The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread

[UTgrad09]

I also have wondered about what the dedicated source of funding will be for mass transit. I remember a study from several years ago about possible sources, and also dug this back up (  http://www.nashvillempo.org/regional_plan/transit/dedicated_funding.aspx  ) about the state enabling the NMPO to create regional funding for mass transit 

 

Unfortunately, I think it will be tough sledding to pass any sort of regional funding. Heck, it's hard enough as it is to convince Davidson County voters to support transit...I think it will be virtually impossible in the suburbs.

 

I think there are residents in the suburbs that would be receptive, for sure. And I think there are even lines that certain suburbs *may* support (i.e. I can see Murfreesboro being willing to chip in for the Murfreesboro portion of a commuter rail line)...but I fear a region-wide transit initiative would ultimately get shot down by the no-tax-increase-under-any-circumstances crowd. It would be easy to rally those that won't be using it or can't use it to shoot down what will be called a waste of money (i.e. I can see Brentwood blocking a rail initiative in Williamson County, even if Franklin wants it).

 

IF a few lines can be put in place, with federal and either state or local money, then perhaps it will be more palatable for some of the suburban areas to support dedicated funding on a regional level. 

 

Of course I hope I am wrong about this. It's just the feeling I get. I definitely think it's on us transportation advocates to speak up and educate folks on the benefits, as well as the cost of maintaining the status quo. Plus...by doing so, we may run into some folks that agree with us, but are too shy themselves to speak their opinions aloud. 

[rookzie]

I had the unfortunate experience of being on Nolensville Rd at 5PM a week or so back.  Oh. My. Goodness.   I regularly travel Hillsboro/21st during that time, and Nolensville was twice as bad. It took 25 minutes to get from the fairgrounds to HiFi Buys, which is probably 2-3 miles.  That's another corridor that has significant potential as some sort of mass transit would provide a much more convenient and fast way of getting in and out of town. 

...

 

 

 

 

From what I've experienced, the main problem is the intersection at Thompson Lane. Yes, there are other intersections that are slow...but it can take you 10-15 minutes just to get through that one intersection.

 

The entire southeast side of town needs some work. Nolensville Rd is bad, but I would say Murfreesboro Rd is equally bad...not to mention I-24. 

 

I think there's a serious need for commuter rail over there. Not light rail...commuter rail.

 

 

 

Nolensville Rd/Harding Pl has been the city's #1 intersection for traffic.  My hood!

 

Tim, now I know why you seem to "light up", when someone presses that Nolensville button.

 

And the mention of commuter-, rather than light-rail, for a mounting arterial problem is not unlike other cities of growing pains yet to be addressed effectively.  It's probably safe to assume that a disproportionately large percentage (if not a majority) of motoring commuters on the all arterials – not just Nolensville and Murfreesboro Roads – across county lines.

 

I am unaware of any effective methods of deriving estimates of those whose one-way commutes exceed 5o% of the length of these arterials within Metro Davidson, or even numbers of those whose commutes remain within the county but which include a significantly high percentage of a portion of those same roads.– a compounded and intricate task, so say the least.

 

And unlike even older, larger cities with long established commuter-rail, motorists tend to endure super-high tolerances of snarled, snail's-pace traffic, before they will give up their cars, especially car pools, even with the sight of commuter-train windows filled with heads hurdling past them every 15 minutes or so.

 

Ref: Interstates 55-57-80-90-94 and all the arterials incl. US 20-34-41-45 in Chicago.  Those roads (siting only a few) get maxed out, even with those full trains whizzing by like stainless-steel snakes.  Rather than removing a significant number of cars from the roads, multiple-route commuter rail at least would give a growing list of concerned commuters an alternative, just as the RTA buses have started to do (and with open arms).  They've already had to add a second and even a third morning and afternoon bus on the Gallatin-Hendersonville run, and a second bus on the Springfield-Joelton run.  M'boro, Smyrna, and LaVergne keep on getting additional coaches every year or two, because people really have begun to catch on.  Unfortunately, though, most of the passengers appear to be city and state workers (and Vandy, Belmont U staff and students), although anyone can foot the $4 one-way fare (or purchase a multi-ride pass).

 

During the late-afternoon commute, that you guys mention, it seems that all the main roads just become maxed out, with secondary roads on their heels.(like Glenrose, McCall, Paragon Mills, Tusculum, ...)  Even "obscure" roads like Welch Rd, across from Popeye's on Nolensville, behind the Walmart (site of former Harding Mall) get literally maxed out, because Nolensville will explode with drivers in desperation, who think that they can shunt the gridlock.  The maxed out Interstates create the additional problem of providing far too few pass-unders or -overs to the surface roads making way to the interchanges (or trying to avoid them altogether).

[nashvillwill]

....motorists tend to endure super-high tolerances of snarled, snail's-pace.....before they will give up their commute, even with the sight of commuter-train windows filled with heads hurdling past them every 15 minutes or so.....Those roads (siting only a few) get maxed out, even with those full trains whizzing by like stainless-steel snakes......During the late-afternoon commute, that you guys mention, it seems that all the main roads just become maxed out, with secondary roads on their heels..........because Nolensville will explode with drivers in desperation, who think that they can shunt the gridlock.

Haha. Rookzie! I had to laugh at your last post because you managed to sum up my upbringing and my current state all in one post. Raised in Nashville and learning that the car was a "right of passage" I only dabbled in transit, that is, until I moved to the San Fancisco Bay Area.

