The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread

[nashvillwill]

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

If I were Gaylord, I would be doing everything I could (politically and financially) to get some sort of transit line between the airport/opryland/downtown. I would think it would certainly boost their brand. That's just me.

Edit; I did recently use a LRT line in Seattle that seemed to work well. It was a good hybrid system. In the inner city it had frequent stops on surface streets(even underground for a short distance), then it became elevated with infrequent stops as it speed up out to the airport. I can't testify to its ridership numbers, but it was convenient and efficient. Pretty heavily used even on the weekend when I used it.

Edited February 25, 2013 by nashvillwill

[Guest]

I do not think Gaylord believes it will benefit their guests. Gaylord does an excellent job 'controlling' the movement, and thus money, of those staying on their properties. Frequent van shuttles and motor-coach offerings take them directly to and from Gaylord controlled venues as well as the airport.

 

 

If I were Gaylord, I would be doing everything I could (politically and financially) to get some sort of transit line between the airport/opryland/downtown. I would think it would certainly boost their brand. That's just me.
 

Edited February 25, 2013 by Guest

[nashvillwill]

Yeah, that's a good point. I guess they keep people on their own turf.

[Rockatansky]

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 see nothing.

[Rockatansky]

"Nashville would be better served waiting out the LRT fad and building a subway system"

 

I've always heard that a subway in Nashville would be prohibitively expensive due to bedrock being so close to the surface. Can anyone confirm/deny?

[BrandonTO416]

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.

 

You're right that heritage streetcars and LRT aren't one in the same, but LRT that crosses intersections and doesn't use tunnels or viaducts or its own right of way is essentially modern LRV's acting as streetcars.

 

I used the MAX and the T as my primary mode of transportation in each respective city for the daily routine. Since I've moved to Buffalo, I do not use the metro as my main form of transit.

 

Pittsburgh's T was actually more functional than MAX. In downtown its a full fledged subway system, only goes above ground once its outside downtown, and even once it arrives outside downtown the Overbrook line is elevated on the side of a hill and rides to several park and ride lots before it reconnects in Castle Shannon. So Pittsburgh's system has kind of a "bypass" line and then it has the traditional streetcar type service through Dormont and the South Hills.

 

LRT has to be done right in order for it to be fast and effective. The best example of LRT "done right" is Calgary. The entire system is for the most part in its own right of way, carries tons of passengers. It is far more impressive than Portland.

 

However, Calgary - as suburban as its suburbs can be - has something other North American cities don't, and that is a centralized business district where most employment is in the core. Nashville is a very decentralized city. How much office space is in Williamson County? Rutherford County? Tons of offices are around the airport area as well.

 

So, like most American cities, Nashville won't need rail for some time to come. The central business area needs to grow a bit more. Even LRT would be an investment that largely goes unused at this point. Believe me, if anyone knows me I used to be a HUGE LRT supporter. I bought into the fad when I was younger and was wanting LRT everywhere. Over time I've used systems as my primary mode of transit and I've learned the benefits and drawbacks. LRT - if done right - still costs a ton of money. Whenever it isn't done right, you find cities having to spend tons of $$$ to correct mistakes.

 

Even Calgary, one of the best systems around, is having to dig tunnels and open up new service in its downtown core. They had above ground stations for the longest time.

 

Then again, Calgary uses very "heavy" light rail vehicles. All LRT isn't created equally.

[nashvillwill]

Maybe. But also consider the ups and downs of the topography. Imagine a tunnel going from midtown to the river. It would have to tunnel under the gulch, back up to 8th and then slope down to 1st. Then under the river to go east. It would be a lot of ups and downs for the tunnel, or an incredible distance from grade to platform. Alternatively, it could go above ground, over the freeway and gulch, then back underground at 8th. Any platform would still be far underground to create a flat surface. A north-south route would be easier, but probably less effective.

[BrandonTO416]

"Nashville would be better served waiting out the LRT fad and building a subway system"

 

I've always heard that a subway in Nashville would be prohibitively expensive due to bedrock being so close to the surface. Can anyone confirm/deny?

 

New York City had hard bedrock right at the surface. When you build rail, you have to build it right or its a wasted investment.

 

If you're interested in seeing an effective BRT, Cleveland has a really nice medical/university line (called the HealthLine) that connects downtown to CSU and the Cleveland Clinic and museum district. It operates as functionally as LRT does. I've been in Cleveland a few times this year, a friend of mine lives off that line. Its a really nice system and carries 15k people all by itself, and they have a separate LRT and heavy rail subway system.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HealthLine

 

Here's what a BRT station looks like, its elevated and serves just like a station with rail. Fraction of the expense, as functional as light rail, and since the buses have dedicated lanes just as fast as light rail.

 

[BrandonTO416]

Actually, I find Cleveland a most underrated city. Urban planners should go there to see 3 systems working: they have a heavy rail line, a light rail system, and a BRT system all three working and operating in different parts of the city. You can see it all working at the same time in one city.

