The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread

[e-dub]

i remember seeing that before... goodbye qdoba!

eric b

[rookzie]

There was a sales rep from Xcelsior stationed with one of the left-side door Route 55X buses at the Earth Day exhibit in Centennial Park this past spring.  He said they were the same buses that would be used for the Amp.

 

My understanding is that the dedicated lanes will also include a low curb to separate them from other traffic.

 

 

So, I found this. It  may have been posted but is new to me...

 

http://i.imgur.com/gSXWy4b.jpg

 

 

Yes, I believe that was simply a rendering or "artist's conception" of how the AMP might appear in a redeveloped West-End scene at mid-town Nashville.  The rendering is the typical dramatization of new yet-to-be-built structures infilled with the locally traditional landmarks.  In this example, the Cathedral of the Incarnation Catholic Church and School (toward the upper-left), and Vandy's Baker Bldg. (upper-right), are illustrated with a somewhat overblown, futuristic style articulated vehicles depicting operation in action, of the proposed AMP.  The intersection is West End and 21st Avenues.

 

Renderings, you know, are intended to provide target audiences with a "best-case" illustration of a proposed project.  I don't know just when this particular sketch was published (prior to or following the mayor's and MTA's "recommendation" of choice during the first half of Dec. 2011), but an animation was generated and published on the Transit Alliance Web site (which you probably already know of [http://thetransitalliance.org/amp]), following the conclusion of the alternatives analysis for the corridor.

 

The actual vehicles to be utilized most likely will (would) be New Flyer Industries Xcelcior, some of which have been in service on a few Nashville MTA routes, most notably, the No. 55X. Murfreesboro Road BRT Lite.  According to member Nashville Cliff, a visiting representative has confirmed that the Xcelcior is to be used (a more conservative and functionally practical design).

 

I think that I’d feel less on the edge of my seat, if I were on board of one of two opposing streetcars, than I would on one of those steerable buses on those center lanes.  I suppose that a safer set-up would be laid out for opposing vehicles along center lanes of any corridor, rather than busway lanes separated simply with with a contrasting appearing material or demarcation border.  Perhaps embedded roadway illumination might assist operators during inclement weather conditions.  As the pavement surface wears from repeated use, the resulting sheen and glint from headlight reflection can make any flush marking difficult, if not impossible to discern during the dark and during rainy conditions.  I could imagine, instead, some kind of gently rounded and filleted solid low barrier between opposing busway lanes to assist in keeping the bus movements in check.  I don’t know still whether or not I’d feel that secure, though.  At least at present the single center lane in stretches of Broadway and West End afford some sense of “insulation”

against oncoming traffic and human error (minimizing chances of head-on collisions).  Nashville Cliff  also says (quoted above) that he heard that a low curb likely would separate the center lanes from traffic.

[dmillsphoto]

Yes, I believe that was simply a rendering or "artist's conception" of how the AMP might appear in a redeveloped West-End scene at mid-town Nashville.  The rendering is the typical dramatization of new yet-to-be-built structures infilled with the locally traditional landmarks.  In this example, the Cathedral of the Incarnation Catholic Church and School (toward the upper-left), and Vandy's Baker Bldg. (upper-right), are illustrated with a somewhat overblown, futuristic style articulated vehicles depicting operation in action, of the proposed AMP.  The intersection is West End and 21st Avenues.

 

Renderings, you know, are intended to provide target audiences with a "best-case" illustration of a proposed project.  I don't know just when this particular sketch was published (prior to or following the mayor's and MTA's "recommendation" of choice during the first half of Dec. 2011), but an animation was generated and published on the Transit Alliance Web site (which you probably already know of [http://thetransitalliance.org/amp]), following the conclusion of the alternatives analysis for the corridor.

 

The actual vehicles to be utilized most likely will (would) be New Flyer Industries Xcelcior, some of which have been in service on a few Nashville MTA routes, most notably, the No. 55X. Murfreesboro Road BRT Lite.  According to member Nashville Cliff, a visiting representative has confirmed that the Xcelcior is to be used (a more conservative and functionally practical design).