After spending countless days in the most frustrating gridlock I had ever imagined, and watching the trains whiz by, did I decide to fully commit. Now I ride Bart to work everyday and can't imagine life without it. The rare times I have to drive are more than frustrating and I look at those steel beauties cruising past and long to be one of those heads inside.

[rookzie]

...I only dabbled in transit, that is, until I moved to the San Fancisco Bay Area.

After spending countless days in the most frustrating gridlock I had ever imagined, and watching the trains whiz by, did I decide to fully commit. Now I ride Bart to work everyday and can't imagine life without it. The rare times I have to drive are more than frustrating and I look at those steel beauties cruising past and long to be one of those heads inside.

 

nashvillwill, like the Bay Area, or not (given the cost of living out there), you are blessed, my "mobility-conscious" friend, to have the options of BART, Caltrain, and Muni, although Muni probably would not serve your needs generally, unless you actually live or work deep into the city of SF itself.

 

I know that from East Bay and South Bay, I always would dread the (Oakland) Bay- and the San Mateo (Hayward) bridges before the days of BART. I rarely ever did the extreme southerly Dunbarton bridge, or the northerly San Rafael (Richmond) bridge, and when they finally got that Trans-bay (BART) tube done in the early-mid-'70s, it was like opening up the "flood gates" (no pun intended this time).

 

Including the ferries and Amtrak out of Oakland (Jack London Sq. and Emeryville stations), the Bay area has one of the most extensive set-ups in the country, IMHO. They hadn't had the extensions to Castro Valley - Dublin/Pleasanton, to Bay Point, and to SFO airport/Millbrae, when I last rode BART quite a few years ago. You had to take a local SamTrans city bus (San Mateo Transit) from SFO to the Daly City BART station, until then.

 

I was lucky to have ridden some of the last intercity trains out of SanFran proper, from what used to be the "pre-"Caltrain station near 3^rd (4^th) and Townsend Streets (back in '68). That was before Amtrak and Caltrain days (then, the Southern Pacific Lines, or the "EsPee"), and you had the choice of direct service from downtown SF to LAUPT (Los Angeles Union Psngr Term.), or from West Oakland to LA.  Amtrak abandoned the SF to San Jose route, which now is all Caltrain (the successor authority which assumed all commuter operations of the former SP).  Even before Caltrain was formed, Southern Pacific ran bi-level gallery commuter push-pulls (like our Nashville's "little" MCS [compared to Caltrain]), as far south as San Jose.  The historic San Jose depot has been preserved (now known as Diridon Station )and is now a terminal served by several transit agencies.

 

[sP commuter departs San Francisco Townsend Street Depot - line-up in background] 

 

[san Francisco - Townsend Street Depot - razed with "voodoo" (wrecking ball)]

 

The Bay Area is just bustin' at the seams with Light-, Heavy-,... –  just all kinds of rail! (this and that!). While you got the stuff in the primary SF and East Bay areas mentioned at the top, at San Jose (Silicon Valley area) you also got your Santa Clara Valley (VTA) light rail, and your "ACE" (Altamont Commuter Express), a diesel loco-hauled commuter train which partially runs around and away from the South Bay area congestion and swings "from under" and up to Stockton via Fremont, Niles Canyon, and the Altamont (mountainous) Pass.  Basically the ACE provides a missing link from the congested sprawl of San Jose - Santa Clara (on the South), to the congested area of Fremont (on the southeast), and then veers northeasterly up to Stockton, connecting a wide swath of area locales which hadn't seen decent service of some kind since the '60s and '70s . In Nashville this would be like connecting Murfreesboro and Smyrna with Hendersonville and Gallatin, via, say, Mt. Juliet (bypassing Nashville). The ACE, too, is a diesel loco push-pull like the MCS.

 

Finally, you got your Capitol Corridor push-pull trains, between San Jose (on the south), way up through East Bay (incl. Fremont and Oakland) and up to Sacramento/Roseville and beyond. The thing about the Bay Area (with its vast number of incorporated communities) is that (except in Marin Co. to the north of SF, just beyond Golden Gate), you can get just about anywhere by some kind of rail during most of the day. But even Marin County finally seems to be on track with the construction of an LRT called "SMART" (not to be outdone by the name of its older cousin BART). The SMART vehicle fleet is what is referred to as DMU's – Diesel Multiple Units – and is one of the first systems in the US of any kind to implement Positive Train Control (mandated in the future for all U.S. lines over which passenger trains run), to protect against rear-end collisions (and hopefully head-ons as well). Several of us outside this forum have suggested that the Clarksville-Nashville corridor just might end up becoming the next MCS "spoke" to be funded (because it would be the least expensive), and we have envisioned the use of DMUs instead of electric overhead for this line.

 

I believe that it was you who posted a month ago or so that you rode Caltrain to an S-J Sharks hockey game.  While I've never heard it discussed, IMO, San Jose seems to host more rail agencies in one transit hub than most any other town that I can thing of – perhaps not a higher number of trains or unit movements – but in the number of distinct rail companies – indeed, a real rail "haven", if there ever were one.  As I said, Caltrain, ACE, VTA, Amtrak, Capitol Corridor – and as if those were not enough, a BART extension construction is underway which will become part of the San Jose transportation complex (although not to be housed within the historic station-proper).  It's just hard to imagine so many varieties in one central location, with (of course) the customary bus interchanges as well – the likes of which are not found even in Chicago, Philly, NY, Boston, or SF itself.  (the only transit hub terminal which I can think of which even approaches this diversity is Washington Union Station, once the H-street streetcar project gets completed)

 

Anyway, nashvillwill, I do envy you, as far as what you have at your disposal to ride on is concerned.  (but, as you have long known,  the traffic there sux far worse than back home here).  Enjoy....

