Of course a sophisticated traffic light and monitoring system  would have to be in place, but a) it is the 21st century and b) the WE connector is going to probably have/need a pretty synchronized system especially along WE and in the "congested" DT area.

 

The WE BRT may not be everyone's favorite, but (at least) maybe it will be a stepping stone to some MORE and ideal transit ideas around the city and region, including Charlotte as a good "residential" line and commuter lines to get people into Nashville from the burbs.

[UTgrad09]

I'd like to see some streetcar effort next after the WE BRT connector.  I think it could be ideal for shared access since streetcars (traditionally at least) were embedded into the road.  Of course a sophisticated traffic light and monitoring system  would have to be in place, but a) it is the 21st century and b) the WE connector is going to probably have/need a pretty synchronized system especially along WE and in the "congested" DT area.

 

The WE BRT may not be everyone's favorite, but (at least) maybe it will be a stepping stone to some MORE and ideal transit ideas around the city and region, including Charlotte as a good "residential" line and commuter lines to get people into Nashville from the burbs.

 

I would like to see a diversity of transit options...I definitely want commuter rail. I'm not so sure about light rail (as a commuting line) working here, but I think a streetcar loop could be something that is both attractive and effective at just circulating people through the core. I don't think it would compete with BRT, but rather complement it.

 

My general vision is commuter rail connecting the farther burbs with fewer stops (Franklin, Murfreesboro, Gallatin, Bellevue perhaps even Clarksville), BRT connecting the Davidson County "suburbs" along the major corridors (BRT 'lite' farther out...park and ride, synchronized signals...dedicated lanes inside the Briley loop). Transfer points between transit modes at key locations. Streetcars for very localized transit around the core.

[timmay143]

Yay, Nashville is included.  Maybe one good thing about Nashville being so "popular" now is that we won't get overlooked on things like this anymore.

 

[BnaBreaker]

Let's hope this comes to fruition.  The rail system in the US is absolutely embarrassing.  Eventually it seems like it would be useful to put a line from Raleigh to Dallas, going through Knoxville, Nashville and Memphis. 

[UTgrad09]

Let's hope this comes to fruition.  The rail system in the US is absolutely embarrassing.  Eventually it seems like it would be useful to put a line from Raleigh to Dallas, going through Knoxville, Nashville and Memphis. 

 

There are certainly some tweaks I would make to it.

 

I would make it Washington DC to Dallas, via Charlottesville, Roanoke, Tri Cities, then Knoxville, Nashville, Memphis, Little Rock.

 

I don't get Chicago to Dallas via Memphis, especially when another route does the same thing via Kansas City.

 

A line should run from Chicago to New Orleans via St Louis, Memphis, and Jackson.

 

Also, Kansas City to Denver. I like the Canadian connections. Not so sure about the Mexico connections. Maybe one from San Antonio to Monterrey to Mexico City (if they're willing to pay for it).

[BrandonTO416]

This info reveals how far behind we are in the mass transit game. So many cities have "gotten on board" with the so-called "modern streetcar." Read here. 

 

WW

 

Save the Hull

 

I have a bit of a different opinion. While I love the streetcar as a heritage product, its too expensive to play around with in terms of serious transit. You may remember me, you may not, but I grew up in Middle Tennessee, have lived in Nashville, Memphis, Portland OR, Pittsburgh, and now here in Buffalo. I frequently visit Toronto, and I've visited most other major cities in North America. From New York to San Francisco, Vancouver to Orlando.

 

Take this for what its worth: street cars are wildly expensive for moving little foot traffic around. Portland's MAX system is highlighted as one of America's largest successes, but its roughly 120,000 riders a day is average at best. It hasn't spurned highrise development in suburban nodes like Beaverton (where I lived at the time), Hillsboro, Gresham, or Clackamas County.

 

Now, lets step down to other lines I've used extensively. Pittsburgh's T system is interesting. It services genuinely urban villages south of downtown, and has a largely bypass line around the urban area that connects back up at Castle Shannon. But it only has several thousand riders a day. The T also doesn't serve most of the very urban areas out east/southeast, like Oakland or South Side.