 

I think that I’d feel less on the edge of my seat, if I were on board of one of two opposing streetcars, than I would on one of those steerable buses on those center lanes.  I suppose that a safer set-up would be laid out for opposing vehicles along center lanes of any corridor, rather than busway lanes separated simply with with a contrasting appearing material or demarcation border.  Perhaps embedded roadway illumination might assist operators during inclement weather conditions.  As the pavement surface wears from repeated use, the resulting sheen and glint from headlight reflection can make any flush marking difficult, if not impossible to discern during the dark and during rainy conditions.  I could imagine, instead, some kind of gently rounded and filleted solid low barrier between opposing busway lanes to assist in keeping the bus movements in check.  I don’t know still whether or not I’d feel that secure, though.  At least at present the single center lane in stretches of Broadway and West End afford some sense of “insulation”

against oncoming traffic and human error (minimizing chances of head-on collisions).  Nashville Cliff  also says (quoted above) that he heard that a low curb likely would separate the center lanes from traffic.

 

Oh I know... just hadn't seen that render til today. It escaped me somehow. This thread has blown up since it's inception and I don't follow it (as much as I should, being a mod) like I do the others. Either way, as I have said before, BRT is a step, but would rather have something else...

[fieldmarshaldj]

So, I found this. It  may have been posted but is new to me...

 

http://i.imgur.com/gSXWy4b.jpg

 

There used to be a beautiful, large mansion at that location. A crime that it was demolished and replaced with a fast food joint.

[MidTenn1]

There used to be a beautiful, large mansion at that location. A crime that it was demolished and replaced with a fast food joint.

 

It was either a Tex Ritter's BBQ or Minnie Pearl's Chicken. I don't remember which. Or it could have been Roy Rogers.

Edited September 5, 2013 by PHofKS

[Rockatansky]

what is not known (to me anyway) is whether or not weighted consideration was given to other alternatives, to any extent. 

 

4 options were considered for the Broadway-West End Corridor including 3 types of Mass Transit (BRT, LRT & Streetcar) and a 'Do Nothing' scenario. Costs & ridership were estimated for all 4. My take away was that BRT offered solid ridership numbers (greater than Do Nothing & Streetcar and only slightly less than LRT) at a more reasonable cost than LRT or Streetcar.

 

BRT: $135m

Streetcar: $275m

LRT: $470m+

Edited September 5, 2013 by Rockatansky

[donNdonelson2]

It was torn down for a Popeye's...so sad!

 

  Nashville (Tenn.)--Buildings, structures, etc.
Nashville (Tenn.)--History--Sources
West End Avenue (Nashville, Tenn.) Description An undated photograph of the second governor's mansion located at 2118 West End Avenue, Nashville, Tennessee. The squarish, buff-colored brick structure was originally a residence built by C. T. Cheek, a wealthy wholesale grocer, circa 1910. It was noted for its leaded glass doors and windows and its handsome Palladian dormer window. The state first rented and then purchased the property in 1923. This mansion housed governors Alf Taylor, Austin Peay, Henry Horton, Hill McAlister, Gordon Browning, Prentice Cooper and Jim McCord from 1921 to 1949. Jim Nance McCord was the last governor to live in the executive mansion. The old edifice soon became in need of multiple repairs in an area that was "going commercial." The structure was razed circa June 1979 to make way for a fried chicken restaurant (Popeye's Famous Fried Chicken).

 

[fieldmarshaldj]

^No, the prior Governor's Mansion was on the block where the Loew's Vanderbilt is (north side) at 2118 West End. The building I'm referring to was a mansion on the south side at 2015 West End on the site of Qdoba. There was an earlier 19th century Governor's Mansion located along a block of beautiful mansions on 7th Avenue in the shadow of the State Capitol (which were all demolished en masse for the War Memorial Plaza, one of the greatest architectural losses in the pre-urban renewal era).

 

The late Huell Howser (of California's Gold fame) gained notoriety here in town when he took an aggressive stance in opposing the demolition of the West End Governor's Mansion when he worked for one of the local news affiliates.