Edited September 29, 2013 by rookzie

[MLBrumby]

OMG... Rookzie, you're an encyclopedia on mass transit.  Thanks for the info.  Karl Dean's office would do well to call you for consulting work.

[rookzie]

Thanx, MLBrumby, but not in the least.  I'm just a little, say, "exposed".

 

And just as a lot of the others in this "hall", I have paid and maintained a lot of attention to detail.  I'm also a nostalgia buff, since, at my age, I now "overlap" several generations.  

 

And I got yanked around quite a bit during the first half of my years, so consequentially I was "victimized" by having to ride so many things, if you catch the drift.  Quite often, less-than-stellar family matters early on (during formative years) ramify into shifts in focus and attention, for good (or for worse).

 

Some things I don't seem to be able to grow up from.  That's  why I'm also a train-freak (you think?)

[UTgrad09]

I've been a train freak since age 4, when I rode the Durango and Silverton narrow gauge line in Colorado. Yes, it was a steam train...but it was awesome. Trains were a significant subject of my art and drawings from a young age.

[nashvillwill]

Rookzie. You are obviously very familiar with the Bay Area and the transit systems here, so I'm wondering if you can provide any insight on one thing in particular.

In Oakland, just a stones throw from the MacArthur maze (a super-interchange at the eastern base of the Bay Bridge) there is an old abandoned train station. I believe it was known as 16th St. Station. It's one of the most beautiful abandoned structures that I have ever seen. Apparently it was THE western terminus of the transcontinental railroad.

I've always admired the building and I actually "broke into" it one time, just to wander around in awe.

Just curious I you ever saw it while it was in service, or if there is any history lesson you can tell me about it.

For you other guys, here is a link to a short video about it;

[rookzie]

I've been a train freak since age 4, when I rode the Durango and Silverton narrow gauge line in Colorado. Yes, it was a steam train...but it was awesome. Trains were a significant subject of my art and drawings from a young age.

 

Now I don't feel as if I still ride the "short bus", after hearing that, UTgrad.  (not riding it alone, anyways [LOL!]  I say that affectionately, you hear.

 

My experiences probably began as a tot in 1953 or so, when, with family troubles, my mom took me away for a while – first on a plane to Greensboro, NC, where she and her family were from, and then on a train from there to DC, to get up with her sister and family.  Even at that very early age, I have sketch memories of the plane ride ("stewardesses", not "flight attendants", who wore garrison caps and deep red lipstick).

 

For some reason, I can remember getting on that train on a sunny afternoon with my mom, and my great aunt (who took us to the Southern Ry station in Greensboro in a '49 Ford) waving at us from the platform before departure.  I also recall being frightened upon detraining at Washington Union Station that night, because I was scared of those plumes of steam evolving from underneath those dark-green standard heavy-weight coaches and filling up the pathway along the platform.  We had to walk through that "evil" looking stuff, on our way to the terminal concourse.  It would stink, too – you know – that musty smell of water vapor.

 

[warning  - digression in session]

You might be too young to have known about how passenger trains were heated.  Until the early '80s, all domestic passenger trains were heated by steam (just as ships still are), which supplied thermal energy for comfort heat (baseboard) and sanitary wash-water heat (lavatories in coaches, sleeping-, lounge-, and dining cars).  This was more by historical design, since it was a natural from the days of steam locomotives to use steam readily available from those beasts.  Some regular revenue steam passenger trains ran up to about 1958, (when I was in the 2nd grade) on many lines in the US, but by then, most of the steam engines had been scrapped and replaced by the modern diesel-electric loco. [several hundred steam locos remained in revenue freight service as late as 1961 and some even weren't retired until 1963]

 

The immediate post-war era was a period of "catch-up" for the railroads, which had not been permitted to replace worn-out shabby equipment during WWII.  Large orders were placed for replacement cars, despite the steady decline in ridership, and for the next two decades one would see both old and new passenger cars in use, often in mixed consists (down-right tacky looking, IMO).  As "carry-over" from the days of steam, to allow all existing and (then) new passenger equipment to be compatible (and still the de-facto standard), diesel-electric and all-electric locos (the ones intended for passenger service) all were equipped with diesel oil-fired boilers (set at 50PSI) to supply the steam to the cars.  Conduits between cars were durable, heavy steel double-hinged or double-ball-jointed schedule-80, graphite-packed piping with special couplings, and were suspended at the ends of each car near track level (to prevent interference with air-brake hoses and couplings).

 

The biggest problem with steam heat was the maintenance required to handle condensation, especially during freezing conditions.  On each car were steam regulators and traps to control the flow to the heating apparatus devices (coils) and to release condensation, since this was saturated, rather than superheated steam.  Both ends of a train were left "cracked" open slightly to bleed off condensed vapor, and each car regulators/traps would automatically bleed off this stuff.  To the casual observer, this was seen as a slow-flowing small cloud of vapor and dripping water discharging steadily from the underside of each car.  The couplings (wrapped in refractory lagging) between cars, however, often would be in need of repair and would leak under pressure.  During the winter, with high demands of steam heat along long train lengths, the locomotive units (each having a boiler) would match the supply as needed, so the these between-car leaks, along with the discharge from the steam traps along the train would often mimic a scene of spooky movie, especially with a train standing at a platform.