 

Buffalo's metro LRT system is largely underground, its LRT done right. The short 7 mile line here carries as much as Pittsburgh's much larger system. The Buffalo metro is essentially a train that begins at the Sabres arena (First Niagara Center), rides above ground through downtown, then quickly goes underground and connects the medical campus district to two University disticts: Canisius College and University at Buffalo. It achieves over 20k riders a day. But again, could be performed with a BRT if they hadn't already made the investments back in the 1970's.

 

Toronto is a city I love to use as an example. It has an existing streetcar network that I don't advocate ripping up (its already invested in and maintained), but for new transit they are considering building light rail in the street as opposed to heavy rail. Toronto is a city that genuinely uses urban transit as a serious mode of transportation instead of a demo line. The problem in Toronto is if they start building light rail, it'll be over utilized from day one, because Toronto has high ridership that is above even Chicago which is slightly larger.

 

Moral of the story? Rail doesn't dictate how growth occurs, its expensive, and it has to be done right. In Toronto's case, since they are spending that much money, they should go ahead and build heavy rail. In Portland's case, the system isn't really carrying more than a heavy bus transit network could handle (i.e. the metro region isn't urbanized enough yet).

 

Nashville is a southern city, its lower density on average means outside the immediate urban core that light rail would only be a demonstration or "gimmick" line. It'd probably operate much like Pittsburgh, shuttle urban workers back and forth from a few suburban locations to downtown as they use cars for all other activity when they arrive home from work. Since only several thousand people a month use it, it could be handled cheaply with buses.

 

Nashville doesn't have a need to invest into rail right now, BRT is the appropriate mode at present day. Nashville would be better served waiting out the LRT fad and building a subway system, like SF BART or DC METRO, when the city grows into a larger metropolis. Wasting billions and billions on a LRT system will give it substandard service that doesn't really change the game.

 

There's another thing I forgot to mention entirely: LRT is slow. In Portland it takes more than an hour to get from Beaverton to the airport because it pokes around city streets in the core. In Toronto I don't think the streetcar system is ever on time, the Queen St line (501) is ALWAYS behind it seems unless its an off peak hour.

 

My opinions on rail have changed drastically over the years, I used to advocate LRT strongly, then I started using it.

 

The Europeans do it right: they have heavy rail systems as the backbone, and if suburban areas are dense enough they use LRT/trams as "feeder" lines that go a few KM to take people to heavy rail stops. Berlin is a great example of this. I was there last September and loved the network. Between the UBahn, SBahn, and the trams its an elegant system.

Edited February 25, 2013 by BrandonTO416

[UTgrad09]

I wasn't sure where to put this, but since this thread is about transit, I figure it's a good spot (didn't really want to create a new thread).

 

So while playing around on Google Maps, I decided to create a new road. Well, it's more of an extension/alternate route of an existing road (McGavock Pike).

 

Here's the map, and here are my thoughts:

https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=217291243497016881147.0004d68200f336e69bf74&msa=0&ll=36.21187,-86.678352&spn=0.077146,0.169086

 

Briefly, this would be a transit avenue connecting Gallatin Road and East Nashville to Opryland, Neely's Bend, and terminate at Old Hickory Boulevard in Hermitage/Old Hickory. It would have sidewalks along the developed sections, and bike lanes throughout. Rather than sidewalks, an asphalt greenway path may be the best idea for the Neely's Bend portion, especially since it runs along Peeler Park. I would also propose a bus line run along this route to serve Hermitage, Opryland, East Nashville, and eventually downtown.

 

This would use the existing stretch of McGavock Pike in East Nashville. The existing road would see improvements such as sidewalks on both sides and bike lanes. Where the existing road terminates at the Cumberland River, a bridge would be built to connect it to Pennington Bend/Opryland. Sidewalks and bike lanes continue. 

 

The new road would begin where McGavock Pike turns south just below the Springhouse golf course. One or perhaps two houses would have to be destroyed to make way for the new road and bridge to Neely's Bend. Since this section of Neely's Bend is primarily farmland and semi-rural, I think there isn't need for a sidewalk lined street. Rather than that, an asphalt greenway (that also connects to the Stones River Greenway) run along side the road and connect with Peeler Park. This greenway would continue across the bridge to Hadley Bend and Hermitage and connect to the now Metro owned Hermitage golf course, just north of the terminus.