[rookzie]

4 options were considered for the Broadway-West End Corridor including 3 types of Mass Transit (BRT, LRT & Streetcar) and a 'Do Nothing' scenario. Costs & ridership were estimated for all 4. My take away was that BRT offered solid ridership numbers (greater than Do Nothing & Streetcar and only slightly less than LRT) at a more reasonable cost than LRT or Streetcar.

 

BRT: $135m

Streetcar: $275m

LRT: $470m+

 

.. And those figures do not necessarily reflect the true ROI and TCO of  the "tangible" alternatives.  As I has mentioned earlier, the use of the streetcar model, can be made scalable for demand, such that basic articulated units can be specified as "couple-able" into two or three joined tandems into trains.  I say this, because, as ridership figures (according to expectations) steadily rise, the number of BRT units required to sustain the passenger demand during peak will require substantially more operators for a given frequency and headway, compared to the number of operators employed for a rail vehicle of substantially higher capacity.  Non-peak periods?  Then, of course, the triple- or double-coupled "artics". become a virtual single "train".  Boston's MBTA (the "T") used this operation paradigm decades before the term "light-rail" was cool (or even a buzz phrase).

 

The “T” ran (well into the '80s) single PCC-type late-1940s streetcars equipped with Tomlinson-type couplers on both the front and rear of each PCC car (the overwhelming majority of which were single-ended, single-direction, as are buses), in the transit tunnels (as part of  the central subway system), on elevated pathway (Lechmere leg in Cambridge), on acquired abandoned railway ROW (Riverside and Mattapan lines), but mostly in the city streets with mixed traffic (Watertown via Brighton Ave.; Arborway;), and on some streets with separated car ways (Boston College via Commonwealth Ave.; Cleveland Circle via Beacon St.).  Although these now retired cars did require door operators in each coupled streetcar, the principle eventually transformed into the use of contemporary LRT vehicles, deployed as subway, LRT, and streetcar (local stop-and-go circulator).  Boston also has (as I mentioned in an earlier post) a heavily used BRT (the "Silverline") , which replaced a major portion of an old "L" (elevated) heavy-rail line (razed to accommodate a stillborn express highway project), but even this BRT connects to the existing rail system.

 

For the West-End - Five-Points upstart, from a practicable aspect, a true LRT might not be a best fit, and that's the reason that I say streetcar implemented as LRT (in the sense of joining separable units).  True LRT might best planned long-range in a venture utilizing the nearby CSX east-to-west Bruceton Division (past Fisk, HCA-Centennial, Murphy Rd, Cherokee Park, St. Thomas).  I realize that that would be an extremely expensive undertaking, but it would be perhaps appropriate for LRT, given the spoke-and-hub surface arterial layout and the close proximity of the freight railroad parallel to West End (west of I-440) and along side Harding Road, through Belle Meade.  LRT is best suited for transport of large numbers of commuters over longer distances, with number of scheduled stops limited to a figure responsive to a maintaining a moderate to medium-high speed (within the capabilities of the vehicles) between stops.  But that's a different  topic altogether, IMHO, effectively eliminating LRT as a choice for the corridor purpose.  The corridor primary only can be accommodated in “local” patterns of mixed traffic (as opposed to express or non-stop, for practical application) along its entirely street-bound route, despite the proposed use of signal pre-emption and dedicated center lanes (west of Rosa Parks Blvd).  BRT and streetcar virtually, then, are the only two of the three subjects of analysis warranted for use as "circulators", which is what the AMP essentially will serve as.

 

TCO also covers the maintenance of each option (BRT or streetcar), including personnel, training, power consumption, general vehicle maintenance, busway/street-track maintenance, electric conduit maintenance, engine-/tire-/steel-wheel/traction-motor maintenance – any and all other (of the many) factors peculiar to either alternative.  Buses are not necessarily cheaper to operate, when incorporated as a primary infrastructure component, due to the fact that hydrid-diesel or any other type of bus with a self-contained prime-mover generally will cost more to maintain than its electric counterfpart (be it trolleybus or streetcar), with these costs being averaged over a given number of vehicles in the circulation pool.