 

Station depot storage tracks, and even some main platform tracks, had small rectangular concrete pits, each with a valve and a hinged steam conduit.  These would be hooked up to cars set on standby or lay-over between runs and would be used to keep the cars warm and heated during these layovers.  By name this was referred to as "ground steam", with all supply piping buried under the ballast and pavement, and the primary source was a coal-fired boiler in the station depot (usually noted with a smokestack of some sort on site).  This had been a common sight on the north side of Nashville Broadway-St. viaduct, across from Union Station up until perhaps 1967-68.  You could drive up and down Broadway (I got my license in '67), and you could see the steam plumes "from under" while approaching the bridge from either end. (all that remains now are a few traces of weed-ridden crumbled concrete)

 

So to a child like me, these steam plumes had been a horror scene.  I think also that it was the loud hissing and blast associated with that continuous discharge that terrified me the most, but by the time that I was about 10, I had “gotten over it”.  During the early 1970's the FRA-owned (Federal Railroad Admin.) Alaska Railroad experimented with electric heating retrofits for each car, power being provided with an auxiliary alternator directly coupled to one of the diesel engine prime movers (in each loco).  Today, except for some excursion trains throughout the country, all passenger train heating (this means ALL), is supplied by 480 VAC, train-lined from the locomotives.  This commonly is referred to as “HEP” (head-end power).  This applies to Nashville's RTA MCS, as well.  Nowadays at museums, you often will see vintage passenger cars with the steam conduits cut off under the floors, at each end, where there used to be a steam coupling.  Ironically, I pack-ratted one of these conduit-coupling assemblies during the late '70s and maintain it just for historical purposes (otherwise it's in the way).  I use it to demonstrate to "yunguns" just what these things were all about, as otherwise they'd never know that these kinds of things ever existed.

 

As far as commuter trains were concerned, steam heat commonly had been used during the 50’s through the late ‘70s on nearly all US lines operating loco-hauled push-pull service, as opposed to self-propelled electric-multiple-unit (as on the Long Island RR, the New Haven, and the Pennsylvania, the New York Central, in the northeast; and the Illinois Central and the South Shore in the Chicago and northern Indiana region) which all ran overhead electric or third-rail on these self-propelled railroad-like heavy electrics.

 

I cannot readily find a good photo to show you what this steam looked like in practice, and I know that I've strayed from the topic of Nashville mass transit, so my apology.  Just wanted to share my very beginnings with the subject of trains.

Edited September 30, 2013 by rookzie

[rookzie]

Rookzie. You are obviously very familiar with the Bay Area and the transit systems here, so I'm wondering if you can provide any insight on one thing in particular.

In Oakland, just a stones throw from the MacArthur maze (a super-interchange at the eastern base of the Bay Bridge) there is an old abandoned train station. I believe it was known as 16th St. Station. It's one of the most beautiful abandoned structures that I have ever seen. Apparently it was THE western terminus of the transcontinental railroad.

I've always admired the building and I actually "broke into" it one time, just to wander around in awe.

Just curious if you ever saw it while it was in service, or if there is any history lesson you can tell me about it.

 

nashvillwill, you dredged up a ghost, when you mentioned this building.  Indeed it was the Southern Pacific (SP) Railroad 16^th Street passenger depot – 16^th and Wood Streets, to be exact, in West Oakland.

 

Back in ’68 you could catch the Coast Daylight at the SP Townsend depot, or you could catch the San Joaquin Daylight at the 16^th Street depot.  These two sister trains (Numbers 98 and 52 respectively) would depart close to the same time daily southbound to Los Angeles (as well as their northbound counterparts Numbers 99 and 51).  During Aug. ’68, I chose to ride the free taxi (provided as a courtesy to ticket bearers) from the 16^th Street depot, across the Bay Bridge, to the San Francisco 3^rd and Townsend Street Depot (mentioned in my previous post).  I did so, because the Coast Daylight was “cooler” than the San Joaquin, because the Coast sported both a dome-car lounge and a rounded-end parlor-observation car at the rear.  Also, the lush scenery along the coast was exceptional (beet-,  strawberry-, and artichoke farms), compared to the more barren San Joaquin route.  Even today, I cherish that Coast Daylight run to LA as one of the “crown-jewels” of my lifetime of rail experiences.

 

[southern Pacific Lines -  Coast Daylight and San Joaquin Daylight]

 

BTW, it had been common practice for railroads (long before the inception of Amtrak) to market passenger service by using a proper-name moniker, and in some cases to designate a “series” of trains.  The SP names had chosen to brand some its trains the “Daylights”, for some runs of newer equipment (of the 1930 and ‘40s) between LA and the Bay area.  Some other US line chose:  “The Hiawathas” (Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul, & Pacific); “The Zephyrs” (Chicago, Burlington, & Quincy); “The Rockets” (Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific); “The Eagles” (Missouri Pacific), as a few examples.

 

Here in Tennessee, they used names like: [through Nashville] the “Humming Bird” [instead of spelled “Hummingbird”], the “Pan American”, the “Georgian”, the “Dixie Flyer” the “City of Memphis”, the “South Wind”; [through Bristol, Knoxville and/or Chattanooga], the “Tennessean”, the “Royal Palm”, the “Pelican”; [through Memphis] the “Panama Limited”, the “Louisianne”, the “Creole”, the “City of New Orleans”, the “Choctaw Rocket”; [and through Jackson] the “City of Miami” and the “Seminole”.