 

Obviously there would be some neighborly concern that a new road would potentially make a "quiet" neighborhood street a lot more crowded...and that is valid. But I think it would also serve as a good neighborhood connector, and I am not sure the traffic increase would be substantial (for the most part, it's probably not going to be a big commuter corridor, as the speed limit would be between 35-40 mph. The biggest concern would probably be from the Neely's Bend area where the prospect of new neighborhoods popping up on this corridor would be very real. However, I think zoning could take care of that. Much like Bell's Bend, some of rural Davidson should probably just stay as it is.

 

I think the big benefits would be that it increases neighborhood connection, and makes it much easier for people traveling to the Opryland area (the hotel, Grand Ole Opry, and Opry Mills), as well as some of the East Nashville/Inglewood commercial areas. I think it would also be good as a way to encourage Opryland visitors to get out and explore beyond the bend, rather than just taking Briley to the airport, or going downtown. The end terminus could be altered to go just to the south (missing The Hermitage) and connecting on through to Lebanon Pike.

 

The negatives would obviously be primarily traffic/noise related (as well as some people worried about increased crime).

 

 

Any thoughts?

[BrandonTO416]

BTW, rail does have a nice affect on the streetscape, even if its expensive. Here is the above ground portion of the Buffalo metro:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 25, 2013 by BrandonTO416

[UTgrad09]

BTW, rail does have a nice affect on the streetscape, even if its expensive. Here is the above ground portion of the Buffalo metro:

 

 

I think that's the thing. Rail looks nicer. It looks more "big time"...but I generally agree with your above assessment that it's not really the right thing for us to use for commuter purposes. I think a little streetcar loop that connects the important sites would be great...but an extensive rail system should be saved for heavy commuter rail. Density-wise, our "dense" neighborhoods are mainly 3-7,000 ppsm, which is on the low side for rail. I think we could build a core area that is much more dense...but the fact is much of our inner city is built on single family homes, and is not as dense as a lot of large cities (and will never be). We're going to have to be creative with our transit solutions, and not just build mass transit to spur transit oriented development while forgetting the residents who are already there.

[BrandonTO416]

Rail looks nice, but you can streetscape a BRT system to look nice. Here's my point: Nashville does not have the density outside the central core for LRT to be greatly useful. It could be very useful in the very immediate urban core (just the streets within the 440 and inner loop) and across the river to the stadium. Charlotte is the best example, but Charlotte is even less dense than Nashville generally speaking. They just spent who knows how much on a system that carries about 15,000 riders a day. That's a lot of money for little real world use. Even Buffalo's 7 mile metro gets nearly 25k a day. And I can guarantee you that Buffalo's Metro system doesn't make it a more important city as the city hasn't really come back from de-industrialization.

 

Nashville will look like a more major urban center if the central core continues to build up with a BRT, then at an appropriate time in the future invest into a heavy rail system similar to DC Metro or MARTA. It'll truly make Nashville a big league city. Tinkering around with LRT will give you mostly expensive trains that are cute with little function beyond articulated bus capacity.

 

Trust me, even Portland doesn't feel like a major urban center. It is America's cute little urban village. I was much more impressed with Vancouver's Skytrain and newly build Canada line heavier rail systems. Light rail gives you a light experience. It isn't urbanizing, its like you're "almost" there. And as I said before, most LRT systems aren't built right. They are in the street and they are pokey, pokey, POKEY. Portland's system is great, I'm all for having it since its built, but its so slow compared to what Vancouver has. When MAX took me through downtown I could almost walk faster to get through the central core.

 

Pittsburgh at least has a right of way LRT line, and its all subway downtown. I used to ride the T from Wood St Station to home at Castle Shannon every day. The Overbrook line was almost 2x faster than the Dormont/Mt Lebanon line.

 

The biggest cost to heavy rail is consistently building it underground or in its own right of way without crossing intersections or elevated track. If you are already going to do it right and build a tunnel, might as well do 3rd rail and use bigger vehicles because it isn't more expensive at that point.