 

My intent is, not to refute the published figures for planning and the projected costs of construction for the alternatives (BRT vs. streetcar).  Those figures can be derived more or less directly.  Despite the stated intention of providing a lower cost transport transit infrastructure, pragmatics of  tracking the costs to sustain and to maintain a sizable number of BRT sub-systems has actually shown (consistently) that BRTs actually have become more costly to operate than rail-bound counterparts, for a given comparable scope and range of urban coverage.  The study has overlooked this “leg of the tripod” entirely.  It also would have the uninformed believe that BRT would attract the same amount of patronage from automobiles as that of LRT or of streetcar, a statement which is arguable at best (if not dubious) that the proposed BRT could approach the proven superiority of municipal rail.  The mayor himself (as well as the MTA reps) has directly expressed that BRT has the “feel and look of light rail”, but without the tracks, in a manner that would suggest, therefore, that BRT would be embraced with the same amount of enthusiam as that of rail. (I really don’t think so)

 

My opinion notwithstanding, I have little doubt that BRT probably is the best way to go for Nashville, in consideration the initial outlay cost, the (un)availability of a sustainable funding source, and the current ethnographics (cultures and societies) of the districts to be served by the corridor.  Because Nashville (its administrations, that is) had not done its homework, back during times of missed opportunities over the last 30 years, in preparing the people for self-funding of public transit future, it now is in a rather lamentable position to be able to accomplish what other cities have done with upstart rail projects (take Dallas for example).  Now the only apparently "palatable" method of making up for lost time is to apply for whatever grant a proposed project might be capable of winning, and then come up with a way of matching the difference (instead of the other way around: establishing a funding source first).  I believe that the perennial absence of such a funding source may have proven pivotal in the decision to select BRT as the “best” solution for this corridor project.

 

But I do feel that the proponents have neither fully apprised themselves, nor have they disclosed a more nearly accurate account of the real price tag on the cost of a “fast” mass transit application for this city.  BRTs are a necessary component in providing a comprensively balanced transportation system, but a BRT as a standalone, for this particular city’s surface needs, does not provide that balance.  But at this point in time, with federal funding grants on the dying, “drying-up” trend, settling for what it can get, without a defined sustainable funding source, the city might be hard pressed to aim for the streetcar option.

 

In conclusion, BRT, therefore,.would be the way to go for this upstart, although not necessarily in the manner proposed. for the lane configuration.

 

PHofKS - Posted Today, 01:01 PM

It was either a Tex Ritter's BBQ or Minnie Pearl's Chicken. I don't remember which. Or it could have been Roy Rogers.

 

 

 

It was torn down for a Popeye's...so sad!

 

  Nashville (Tenn.)--Buildings, structures, etc.

Nashville (Tenn.)--History--Sources

West End Avenue (Nashville, Tenn.) Description An undated photograph of the second governor's mansion located at 2118 West End Avenue, Nashville, Tennessee. The squarish, buff-colored brick structure was originally a residence built by C. T. Cheek, a wealthy wholesale grocer, circa 1910. It was noted for its leaded glass doors and windows and its handsome Palladian dormer window. The state first rented and then purchased the property in 1923. This mansion housed governors Alf Taylor, Austin Peay, Henry Horton, Hill McAlister, Gordon Browning, Prentice Cooper and Jim McCord from 1921 to 1949. Jim Nance McCord was the last governor to live in the executive mansion. The old edifice soon became in need of multiple repairs in an area that was "going commercial." The structure was razed circa June 1979 to make way for a fried chicken restaurant (Popeye's Famous Fried Chicken).

 

 

 

I do remember a Tex Ritter being there in the in the past -- at that SE corner, that is (used to go there to "soak up", so to speak).  I also recall, at least sometime during the early '90s, there being a Pizza Inn, which was "cheezy" in quality.