 

[southern Railway - The Pelican - New York, Wash, Roanoke, Bristol, Knoxville, Chatta., B'ham, New Orleans]

Through the end of the ‘60s, both the Oakland 16^th Street depot and the SF Townsend depot hosted Southern Pacific trains well serving the Bay area on both sides of the Bay.  Since San Francisco is on the Peninsula (although in official talk SF is considered “separate” from the rest of the Peninsula), naturally the only intercity passenger train service into and out of SF had to run south.  There were no railroad bridges built to convey the mass of heavy steam-hauled trains, to provide the navigational channel vertical clearance mandated for ocean-going vessels, and to span the shore-to-shore  distance with approaches with sufficient length at each end to accommodate the change in grade.  No service ran south and around the end of the Bay; it ran only southward toward LA, rather than connect with any service to Oakland or any other part of the East Bay side, and the SP chose to always to run totally separate service from SF to LA and from Oakland to LA.

 

For a many decades the Bay area’s primary commuter service ran from SF Townsend along the Peninsula, with no commuter service on the East Bay side since 1958.  It started off as SP Peninsular Commute (or simply, Peninsular Commute), being totally steam powered until the early ‘50s, when diesel-electrics began to appear.  In the mid-‘50s the bi-level gallery suburban commuter cars began to replace old steam-era coaches (the last ones being delivered in the late ‘60s), and just as with any privately owned and run commuter service, the SP petitioned to discontinue all its operations (after joining Amtrak to give up the intercity trains in 1971). Becoming publicly owned in 1980, the Peninsular Commute soon became known as what you yourself are familiar with: Caltrain.

 

BART itself was born (first running in the early ‘70s) out of a critical need to hand the East Bay sprawl and to connect the two sides of the Bay at West Oakland and at the Embarcadero section of SF.  BART’s Trans-Bay tube represents the restoration of rail service between the two cities, after the dismantling of the privately owned overhead electric interurban mass transit rail system once known as the “Key System”.  The Key ran bus lines and streetcars in the East Bay side and buses and interurban rail via ferry between the East and the West.  It had been formed in the 1930’s, when the SP itself ran its own set of interurban electrics on the East Bay side (known as the East Bay Electric Lines).  During the 1940s, the SP began to share and sell of its trackage with the Key system, rather than to duplicate and compete with it.  In its heyday and until the late ‘50s the Key ran buses and rail along the lower deck of the Bay Bridge (which you know recognize now as all automobile-bus-truck).  As what would happen with all then privately owned transit systems during the next 2 decades, the Key sold out in 1960 to the present day A-C Transit (Alameda - Contra Costa) system, one of America’s first publicly owned large mass-transit systems (all bus then, all bus now).   The 16^th St. depot hosted these interurban and a number of the East Bay streetcar lines via separate elevated platforms in an area near the current MacArthur Maze (I call it the MacArthur Craze) roadway interchange.  During a 4-week period when I lived with an uncle in Oakland during ’68, the only way I could get to SF was via an A-C Transit bus and across the Bay Bridge, which then would dump me off at the Embarcadero transit terminal near the western foot of the bridge, where you could catch a Muni streetcar or trolley bus.  So you think it’s bad now (which it is, granted); it was like your worst nightmare back then, with the only way to get across without a car being by bus (ensnared in traffic on that bridge).

 

The demise of the Key system was systemic nationwide, as it had been in cities like Memphis and Nashville, and practically everywhere else, in which streetcar lines and anything else rail-bound, got bought out or forced out, by the postwar “great conspiracy” of GM, Firestone, and Phillips Petro. (believe you me, we’d have a hell of a lot more, if not nearly everywhere, streetcars still around, had it not been for the greed of capitalism surreptitiously acquiring transit interests, under assumed names, and contriving to eliminate the street rails of the postwar era.  Intercity rail alone was doomed with advent of GM’s “DynaFlow” and PowerGlide automatic transmissions, encouraging more of the public to learn how to drive, during the early ‘50s, coupled with President “Ike’s” conceiving the Interstate highway network.  The “conspiracy” effectively sealed the coffin on America’s heavy use of urban rail, which likely will not rebound, if ever, for at least a generation or two.

 

Back to your curious-ooking 16^th Street Depot..  While the SF Townsend depot ran commuters and the famed Coast Daylight, it also ran the Lark to LA and the Del Monte (to Monterey), the 16^th St. depot carried trains to LA, to the north and to the east.  To the east, you could catch the Overland to St. Louis, or the City of San Francisco to Chicago (via Sacramento (via Sacramento, Reno, Cheyenne, Denver, Omaha - the train of that name never actually ran to SF-proper); the San Joaquin to Modesto, Fresno , Bakersfield, and LA; the Sacramento Daylight (which split into 2 sections (at a town named Lathrop) do serve Oakland-LA and Sacramento-LA; the Owl to LA.  The Santa Fe RR (Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe) ran a train (the San Francisco Chief (also which never  ran to SF-proper) from the 16^th St depot to Chicago (via Barstow, Flagstaff, Amarillo, Witchita, Kansas City).  To the north, the Cascade and the Shasta Daylight to Portland.  Some of the trains from the east also would proceed from the 16^th St. depot to the Oakland Pier, a ferry terminal, which once had included the venerable "Oakland Mole" or "SP Mole”, where passengers would detrain for a slow but sure way across the water to SF-proper (until 1958).   So you see, the 16^th and Wood depot had handled a whole lot of people from a whole lot of places.  Also back in the early and mid-‘60’s, my grandmother used  to ride from NC to Nashville and to Oakland – going over on a southern route (via  NOLA, Houston, Phoenix) and returning via the mid-route via Denver and Chicago.  In the early ‘60’s my aunt in Oakland used that depot to take my cousin to Cincinnati, 2 or 3 times.  Of all the port cities "out West" (Vancouver [bC], Seattle, Portland, SanFran, LA, San Diego) by a long shot I'd say that the Oakland's 16^th St. depot handled the most "eye candy" of passenger-train variety, in terms of quantity, color schemes, and equipment designs (old and newer).  Some of the nations most famous cross-county (as well as and coastal) trains terminated at the 16^th St. depot, from the 1930's until 1971.