[Will]

If I were Gaylord, I would be doing everything I could (politically and financially) to get some sort of transit line between the airport/opryland/downtown. I would think it would certainly boost their brand. That's just me.

Edit; I did recently use a LRT line in Seattle that seemed to work well. It was a good hybrid system. In the inner city it had frequent stops on surface streets(even underground for a short distance), then it became elevated with infrequent stops as it speed up out to the airport. I can't testify to its ridership numbers, but it was convenient and efficient. Pretty heavily used even on the weekend when I used it.

Seattle's system is cool and a breeze to use, though as you hinted it's pretty slow once it gets into the core and the number of stops/at-grade road crossings increases. I remember it taking nearly 1 hour to get from a hotel downtown to the airport.

 

Imagine if you could get from BNA to downtown in <10 minutes just by stepping off a platform onto a train. No rolling the dice on 440 as one does when going from/to the airport between 6-10 a.m. and 3-7 p.m., respectively. No waiting in the rain or cold for the BNA parking shuttle. No $25 cab ride. It could happen.

[BrandonTO416]

As I continue to think on all things transit, here is why I think BRT is a better fit for Nashville right now, and why I think the right decisions have been made for the city in this direction.

 

1) BRT is very cheap relative to the other options. You could spend $50 million on streetscaping and bus purchases that would take hundreds of millions laying LRT tracks, trains, and wires. Construction doesn't take years (inconveniencing businesses and people), it could be done in a single calendar year to convert a major thoroughfare.

 

2) Busses, while not as sexy as rail, do have the capacity to carry tens of thousands of people. Do you guys know that in Toronto some of the standard bus systems - not even BRT lines - that just pick people up on the street operate over 50,000 people a day? We're talking about *standard* bus lines. BRT with articulated buses and elevated stops with stations to buy tickets has more capacity than many LRT systems operate at with just as much effectiveness.

 

3) BRT is just as rapid as LRT when operated in the street and crossing intersections. LRT done on the cheap has no performance improvements. LRT would no doubt face crossing street corners as it rides up and down West End Avenue to downtown, though the core. This is one of the biggest failures of LRT proposals I've seen: they all run through intersections and provide no serious speed boost.

 

4) Extrapolating on point 1, since BRT has such a huge cost savings, you could use the cost savings to perform other tasks, such as building a BRT on West End to downtown and then use extra money to streetscape Charlotte Ave and make it look less industrial. You could even go as far as to create 3 BRT lines, Do the downtown-21st-Hillsboro Rd area (you could connect Green Hills mall to downtown via BRT), redo downtown-West End area, then use funds to streetscape Charlotte Pike and get it to where development could come to that area as its currently rather desolate.

 

I think all of these points are understated time and time again, because with the amount of money LRT requires, you could do 3-4-5 major street rebuilding projects for the price of one LRT system that probably won't carry more than 20-30k people a year.

 

If Nashville built LRT up and down West End, I would guess that it would probably have around 20k riders a year. Maybe more since Nashville is a destination city, but it wouldn't be Portland. For that many riders, BRT is effective, and you could spruce up 3-4 major avenues and boulevards instead of focusing just on West End Ave.

 

A matter of fact, if you were to invest $200 million or so into redoing several street corridors, you could do BRT stations with articulated buses and streetscape as much as 5 major avenues that flow in and out of Nashville. East Nashville could get in on the action and you could easily streetscape Gallatin Pike as an integrated BRT corridor - same buses that continue down West End or 21st - and have standard buses that traverse a perpendicular northwest-southeast pattern and make the entire eastern side of the city highly transit accessible. You could feasibly make the entire central core accessible without a car. You could go from a bungalow in East Nashville to Green Hills Mall with only one transfer if the lines were set up appropriately, and it'd be fast since the buses are in dedicated lanes with all the elevated concrete platforms acting as the same function as a light rail station.

 

If you were to spend $500 million to $1 billion doing LRT down West End, you really aren't doing more than creating a tourist shuttle. If you do an airport LRT line, you really aren't helping local residents in the city proper, you're just creating a tourist line that goes from the airport to downtown. That's a lot of money to spend on a tourist shuttle that only a few thousand people would ride.

 

BRT everywhere would revolutionize the ability to actually get around Nashville without a car. You'd transform just one street and one area and leave so many others out with just 1 LRT line. Sure, spending $500m-$1b on an LRT system from the Titans stadium to downtown, through Vanderbilt out West End would look great, it'd make it resemble a truly urban boulevard. But that's about it, it wouldn't expand the transit pie so to speak. It wouldn't make Nashville fundamentally a more transit friendly city, it'd just be a cute tourist shuttle.

 

Many years down the road if Nashville prospers and grows a great deal, then subway tunnels and viaducts could be considered at a much later stage.