Edited September 9, 2013 by rookzie

[timmay143]

Did we already know this?  I can't keep up with our insider info and what the news regurgitates.  However, this is from Dean's FB page:
 

 

 

Federal Transit Administrator Peter Rogoff came to Nashville today to announce with Mayor Dean that the city is receiving a $10 million federal grant to enhance BRT lite services on Murfreesboro Road. This means more sidewalks, better bus shelters, "real-time" bus arrival information at the shelters, and traffic signal prioritization, which as Administrator Rogoff explained, basically guarantees every bus a green light. Bus service on Murfreesboro Road is about to become much faster and more convenient! Read the details:http://www.nashvillemta.org/pdf/fn79.pdf

[rookzie]

Did we already know this?  I can't keep up with our insider info and what the news regurgitates.  However, this is from Dean's FB page:

 

 

Maybe others have, but I certainly hadn't gotten wind of it.  It follows, then, that the proposed ,as certain, BRT lite along Charlotte Ave/Pk. and along Nolensville Pk, to follow (according to some media release during July or early August), likely would receive in kind.

[timmay143]

I'd love to see it on Nolensville.

[Guest]

A nice little (pie-in-the-sky) publication. It is Knoxville-centric but includes HSR to Nashville....

http://issuu.com/nburger/docs/re-connection

[timmay143]

That's awesome, but as you said, definitely pie-in-the-sky!

[volsfanwill]

A nice little (pie-in-the-sky) publication. It is Knoxville-centric but includes HSR to Nashville....

http://issuu.com/nburger/docs/re-connection

nice find

[fieldmarshaldj]

A nice little (pie-in-the-sky) publication. It is Knoxville-centric but includes HSR to Nashville....

http://issuu.com/nburger/docs/re-connection

 

This should also be posted to the Knoxville forum for reference purposes.

[UTgrad09]

This should also be posted to the Knoxville forum for reference purposes.

 

Agreed. It won't get buried over there.

 

 

It reminds me of the stuff that the NCDC works on. 

[nashvylle]

Please get this application in on time!

 

http://blogs.tennessean.com/politics/2013/amp-application-for-federal-bus-rapid-transit-money-due-sept-30/

[UTgrad09]

Please get this application in on time!

 

http://blogs.tennessean.com/politics/2013/amp-application-for-federal-bus-rapid-transit-money-due-sept-30/

 

Dean's not going to miss that. Even if he has to fly to Washington himself to hand deliver it. This is his baby.

 

 

 

Er....one of them.

[dmillsphoto]

Please get this application in on time!

 

http://blogs.tennessean.com/politics/2013/amp-application-for-federal-bus-rapid-transit-money-due-sept-30/

 

Predators GM David Poile comes to mind... anybody who understands that reference gets brownie points.

[UTgrad09]

Predators GM David Poile comes to mind... anybody who understands that reference gets brownie points.

 

Something about player contracts and last July?

[nashvillwill]

Multiple players contracts!

[dmillsphoto]

damn fax machine.

[Rockatansky]

Bus Rapid Transit Spurs Development Better Than Light Rail Or Streetcars: Study

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2013/09/15/bus-rapid-transit-spurs-development-better-than-light-rail-and-streetcars/

[rookzie]

Bus Rapid Transit Spurs Development Better Than Light Rail Or Streetcars: Study

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2013/09/15/bus-rapid-transit-spurs-development-better-than-light-rail-and-streetcars/

 

"Per dollar of transit investment, and under similar conditions, BRT can leverage more (development) investment than LRT or streetcars."