 

The last time I saw the inside of the 16^th St. depot was in Nov. ’87.  I took an A-C Transit bus to the depot one night to board Amtrak’s Coast Starlight, for a 16-hr ride to Portland and return (via Richmond, Martinez, Davis, Sacramento, Redding, Chico, Dunsmuir, Klamath Falls, Eugene, Salem).  The depot actually was rather crowded that night of my departure, and the train was about an hour late in arriving from LA. (As it would turn out to be a matter of fortuity that this would be the final occasion for me to admire the grandeur of that passenger station, the depot would become a fatal casualty in October ’89 to the “World Series Earthquake” (when the A’s shut out the Giants for the pennant in game 4).  It became damaged to the extent that Amtrak decided that it would be cheaper to just abandon it in favor of the “plain-Jane” station in nearby Emeryville and the Jack London Square station in Oakland.  So it is said. in actuality, a decision may have been made to act on a plan to move the railroad tracks to the opposite side of the Interstate (I-880), providing SP with a preferred alignment for its freight facilities and terminal movements (intermodal with container marine terminals).  For this reason, the depot, which indeed was not totally condemned, probably never will used as a train station again (since Amtrak and Capitol Corridor use Jack London and Emeryville, which are in a straight path along the ROW from each other by only a few miles).  I have heard the station building is sort of being restored as redevelopment, and that is an about-face from what would have occurred, had that station building been here in Nashville. (we almost lost our own Union Station in 1979-80 to the wrecking ball.)

 

Reckon then you would be scratchin’ your head on that curious-looking thing, if you never had known much about its rich past.  It never was the terminus of the “transcontinental railroad”, per se, although as noted, Chicago-to-Bay-Area runs did terminate there.   In railway context, “transcontinental” refers to trackage from the Midwest to the west coast.  Hope this helps a bit on this handsome looking stone-faced beauty.

 

If I hadn't been around to write this, then you just might have encountered "Casper, Jr." (my ghost) with a suitcase on the bench pew, when you broke into that station.  Yeah, I was there some time or another.  I do know at one least one other thing, though.  As neglected as that thing must have been, when you "broke" in, you must've had some [unmentionables] made of brass, in order to deal with those fat webs and spiders that had to have accumulated in that building.

 

At least two three other depots I wish to see restored, and they are at Detroit (Fort Street) and (of all places) at Gary [iN], and our own Columbia, TN, all boarded up for decades.

Edited October 2, 2013 by rookzie

[Guest]

not sure what to think....it is a novel concept

 

http://www.downvids.net/airbus-in-the-future-in-your-own-city--484833.html

[UTgrad09]

not sure what to think....it is a novel concept

 

http://www.downvids.net/airbus-in-the-future-in-your-own-city--484833.html

 

Yeah, that's pretty cool.

 

I think its practicality is somewhat limited in terms of where it will work (i.e. cities with wide corridors, very few overhead obstructions, obviously super high ridership). 

 

In a sense, this is like building an elevated rail without the elevated structure...which is nice, because it gives you a system that can share the right of way simultaneously. 

 

I think it's a concept to keep your eye on...not that Nashville would be looking at anything like that (in the near future), but I definitely see potential there.

 

 

 

Also, it looks like a catamaran on rails.

[satalac]

not sure what to think....it is a novel concept

 

http://www.downvids.net/airbus-in-the-future-in-your-own-city--484833.html

Very cool concept. I just don't know how other drivers will do around it. Especially if they are under it while it's turning. That seems REALLY dangerous.

[37206dude]

For those who are interested:

 

http://ampyes.org/

 

JOIN THE COALITION AND GET UPDATES

SIGN UP FOR A YARD SIGN

 

The Amp Coalition is a group of community and business leaders including Ralph Schulz, president and CEO of the Nashville Area Chamber of Commerce and Dr. Mike Schatzlein, president and CEO of Saint Thomas Health.

 

[mirydi]

^Would be nice if there was a coalition of community and business leaders that supported LRT instead. Nobody wants to ditch their car to ride a bus, especially the people that live and work along West End.

[BnaBreaker]

A train with tires for $100 million or a bus on a track for $250 million...there are a few differences of course, but my point is, it's mostly in people's minds...

[mirydi]

 it's mostly in people's minds...

Well yeah...One look at a bus stop along Nolensville Rd or Gallatin Pike, it's easy to see why.  

 

Edit: While LRT is certainly more expensive than BRT, the fact that people don't view it in a negative way like buses is priceless.

Edited October 5, 2013 by mirydi

[BnaBreaker]

Well yeah...One look at a bus stop along Nolensville Rd or Gallatin Pike, it's easy to see why.  

 

Edit: While LRT is certainly more expensive than BRT, the fact that people don't view it in a negative way like buses is priceless.