Edited February 25, 2013 by BrandonTO416

[BrandonTO416]

http://charmeck.org/city/charlotte/cats/news/pressreleases/Pages/112812.aspx

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynx_Rapid_Transit_Services

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/blog/queen_city_agenda/2012/10/charlotte-wins-580m-from-obama-feds.html?page=all

 

I keep studying these numbers and my mind is absolutely boggled at how much cost is going into systems that aren't really used. Apparently Charlotte is plunging $1.2 billion (half already built/spent) investing into a light rail system that currently has 15,000 riders a day, its projected to maybe get to 25k within 20 years in 2035, and that is about the current ridership of the 7 mile Buffalo metro line (where I live) today in 2013. The line services mostly suburban Charlotte along non-urban corridors that aren't conducive to transit usage.

 

I just think spending $1.2 billion should have more effect. That's a lot of money for a few people to use everyday.

 

Nashville could easily spend $500 million on BRT's transforming West End, Broadway/21st/Hillsboro, Charlotte, Gallatin - 4 for less than the price of 1 - build those Cleveland-like stations in the streets, rework standard bus systems to transverse and bring people to BRT stations where buses come at least every 8-10 minutes, and achieve a more transit friendly city than wasting all that money on a singular LRT line that mostly services suburbs that don't ride transit.

Edited February 25, 2013 by BrandonTO416

[BrandonTO416]

I've had a lot of time today to waste, so I put together an ideal BRT system for Nashville. These BRT corridors would be re-designed from the ground up to offer an efficient, LRT like experience at a fraction of the cost. Instead of a "demonstration" line it would be a true system. It clocks in at just over 45 miles worth of lines. I'll detail the lines below the map: I may not live in Nashville anymore, but I still know the city like the back of my hand and given my experience with other systems I think this would be a great idea.

 

 

Charlotte Pike BRT

Purpose for this line is primarily to spruce up Charlotte, because its a pretty grungy street to begin with. Aside from just streetscaping, it has practical purpose: to connect a lot of west Nashville residential neighborhoods and the Charlotte business district and the new Target/Costco shopping area with an efficient downtown link. Closer to downtown it opens up Charlotte for development for new condos and businesses that are more urban in fashion. This line would likely have lower ridership than the others, and I'd peg it as under 10k a day.

 

West End BRT

Purpose for this line is obvious: its Nashville's grand corridor. From downtown it enters Vanderbilt, offers access to the tremendous office and cultural amenities along the way. Centennial Park, lots of tourism, and then it goes beyond. The line continues down to St Thomas' medical district, turning up Briley and ending at Nashville State Tech before it returns to downtown. It would be the father line of the entire system, and likely would have 20-30k riders a day.

 

Broadway/21st-Green Hills BRT

Purpose for this line is clear: as the BRT heads down Broadway onto 21st it goes through the other urban landscape of Nashville. It connects the other side of Vanderbilt at the Medical Center to Hillsboro Village, then plungs southward to the Green Hills Mall area, giving downtown residents quicker, easier access to shopping. But it doesn't stop there, due to the number of employees in the Burton Hills office area, it continues there as it circles around and comes back toward downtown. This line could easily see 15k riders alone.

 

Gallatin Pike BRT

Purpose for this is clear: East Nashville is a traditional streetcar suburb environment. Some of it is urbanizing with fairly dense condo activity, but lets face it: Gallatin needs a facelift. Its grungy, doesn't look inviting, and needs to be redeveloped. The corridor could have trees added, and it could be transformed into an inviting corridor. Traditional buses could run perpendicular and connect to the BRT to offer all East Nashville residents an option to get out of the car and actually go somewhere and make it viable. I end the line at Old Hickory in Madison because Madison is a more traditional suburb with a few high density highrise apartments and businesses. While its still semi-urban, its primarily a suburban corridor, I'd expect ridership in the 10k range.

 

Nolensville BRT

Purpose for this line is because Nolensville is likely among the most dense suburban corridors in Nashville: the highly populated southeast. It also passes by cultural institutions: Nashville Zoo, Ft Negley, the Cumberland Science Center, the State Fairgrounds. Its primary purpose would just be to pick up people who transfer from the intense residential areas surrounding the corridor, and it'd end at Lenox Village. No new urbanist village should be complete without a link to downtown, and it would be a great end point. Another 10k range line, possibly far more.

 

Airport BRT

Purpose for this is very clear: Murfreesboro Pike looks like crap and could use a facelift, Elm Hill Pike has intense business in the airport commercial office area, and it'd conveniently turn south on Donelson to enter the airport in dedicated lanes. Between the airport offices, hotels, and the airport itself it would be a great link to downtown. All the hotels in the area already have airport shuttles, so places like the Marriott could be accessible just by adding a shuttle stop at the BRT, so people wouldn't just be limited to the airport and back. Since the line is connecting a lot of office space and the airport, I'd expect it to attract 15-20k or more. A great deal of people using the other BRT lines and traditional bus lines would transfer onto the airport BRT for obvious reasons.