 

LRT is the current urban planning fad, and in 20 years it'll be passe. When you build rail it needs to be done right, because you'll be stuck with that system for generations to come.

 

There's one thing travel around the country has taught me, America is different, and in America you can't build a light rail line and expect things to urbanize magically. Urbanization truly comes from zoning, encouraging certain types of developments, government and tax incentives to build a certain way. Urbanism comes from development style, it doesn't necessarily start with a rail system. Streetscaping is far more important to increase walkability than offering a LRV down the street.

 

BRT is a great option to transition between Nashville's current built environment and a future where heavy rail could be possible.

Edited February 25, 2013 by BrandonTO416

[BrandonTO416]

I could have just youtube'ed a video. The one thing Light Rail does is it can create a nifty above ground riding experience, but it isn't useful if you're heading to the office and need speed. Its good for tourism.

 

 

Edited February 25, 2013 by BrandonTO416

[UTgrad09]

Its good for tourism.

That's my thought. It would definitely encourage tourists to use public transit. I would hope that if we installed one that it would go beyond a tourism novelty, but if that's what is ends up being, it's not the worst thing in the world. There are quite a few people that ask me on other boards about what they need to do while visiting Nashville, and whether they need to rent a car.

With two pro sports teams, we get a fair number of 1-2 day visitors that just want to stay close to town. Being able to connect a few cultural sites, the arena, and the convention center to a network of hotels would be great, even if it is expensive. I would imagine it would be attractive to potential conventions looking at our market. It will be a long time before Nashville is a city that you can effectively live in without a car, but it would be nice if we were a city you could visit without a car.

[BrandonTO416]

Don't forget that Atlanta only had 2 million people in the metro in 1970, which is what present day Nashville is like. They were planning for MARTA in the 1970's when Atlanta was less urban than present day Nashville.

 

Light rail is the hot thing in 2013, several demonstration lines have been built in the past few decades and their results are mixed.

 

Charlotte just built one and has 15,000 riders a day. Pittsburgh and Buffalo have had systems for decades now, and they get about 25k riders a day. Portland has a metro wide system with feeder buses and gets 120k a day (which is still average when given how large Portland is and how extensive MAX is, and I'm saying this despite my love of the city and the fact that I think MAX is better to exist than not to exist). Atlanta chose to go with heavy rail and there are 220k riders a day with roughly the same area covered as MAX.

 

All I'm saying is that heavy rail is more serious transit. Nashville is not in a position today that is any different than Atlanta was in 1970, only Nashville is arguably far more urban now than Atlanta was in 1970. Heavy rail shouldn't be counted out, in fact I think it should be the first option, and BRT should be in place until heavy rail is feasible.

Edited February 25, 2013 by BrandonTO416

[nashvillwill]

I'm seeing this conversation cover two completely different things.

-LRT

-Streetcars (historic)

Brandon has much more experience with this than I do, so I'm not trying to argue with his account, but I've seen LRT work well here in San Francisco. The Muni Metro LRT trains are packed at all times of day. True, it's a system done right. It's an above ground, separated row, system that goes underground in the dense financial district. It even shares stations with the heavy rail system, it's tracks one level above BART. It's fast, efficient, and ridership would be hard to question.

Streetcars on the other hand, don't ever seem to be worth the investment. I've seen them everywhere from Little Rock to San Francisco. If they happen to be a remnant from the past, such as New Orleans (the only surviving line that im aware of) I think they are worth maintaining for sure. For new construction, I think they are a complete waste if money. While the historic cars look beautiful, they are typically very slow, a rough ride and unreliable. The system in Little Rock is hardly used. The Memphis line is used lightly by tourists. Even in tourist heavy San Francisco, they are lightly used.

I think LRT is a much more realistic future for Nashville than a heavy rail subway. I would just see a streetcar as a niche, maybe reserved for a mile or less tourist transport.

The truth of the matter is that the difference between these two forms has more to do with the rolling stock than with the tracks themselves.

[Will]

To UTgrad's point about being able to visit Nashville without a car, what about a dedicated airport LRT line to downtown?