 

Perceptions can be changed.  I was pulling for LRT initially as well, but I don't think that dropping $100 million just so a fraction of reflexively anti-transit people don't have to think outside the box, is money well spent. 

 

Also, I agree that many of the facilities associated with the bus system are pretty shoddy and underfunded (though that's changing), but in my opinion, that still isn't a justifiable excuse to oppose any and all bus transit.  I saw a really badly rusted 86' Ford Escort today with one headlight and no hood.  It didn't make me want to immediately sell my car and shun the concept altogether.

Edited October 5, 2013 by BnaBreaker

[mirydi]

Perceptions can be changed.  I was pulling for LRT initially as well, but I don't think that dropping $100 million just so a fraction of reflexively anti-transit people don't have to think outside the box, is money well spent. 

I hope your right. I'm glad the city is trying to do something about mass transit, I just hope we aren't the lone city in the country with nothing but a bunch of buses as our answer for it. I'm not aware of any other city close to our size that is persuing BRT instead of rail. Hell a lot of cities smaller than Nashville are persuing LRT, or have it already. I Just don't want Nashville to get left behind know what I mean.

 

Not only do trains draw more riders than buses (a new LRT line typically draws double the riders of a new BRT line), they lure more car drivers to switch to transit. Transportation analysts refer to the tendency as "rail bias" or the "coolness factor," meaning that people simply prefer trains over buses.

 

As far as cost goes, I feel it's absolutely a must that the city take the long term view/approach. Budget shortfalls will not be permanent and we shouldn't decide to choose the "cheaper" and less effective option simply because people don't like the cost or political will today is not there.

 

I have yet to get excited about BRT. I just don't see the advantages in the long term over LRT. LRT is building for the future. BRT feels like building for today or yesterday. 

 

Furthermore, development follows LRT corridors in ways which BRT can only dream.  Small business is one of the main beneficiaries of LRT and they flourish like mushrooms as neighborhood pedestrian traffic increases dramatically. Anyone who has spent time in a city with a good commuter rail system understands the potential for expanded business development and residential building. BRT just doens't have the same coat tails.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 5, 2013 by mirydi

[rookzie]

I have decided to save space and not multi-quote parts of your volley, BnaBreaker and mirydi, but you both make good points.  I talk too much as it is, but this dialog between you two dangled a carrot over me (as if that weren’t the norm, eh?).

 

The reason that the city needs to proceed with the initial BRT – I mean the real thing, not just a cheesy, misleading lite version (although the lites do have their merits where due) – is that it needs to proceed to get on board with the process of commencing the trend for rapid transit.  A baby step it would be, yes, but Nashville has wasted a generation –  almost 2 generations – of not funding rapid transit.  If given the chance with an awarded grant for the AMP, then it needs to stop filibustering, nail down some dedicated funding sources, and just go ahead and build the thing and stop wasting time.

 

On the other hand, while the AMP would/will serve a useful purpose, if implemented with multilateral, diverse input, BRT, even a so-called “golden” version, won’t help the city’s need for a fast distant commute, as applied to the infrastructure of the surface roads (as opposed to the freeways) of this region.  I have stated before that, with the hub-and-spoke layout, combined with many misaligned streets where they hurt the most, and with few thoroughfares that permit “clean sailing” by car, some other type of conveyance is absolutely necessary.  That’s where some streetcar-LRT hybrid is going to be absolutely necessary – if not now, then it will be in the not-too-distant future.  Another 20 years will be way, way too late.

 

And the reason that we need to go ahead with the BRT upstart project is that the city never pre-invested in long-term preparation for rapid transit, so while (as UTgrad09 stated in a previous answer to me) electing to construct the BRT is not “selling out” to rail, the city will have to take what it can get – what’s in practical reach at this point in time.

 

mirydi has a concern that probably is overwhelmingly rampant with the perception of most people in the way they view a “train-bus” vs. a “bus-train” (as it were), and while the perception can change, as it has for BnaBreaker, and even for me to an extent, in terms of what is tenable at this point in time, nevertheless (while a topic of heated debate), BRT simply will not perform nearly as an effective job in terms of long-range efficiency and in operating costs in hauling large numbers of people for long (or intermediate) distances in decent amounts of time and lengths of headways.  Notwithstanding a very,very expensive extreme case of the “BRT’s”, the network in Brisbane truly is an exception and gives credence to what a real “pure golden” elevated BRT can do for that city (in Queensland, AU).  But that example clearly is on the extreme side of the cost spectrum, which, IMHO, would at least rival the that of LRT. (check out Brisbane)

 

Nashville needs BOTH modes of transit, not just one or the other.  Each serves a real need  and a best fit for this town with its given dynamics.

Edited October 5, 2013 by rookzie

[UTgrad09]

As far as corridors go, I'd like to say that it's not like West End needs much *help* when it comes to development. There just needs to be an effective way to move people.

 

If we're talking about the benefits of spurring new development, then we need to be looking at more under-developed corridors, where an LRT line would boost urban development where there is currently little to none.

 

 

 

I do understand why people would rather this be a rail line, but the debate for rail on West End is over -- at least for the time being. Let's throw our support behind this system -- and that way, maybe it will be FULLY funded, and not some half-assed attempt. Get buses that don't look or feel like regular city buses. Dress it up like you would an LRT line. Make it distinctly different from any other mode of transit in the city. And finally, see how well it is received once it opens.

 

After that, ramp up the rail debate all you want -- for the next corridor we implement rapid transit on. I see no reason why BRT and LRT lines can't share stations and/or ROW.

[rookzie]

....

....