 

If I were a Nashville planner or political authority, I'd get to studying a revamp of the MTA based on this system. Just do a cost analysis of what the cost may be, and I bet you could do all of the above as BRT in a style similar to the Cleveland HealthLine I mentioned earlier: full in-street stations that have all amenities of LRT, but with a fraction of the cost. The system would have to have enough buses purchased to run service every 5-10 minutes depending on whether its peak hour or not, and the traditional bus system could be reworked to run perpendicular lines throughout the city to connect up to the BRT lines.

 

This is a real plan with serious intent to get people out of their cars and into a mass transit system. Its a system that could compete with the car for the first time in Nashville's history. It isn't some pie in the sky idea, it is a practical idea that could deliver real results. You could easily see this system surpass 75k riders and you could rework the entire MTA around the system. If the entire city becomes more accessible by transit, and it actually works, people will actually choose transit over driving and you'd easily see ridership jump to 100k.

 

Bottom line is this: Nashville isn't primarily a transit city, it is a car city. This would be a system that could make transit viable in an otherwise fairly suburban city, and it focuses service where it needs to be focused: central Nashville. It isn't trying to be just an airport shuttle, it isn't just a demonstration line in the downtown area to push tourists around. Its a serious system for the people of the city to use.

 

I don't know how much this system would cost, but I bet you that it'd only be a few hundred million for the up front capital expense, but it would be an expense that would truly last the city for decades into the future for very little relative cost. Nashville is not New York or Vancouver, but this is a way to more appropriately allocate limited funds and provide a serious transportation system as an alternative to cars. It achieves a viable transit network while retaining car traffic on these avenues, plus it streetscapes them and makes them more pedestrian friendly. Aside from that, it just cleans up a lot of dated looking streets with a modern appearance.

Edited February 25, 2013 by BrandonTO416

[UTgrad09]

I like your ideas, but I would like to add another node:

8th Ave/Melrose to Metrocenter. I don't know how much you've been keeping track, but the Melrose area is really primed to take off. A few decent sized apartment developments are underway on 8th, plus there is Gale Park, which has been developing nicely, and a couple of new places on Wedgewood. I think eventually the hot Melrose market and the ever-expanding Gulch and SoBro areas (that 8th knifes between) will lead to a good bit of development throughout the corridor.

Extending it through downtown also makes sense, as it would link to Hope Gardens/Farmer's Market, Germantown/Salemtown, Buena Vista, and eventually Metrocenter, which has quite a number of office jobs (plus Watkins College of Art).

I also think the Airport BRT would be better served if it ran down Murfreesboro Road all the way to Donelson Pk. Yes, Elm Hill would serve a number of businesses...but I think a lot of those are the type where people would bring their own vehicle anyways (warehouse type places). It would hit a few residential areas, but those areas are not far from the Music City Star line in Donelson. If it runs down Murfreesboro, there are fewer turns, and it helps that entire corridor.

Just my opinion.

[BrandonTO416]

^Anything can be revised, but that map is a great starting point. I agree that MetroCenter would be served well with a BRT. Theoretically you wouldn't have to create a new "line" you could use the same buses from the airport line or the Nolensville line, just continue on through downtown up toward MetroCenter with the same system. Cost would be minimal.

[BrandonTO416]

I think what makes this more attractive than LRT is the amount of change the city would see. You're not only getting a new transit system, you're getting the new look. Every one of these corridors would receive new pavement, new concrete, walkable sidewalks that are more than a few feet wide, you'd have trees planted, platforms would be available so that people aren't dangling in the street mixing with traffic. It'd still be open to automobile traffic as well. Businesses will enjoy opening up on streets that look better and are more inviting. It isn't about limiting choices, its about opening up new possibilities. Cleaner, still car friendly, but also transit friendly and walkable. More choice to more areas.

 

Something I noticed when I was in Berlin last September was that Europeans don't go out of their way to make their cities car unfriendly, its actually easier to drive in Berlin than it is in Chicago or New York. Berlin has a lot of free parking as well, you never ever find that in American cities. EVER. Transit and cars can both be embraced simultaneously. Since America has been on such a pro-car kick since the car was invented, urban planners here have this knee jerk reaction that LRT will magically be the anti-car, and I don't see that happening, nor is it necessary.

 

I mean if you invest a few hundred million into redeveloping this much of the city, and you can do it for a billion less than one single LRT line that would be 7-8-9 miles long, you're making a very intelligent decision. And if the bus comes every 10 minutes, its actually usable.

 

Lastly, if there was strong leadership on this issue, and the funding panned out, this network could be built in less than about a year if it were properly planned for. It wouldn't take 5 years like you find with singular LRT lines where there's such controversy and capital investment haggling and rights of way haggling. Far too often LRT has to follow along corridors where there is no business, it sidesteps the entire street and goes where no one walks or plays or works or shops.

 

Why spend years haggling over land and rights of way for a train that is bypassing the main corridors when you could get a plan like this done in a fraction of the time, fraction of the cost?