 

Although the excerpt used the phrase "..can leverage", I beg to differ on that opinion, which is subjective at best.  If you've ever mulled around Euclid in Cleveland (I have in the past), and have ridden the "rapid" as Clevelanders refer to their RTA, you'd know that most of the so-called development had its rudiments with the Tower City - Windermere (Red Line) rapid-rail.  There you would know of both heavy-rail electric (Red Line) and light-rail electric (Green and Blue), which, starting downtown at the old historic Terminal Tower (now Tower City), head eastward and split off at  E. 55th street, with the heavy-rail Red Line serving an older but more distant route mostly parallel to the new Healthline BRT.  The Red Line is the rapid-rail route which mostly follows the famed Euclid Avenue (US 20), a trumped up version of Nashville's Broadway West End.  The Red Line rail and the Healthline BRT follow the same general path in northeasterly direction and end up in East Cleveland (Windermere Station). [Red Line also extends west to Cleveland-Hopkins In'l Airport]

 

At E. 55th street, the Red Line separates from the Green and Blue lines which veer off nearly due east and then southeast to Shaker Heights (where the Green and Blue split to separate destinations within that suburb).

 

The point is, that Forbes article study does not fully consider a full-factored analysis of Portland's [OR] TriMet "Max" and Cleveland's RTA to be accurately comparing the parameters, because the infrastructures and regional economics vary immensely, as well as with other elements.  Inthe Cleveland setting ,you likely have a number of travellers using the rail lines from the affluent areas served by the Shaker Heights lines and feeding to transfer points which lead to the Healthline BRT.

 

All this is said to elucidate my point.  The "development" spurred along the Euclid corridor, cannot be attributed to the advent of the Healthline alone.  In line with what I have stated in a previous posting, referring to Cleveland's RTA Healthline BRT and the RTA's rapid-rail, they need to be weighed as a  complete infrastructure system, when one is to effectively and comprehensively evaluate the costs per mile, ROI, and TCO of a BRT.  I mentioned that Cleveland's Healthline BRT is not a standalone facility, per se, and therefore post development cannot be ascribed to or touted as being induced by the presence of that BRT alone.  The Healthline BRT works in hand with the Red Line (and with other "remote feeders" – Green and Blue lines) by providing local surface along an arterial, previously served only by standard local bus and by the limited-stop Red Line rail, neither one of the latter two of which could provide that "intermediate" level of movement efficiency for riders along that corridor.

 

The same would apply to TRi-Met "MaX" in Portland, as Tri-Met has been expanded several times druing the previous 30 years, and now the original system of light-rail has been augmented with WES ("Westside" commuter rail) and streetcar.  (I've only ridden the Max light-rail, to the "burbs" of Beaverton and Gresham).  Indeed exceptions do exist on the transit systems of both Cleveland and Portland metro areas, where the ridership trends have not panned out as conceived.  Much of this has as much to do with previously established zoning policy as with the interrelational dynamics of a region's MPO implementation and economic viability and survivorship,   There was an old saying that throwing a sack of beer cans in the weeds was all one needed to make a 7-11 convenient store pop up on site.  That anectotal humor does not exactly apply to building of rapid-rail or to BRT, to say the least.

 

Eugene [OR] is a different "breed" of scenario, in that dedicated lanes comprise nearly 2/3rds of its "EmX" BRT route, and some lanes themselves are separated from the roadways entirely (an ideal setting).  For the size of Eugene, the BRT does appear to serve that specific corridor well.  Otherwise, Eugene does not have the density and constraints of a larger and older Metro area that would (and which most often do) adversely affect the planning and construction of a well-planned, integrated BRT set-up.  The Eugene (and Springfield, OR) BRT system, of the Lane County [OR] District, appears to have been a success story from the start, largely as a result of what I have just indicated – the size and needs of the metropolitan area, which are much different from those of Cleveland and of other areas in which BRT or rail may be (convincingly) justified.

 

In any event, as I also have stated in the past, BRT is works well as constituent of a balanced transportation system, but a BRT alone is not likely to provide that balance.  "Balance" is that thematic emphasis which appears to have been achieved with Boston's Silverline BRT and Cleveland's Healthline (as well as some others of lesser prominence in other dense metro areas), because they work in complement to existing rail systems, in place l-o-n-g before BRT even was a buzz-phrase.

 

The article does little to support its claims, either directly or by reference, especially given the applications sited, which vary in perceived success immensely.

 

-= Ricky-roox (Fred D.Smith )=-

Edited September 19, 2013 by rookzie