...for the next corridor we implement rapid transit on. I see no reason why BRT and LRT lines can't share stations and/or ROW.

 

 

Real-life application of LRT/BRT (partially-)shared ROW

Seattle’s Light Rail runs through downtown in a tunnel (regionally referred to as the "Downtown Transit Tunnel"), the tracks embedded along a paved, flat surface shared with trolley buses.  Built originally for buses only, the tunnel was opened in 1990, for buses built as dual-mode powered for pure overhead electric trolley for operation within the tunnel and as diesel otherwise.  From 2005-2007, the tunnel was closed for retrofitting for a planned light-rail shared alignment with buses.  When LRT did begin in 2009 (the very day following my departure on Amtrak to Chicago – July 17 – from my last visit there), dual-mode buses had to be replaced due to incompatibility with the shared trolley lines outfitted for LRT.

 

[seattle Puget Sound Regional Transit (LRT), King Co. Transit (BRT) - Downtown Transit Tunnel]

 

Light-Rail and Bus Rapid Transit share use of the Downtown Transit Tunnel

Seattle Metro Puget Sound Regional Transit (LRT), King Co. Transit (BRT)

 

A Metro King Co. Transit articulated trolley bus (with a bicycle stowed on the front) heads from a station, while a 2-car double-articulated (3-section unit) Sound Transit train (Puget Sound Regional) awaits departure in the opposite direction.

 

Interestingly, the overhead electric catenary (power cables) in some instances can be shared with both trolley bus and the LRV.  Trolley buses require a parallel pair of power wires and two power trolley poles for the electric circuit, while LRV's and streetcars require a single line, the track rails being the ground or common half of the electric circuit (DC current for both vehicle types).  The electric trolley pole or the flexible spring-loaded pick-up arm (referred to as a “pantograph”) sometimes utilizes the POSITIVE-polarity wire for a trolley-bus cable set-up, although in the most common practice, the two wire riggings are separated, with one above the other and with a sophisticated system of suspended insulated wire “bridges” to allow one to power the bus or rail vehicle separately

.

[bus and rail trolley wire interaction]

 

Added benefit for the Seattle downtown tunnel: pedestrians are separated from non-transit traffic, even at the approaches to the station(s).  Pedestrians also are separated from inclement weather.  The confluence of both transit and non-transit vehicular traffic is a major hazard in the city of Nashville, with at least 3 fatalities having occurred involving buses, along lower Charlotte Ave – at 4th and 5th Avenues from 2009 - 2012, and numerous near-misses/hits.  Buses enter and exit terminal portals by directly crossing pedestrian walkways along 4th and 5th Avenues, north of Charlotte Ave.  Neither the transit authority nor the MNPD has surveillance cameras focused on the problematic intersections and at the street walkway/busway crossings.  Fatality investigations have had to rely solely on the testimony of witnesses.

 

In summary, a shared ROW segment is a flexible infrastructure investment.  It does have it caveats, however, as a stalled LRV or an LRT stopped and held by mandatory underground signalling and automatic train control can result in buses "bunching" up, in tandem behind the LRV.

 

Unlike the practice in Nashville, Seattle forbids pedestrians from crossing the enclosed pavement, a problem in Nashville observed from the inception of the MTA/RTA Music City Central terminal operation.  Seattle enforces its rule.  In Nashville, the rule is that pedestrians cross at marked cross-walks (4 on each of 2 levels), enforced inconsistently and only if transit security staff are nearby (jaywalking is commonly condoned).  The design of the MC Central was not planned for separation at grade of pedestrians from the pathways of buses, and in practice steady streams of crossing pedestrians deboarding from a crowded bus regularly impede the smooth passage of buses encircling the busways on the two terminal levels.  Each bus must stop at each of 4 crosswalks on its path to and from its designated terminal loading bay.  Of course, then buses trailing a stopped bus also must stop in turn, one of perhaps several logistical missteps significantly and adversely affecting the overall passenger exchange flow.

 

Another matter of unpleasant overall experience for riders at MC Central in Nashville is that many of the older, pure diesel-powered vehicles remain in service, as well as the RTA owned and Grayline contract intercity-type coaches.  The terminal does not have forced-air handling/recirculation (to combat the presence of diesel fumes especially during hot, humid weather), nor is the terminal fitted with sound-attenuation to handle the often deafening noise emanating from the turbo-charged diesel engines of multiple buses, in movement or at idle at the enclosed boarding bays.  This is not an issue at the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel, where every vehicle is pure electric.

Edited October 7, 2013 by rookzie

[nashvillwill]

I've been to the tunnel in Seattle and I can attest that it is pretty nice. It feels like a heavy rail subway station. It's definately nicer that MCC, but then again, Seattle's busses have the ability to go electric. Nashville's busses do not have that feature.

[Rockatansky]

LRT would cost between $450m-$500m, not $250m.

[rookzie]

LRT would cost between $450m-$500m, not $250m.

Whether of not the costs might have been questionable in projections, LRT almost certainly is not a best fit for the EW corridor in the first place.  Effective LRT, by its definition and as opposed to streetcar, needs ROW pretty much separated from interaction with roadway traffic.  The AMP way does not fit that criterion -- not even in part.

 

Don't hold your breath for thoughts of digging a tunnel or erecting an aerial railway for true LRT along the EW corridor, or you'll wake up dead, before that's ever given serious consideration (in yours and my lifetime).  Streetcar maybe; LRT? no.

 

BRT is the way to go for the EW AMP,  LRT is best for some other corridor.