Edited February 26, 2013 by BrandonTO416

[volsfanwill]

After reading this forum for about a week, I have wanted to bring up San Francisco.  I am glad it has now been brought up.  I believe that is the model that Nashville should follow.  Let me elaborate further.  SF has 2 separate systems.  BART is heavy rail that serves the bay area, it connects the Airport with downtown SF where it is underground and stations are close together. It then travels under the bay to Oakland and serves more as a commuter rail system with stations at much wider distances. There are 4 lines beginning in various cities north south and east that cross the bay with a fourth that only serves the Eastern part of the bay from north to south. Trains are less frequent on the outskirts and increase in frequency as lines converge.  Within SF they share a single tunnel making the time between trains very small. I believe they are currently trying to expand the system south to the southern end of the bay.

 

The second system is the SF MUNI. It is LRT and is very similar to the Boston Green line and one of the lines in Philadelphia. As noted above it shares stations with BART in the most dense area of downtown.  The different lines separate and spread southwest through the city, As with BART trains are much more frequent in the tunnels because they converge into a single line.  throughout the rest of the city the trains run on tracks embedded in streets.  They have recently built a new line that is completely above ground and are building a new (controversial) line that runs perpendicular to the existing lines.

 

Since the city is roughly 7 miles square, LRT works great with in the city, (the bus and trolley bus system are also outstanding)

Heavy Rail works great as a downtown subway and commuter rail.  

 

While visiting last year I used both systems while sightseeing.  Google maps on my phone was dead on with schedules and directions for getting across town and even crossing the bay to see the university of California in Berkeley and going to Alameda to see the USS Hornet.

 

To translate this to Nashville as a long term plan.

Build the BRT as planned on west end. With future lines on Charlotte and even into Germantown and 12th.  Some eventually to be Replaced with LRT.  Build a heavy rail system to Franklin, Murfreesboro, and Gallatin all following existing RR row.  

These can initially arrive at a main downtown station near the old Union Station. This could also be a connection for the return of Amtrak to Nashville.

 Eventually they should be moved into a tunnel under downtown either under 4th or 5th ave. 

I read one report that building a commuter line to Clarksville like the existing Music City Star already has sufficient demand based on existing park and ride buses. 

There also needs to be something connecting the airport with downtown.  It could be a bus connecting to a stop on the Murfreesboro HRT line, or a direct LRT to downtown. 

 

Obviously, I realize I just listed a $Billion or so. But this could all be phased in over years, a single line at a time or a multiple lines at once but in short distances at a time.  As previously stated we are behind Atlanta in the 70s.  Buffalo was mentioned, but not its population, at the time they built their system they were the size of Nashville now, but the population has now decreased like most rust belt cities.  In other words, Buffalo has a functional rapid transit system with a smaller population than Nashville. 

 

The only gripe I had in SF was that the 2 systems had separate fare systems ( I believe they were in the process of changing that).  I purchased a tourist pass for MUNI (good for LRT, Buses, trolley buses, the heritage street car and even the cable cars, great deal if you ever go) at the airport and simply flashed it to the driver when I got on a bus or at a window to ride the LRT, But I had to get a separate pass for BART.

[BrandonTO416]

^The comparison to Buffalo is not what it seems on the surface. Buffalo has declined in population, but it is a very dense city. Its more urban than any sunbelt city. Buffalo city limits is only 52 sq miles. Its a waterfront city, and a whopping 11.9 sq miles of that is water. That means 261,000 of Buffalo's residents live on a plot of land that is 40sq miles.

 

Average density of Buffalo is 6,525 people per sq mi. There are some very dense neighborhoods along Elmwood, the north side of the city. Buffalo isn't Detroit, it has gentrified well manicured areas that take up a significant portion of the city. There *are* large areas of the east side that are basically ghetto wasteland where there are many blocks where houses are razed, so you can take that 40sq miles down even further since the east side ghetto wasteland is sizable.

 

In other words, the north side of Buffalo has many neighborhoods with 10,000+ ppl per sq mi. There's only two counties in the Buffalo metro: Erie and Niagara counties. Erie has nearly a million, Niagara contains the remainder of Buffalo's 1.1 million residents. It isn't a metro area with 10-15-20 counties.

 

And then you have to take into account literally across the river from Buffalo sits a metro area of 500,000 (Niagara Falls-St Catharines Ontario), and the Greater Toronto Area is a short drive away. They all come shopping in Buffalo and give the city extra traffic than it would otherwise have.

 

The tourism from hockey (bigger deal here than Nashville), the density of the metro, and everything still only provides 25k ridership a day on Buffalo's Metro, and the First Niagara Center (where the Sabres play) is located on a Metro stop specifically to alleviate traffic so its certainly used by sports fans.

 

The numbers aren't as they seem, you have to dig deeper. 

 

Lets face it, America as a whole collectively isn't a transit nation. If an urban old city like Buffalo can only muster 25k riders a day, and Charlotte can only get 15k a day, I think we have enough proof right there. We don't deeply use transit in most cities. A city like Nashville simply isn't like San Francisco. It won't be anytime soon, so investing in the types of transportation you're speaking of are far into the future.

 

Charlotte is a great example, because I think they attempted to do LRT the right way... They didn't want most of the system to mix with traffic. But the downside is that the LRT runs in areas where there are no streets or street activity. Its essentially a suburban shuttle for a handful of downtown workers. 15k riders is not enough to justify spending the $600 million they've spent, or the $600 million expansion they are spending on top of that to achieve a projected 25k ridership within 15-20 years.

 

I would love to chat for hours on this topic, because I've completely changed my view on transit after spending the last decade living across various cities in the US and visiting many more cities worldwide.

 

I wished more of you had opinions on the massive BRT network I proposed. Anyone opposed? Anyone think it is good but could use tweaking?

 

The BRT proposals have the most impact because it rejuvenates the actual streetscape of existing major corridors at a fraction of the cost of LRT.

 

And I repeat... Charlotte's Lynx has 15k riders a day. 15k?!? That is low for a busy bus line, forget LRT. Nashville is a city that would be between Charlotte and Buffalo. Nashville is more dense than Charlotte in its core, but its not even as dense as Buffalo is today. It isn't anywhere near San Francisco and won't be. Nashville is a destination city at least, so tourism plays a big role in the city's economy. So that would add to ridership.

 

The worst thing for Nashville would be to do what every other city is doing just because it seems cool. Nashville needs to do its own thing, and I think riding out the LRT fad and installing a huge BRT network is probably the best thing the city could do. I'm not talking about a rinky dink, half assed BRT, but a professionally built BRT system identical to the HealthLine BRT in Cleveland that I linked a photo of earlier. One where buses are LRV-like, and where they come every 5-10 minutes depending on whether its rush hour or not. I'll accept every 15 minutes if we're talking about midnight service, but it needs to be that at a minimum.

 

As an end note, I want every one of you to hop in a car, drive to Cleveland, and ride the HealthLine BRT and tell me you don't think its an impressive technology when done right. Its a quick 8 hour drive from Nashville, and every urban planner and media personality interested in the story should head to Cleveland to experience it. It is identical to LRT save for the wires hanging above and the rubber below in place of steel. That's essentially the only difference, its functionally the same.

Edited February 27, 2013 by BrandonTO416

[volsfanwill]

Brandon, I actually think your idea for a massive BRT system is great.  As you point out Buffalo is a waterfront city,  Cleveland is also, that is actually one of the problems with Nashville, where those two cities have a downtown near water and development on 3 sides, Nashville is developed on all sides.  

Multiple BRT lines feeding in and out of downtown along the main Davidson county corridors is much more financially responsible than LRT. 

My difference though is that I think some lines could eventually be upgraded to LRT. But at that point it should be underground.

Also, I truly believe that heavy rail from the suburbs is needed. Williamson, Rutherford, and Sumner Counties need better transit access into the city.  

I have a friend who likes to debate with me about this, his favorite thing to point out is that Tennesseans dont like transit, I always point out that we dont have that many options.  

The current commuter line to Lebanon is inconvenient for many people  that would use it if there were more frequent trains. 

The most needed is to Rutherford county, connect it with a comprehensive BRT system and people will use it.  

 on a complete tangent, all this will help people get to games when we get an MLB team, but that's another story.

[BrandonTO416]

A line extending 30+ miles all the way from Murfreesboro as BRT isn't necessarily the best idea because BRT is supposed to be local transit, it isn't regional transit. BRT is supposed to max out around 10 miles, it shouldn't be extending a great deal longer.

 

For regional transit I think express standard buses with a few park and ride locations is sufficient; however, the frequency of service has to be better in order for it to be relevant. If we're just talking about 5 buses in during the morning rush and 5 out in the evening the service is useful for a couple hundred people, tops.

 

For commuter service, trains are also not that expensive. Since commuter rail - like the Lebanon line - can be created so cheaply I would advocate commuter rail service to Murfreesboro. Its also better to consider rail simply from the standpoint that the Interstate highways are choked with traffic. It'd cost way, WAY more to pave and create a dedicated bus lane all the way to Murfreesboro than it would to buy some more commuter trains and build a few stops like Music City STAR has to Lebanon.

 

What I don't get about STAR is why they chose one of the least dense corridors leading into Nashville as their starter service, nor do I understand why they only run a few trains during the morning, a few during the evening. In order for it to be relevant, they should have had trains every 30 minutes during rush hour, every hour outside from around 6am to 10pm.

 

BRT + Commuter Rail = best success for Nashville. I'm an advocate of the RTA expanding and STAR operating to Gallatin, Lebanon, Murfreesboro, and Franklin with daily services; while for the city BRT taking over local transit on those 6 corridors I outlined above.

 

Only if... I'm so far removed from planning and transit and everything that these are pipe dreams at best, but you could do a 4 line RTA Star service + BRT service for less than a billion dollar investment and have frequent, relevant service on all lines. Or, Nashville could build one demonstration LRT line down West End Avenue for the same price to shuttle tourists around and for the investment to not really benefit most city and regional residents.

[UTgrad09]

What I don't get about STAR is why they chose one of the least dense corridors leading into Nashville as their starter service, nor do I understand why they only run a few trains during the morning, a few during the evening. In order for it to be relevant, they should have had trains every 30 minutes during rush hour, every hour outside from around 6am to 10pm.

 

BRT + Commuter Rail = best success for Nashville. I'm an advocate of the RTA expanding and STAR operating to Gallatin, Lebanon, Murfreesboro, and Franklin with daily services; while for the city BRT taking over local transit on those 6 corridors I outlined above.

The reason they chose the corridor is due to track rights. They were able to build (refurbish) that entire line, and acquire trains and everything for $41 million. It was supposed to demonstrate the effectiveness of commuter rail, so that spending a lot more money on other potential lines would be more accepted by the masses. It was done on the cheap...remarkably cheap. We even bought the trains and cars for next to nothing (used).

It's hard to say if it has been successful. From what I know, the people that use it, love it. I haven't been able to check on the other stations, but I'm in Hermitage occasionally, and there are always plenty of cars at the station lot. It has it's problems...most of it is single line, so it's hard to have a volume of trains coming and going. The other thing is that while the station is in a pretty awesome spot, if new lines are built, this one will be orphaned (no changing trains). Back on the bright side, there are some proposals in Wilson County that would center around the Music City Star line (transit oriented development), so it's nice to see the suburbs embrace the idea. Ultimately, it's things like that could make the line successful.

The current barrier facing commuter rail here is CSX. They control the railroads, and the freight lines, from what I've read, are nearly at capacity...so I don't think they'll be too friendly to the idea of commuter trains taking priority twice a day for a few hours. Some of the lines are double tracked, but a lot are still single track. That will have to change. And even if we agree to double track all of the sections, it might still take some arm twisting (federally) to finally get it accomplished. On top of this, we have 3 different Congressmen/women to deal with. I'm not confident that this will be high on their priority list.

IIRC, someone here said that we own the line that runs to the west (Bellevue)...so that could potentially be another line...though I think the far and away most obvious, most pressing need is for one to be built to Murfreesboro.

I think it will come. There is a lot of positive energy surrounding this place right now, and you get the feeling that people want to work together to make things better. The vision of our future that is portrayed is one with trains. I think we will see some serious proposals in the next several years. It shouldn't hurt the cause that we keep popping up on all kinds of worst/longest car commutes/traffic lists (though I question some of the methodology/validity of their claims).

One thing that I think makes our metro particularly attractive for commuter rail is the sort of spoke and hub network of suburbs we have. A lot of our "inner ring" suburbs (including those within Davidson County) are 10-15 miles out. Our outer ring suburbs are 20-30 miles out. The commute isn't fun from 30 miles out as of now...but it's not as ridiculous as it is in a lot of larger cities from that distance. But as we continue to grow, the commute time will get worse and worse, naturally. I doubt people are going to want to sell their homes to move closer and have an easier commute (though that really wouldn't be a bad thing, in my eyes)...but it won't be long until a commuter train actually has a shorter commute to downtown than a drive...especially on the I-24 corridor.

Finally...if they want to make commuter rail work, it's essential that they make it a two-way system. Obviously most of the use will be from people who are traveling downtown to work...but we have to recognize that we have a number of cross-county commuters that work in large employment centers outside the core and outside of Davidson County. But for, say, the person in Hendersonville whose job is in Cool Springs, getting from home to the station may not be a big deal...but getting from the station to work may present a problem. Suburban buses and trolleys are a must to collect and distribute people to and from the stations. The problem presented in a place like Cool Springs is simply how much development there is there, but how spread out it is...but even getting a modest amount of people to reverse commute via train would be a big help.

[BrandonTO416]

^The goal of getting someone who chooses to live in Hendersonville yet works in Cool Springs to travel between these locations via transit is not really feasible. There is no logistical workaround for that kind of commute.

 

The thing Nashville should focus on first and foremost isn't suburban transit (people live in suburbs to use cars primarily, and the only transit usage you'll get are the people who work in the very central core and live in a suburb, which is a fraction of an already car oriented demographic). Nashville's priority should be the build-out of an impressive BRT network to service the city and "terraform" the inner corridors in urban fashion. I'd completely forget about beefing up the commuter rail system until the core is fixed. Really, Music City STAR is useless for most people, once it drops you off downtown you can't go anywhere. MTA's bus system is very limited. With BRT, the STAR becomes more practical since you have a system to get around the city once you get off the train with BRT stops every 5-10 minutes.

 

I'm in agreement with most points brought up here. We're really just reaffirming what sounds best for the city.

 

In so far as double tracking, I forget some of these rail corridors are single track. That's a huge drawback. Makes what I thought sounded cheap a much more expensive proposition.

[nashvillwill]

Brandon,

I really like the system you have outlined. It's well thought out and the distances are not too far. I agree with your philosophy about NOT trying to reach the far suburbs with BRT. It's a point that I think many people (politicians and whatnot) miss. Just from my perspective, here are the things I would adjust with your system;

-M'boro Rd. You currently have a line down Elm Hill to the airport. I would realign that onto M'boro Rd. it's less industrial, more population dense and would tap into the Dell campus. Also, M'boro is wider and should be more accommodating for BRT infrastructure.

-White Bridge road loop. I would cut that loop out. End the line at the Harding/W. Bridge intersection. N. State can run shuttles. I think it would add extra cost and travel time that wouldn't serve a large number of people. On the other hand, if you are going to go down to N. State, you might ass well continue onto the Charlotte line and make a transfer point.

-I would add a north/south line from Bordeaux, down DB Todd, and into midtown, with transfers to the Charlotte and W. End lines. This would serve a very large, poor section of Nashville, that would certainly use the system. It would also add a north/south line to help solve the wheel and spoke problem.

I like your system a lot. I think it would be very effective and serve many of the areas that could benefit, without trying to reach too far.

On another note, I do think that commuter rail service to the exurbs will play an extremely important role in Nashville's future. As you guys have said, certain areas (Rutherford Co) are in desperate need of this. I would like to see 2 more lines of the star, with decreased headway and longer hours. It will be a challenge with CSX for certain, but a necessary challenge IMO.

A question. You may have mentioned this and I missed it, but I don't remember reading your thoughts on this. Where would your "Grand Central" be? Would you converge all lines at the current MCC, or would you converge them around Union Station to serve future commuter rail lines? Or would there not be a main terminal, so that all lines act independently?

Finally Brandon, thanks for adding to the conversation. I always love to hear other people ideas for transit in Nashville.

Edited February 27, 2013 by nashvillwill

[BrandonTO416]

^I don't have the answers on expanding the STAR. I don't disagree that its an important component, but I believe in incrementalism. Nashville doesn't have the demand yet nor does it have the density to forge into projects that we know won't work for many years.

 

Systems like STAR function best when there is serious transit available at the stops (primarily downtown). Right now the MTA has a bus system that doesn't effectively do much once you get off the STAR trains.

 

So, being an incrementalist, I would take what funds and resources are available to fund 100% toward BRT. Good news is that the city is already doing this, the East-West Connector as its being dubbed is the best thing for Nashville.

 

Once its built, however, I still wouldn't support expanding STAR until the buildout of more BRT is complete. My preference would be for it all to be done at once. Spend at least a billion $$$ on the above BRT system and commuter rail expansion all at once and get it over with, but we're in a time where budgets are constrained and Tea Party Congressional members will "sequester" funds even if they're already spent. LOL

 

I'm just waiting for the next nifty little name for the next faux-crisis in 3-6 months. The point is, we've got a very shaky political system right now, and money can be tight. Nashville's demand for suburban commuter rail is limited at best. Despite Lebanon being a less dense corridor, it does demonstrate over a period of 5+ years already that demand is super low for that product. I wouldn't start by funding it first, but I'd definitely maintain what is already built. They need to keep STAR service running to Lebanon and enhance it since its already there.

 

On your other points, I agree that the BRT I've proposed can and should be altered. NSCC could certainly run shuttles. I'm not sure I agree with Murfreesboro Rd yet, unless the line skips the airport and goes to Antioch. At that point it'd be an entirely new BRT line in addition to the others. There isn't enough business and community between the Elm Hill/Murfreesboro split and Dell, other than Trevecca Nazrene. And Trevecca is right at the Elm Hill-Murfreesboro split so my plan serves the university. Even then, there is so much more officespace and so many more hotels (tourism is far more important than Dell) on that Elm Hill route. The number of workers in the office parks just north of 40 at the airport is in the thousands. The hotels also have thousands of spots.

Edited February 27, 2013 by BrandonTO416

[BrandonTO416]

 BTW, here is how to make the case for Elm Hill-Airport connector. I have Streets and Trips, and the program outlines the hotel difference. Every blue dot on this map is a hotel. Murfreesboro Rd only has a few, and they are budget hotels. The Elm Hill corridor has thousands of rooms and they range from the Marriott down to standard fare. Not forgetting all the offices in the area that could have a shuttle down the hill, or the Century 21 office park. It isn't just warehousing there.

 

 

^Tons more blue dots showing the hotels around Elm Hill. Almost 30 to be exact. Between Trevecca and Briley, there would be only a few stops as its not that dense, so it'd be a very quick BRT, east of Briley on Elm Hill and down Donelson it'd transform it into a more urban environment from an already promising area with lots of offices.

Edited February 27, 2013 by BrandonTO416