The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread

[nashvillwill]

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.

.

I'm not sure I agree with that. Now, maybe I'm splitting hairs here with technicalities about "what" LRT is, but I don't think LRT always needs an isolated guideway.

You, yourself, brought up SF's N-Judah. Wouldn't you call that LRT? I realize that it's on the path of an old streetcar route, but I would say that it's a far cry from "streetcar" in its current form. IMO, it's Light Rail if I've ever seen it.

[rookzie]

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.

 

 

I'm not sure I agree with that. Now, maybe I'm splitting hairs here with technicalities about "what" LRT is, but I don't think LRT always needs an isolated guideway.

You, yourself, brought up SF's N-Judah. Wouldn't you call that LRT? I realize that it's on the path of an old streetcar route, but I would say that it's a far cry from "streetcar" in its current form. IMO, it's Light Rail if I've ever seen it.

 

[pls excuse the typos, syntax, and otherwise dangling elements in this response, since I have yet to poof proof-read]

 

I had qualified my point by stating "effective LRT", nashvillwill.  I was intending to imply that the layout of the proposed EW-AMP by design probably could not perform to an extent that LRT (by even conservative definition) can be expected to operate.  Yes, I did cite the Judah Street line as an example of LRT, and yes, not even that line operates as a pure, gold-standard LRT.  In the tunnel and perhaps along some surface stretches, the N-Judah operates as an LRT, while generally it serves as an LRT/streetcar hybrid.

 

In the past, I have mentioned LRT/SC mixed-modes.  The AMP route hardly could be justified as material candidate for LRT mode, with no truly lengthy spans of uninterruptable runs between stations, at least not according to the proposed initial implementation plan of the AMP.  There has to be at least a "conservative" amount of separated ROW to allow LRT speeds – not streetcar speeds – which require realistic distances between stops and which can most safely be attained along these stretches without crossing streets at grade.  It certainly does not require an entirely exclusive ROW, and that is not what I had intended to convey, in case that's what you might have inferred.  In practice, some degree of "local", closely-spaced stops is beneficial, as it provides multiple points of direct access, a needed balance afforded by direct interaction with the surface elements.

 

Very few “golden” LRTs actually exist in the US, but perhaps each of them does have a significant amount of movement along such qualified runs.  Even with traffic-signal pre-emption,  there’s only so much that can be done with two-way minimally-impeding induced passage along the existing thoroughfares of Harding Road/West End and Broadway to Five Points.  If you followed the analysis report, the consideration of LRT basically was eliminated from the start, for that particular pathway, and the matter boiled down solely to the evaluation of streetcar and BRT, each alternative of which operate with similar capacity (with modern articulated streetcars or buses).  We’re not talking about medium or hi-speeds characteristic of LRT here on this route – not on this particular route, anyway.  The objective here was to plan for an urban transit circulator for efficient surface movements primarily constrained within a seven-and some-odd miles of pathway close to the urban core.  LRT’s, per se, are not effective circulators.

 

Now during some years in the future that, say, this would have been streetcar instead of BRT, the line would be extended to Bellevue or to Newsome Station and beyond, then look.  You now have great potential for extended runs on fast track (at least to 50 mph or more) between stops.   You then replace the streetcars with LRT speed-capable equipment of scalable capacity.  You then end up with a system augmented to the extent of effectively moving large numbers of people over relatively long distances at “competitive” speeds.  You could have this, because the much of US 70S west of Lynnwood Blvd. (east Belle Meade) has relatively few cross streets (intersecting but not crossing), until you get close to Harding Place and Page Road (approaching the SR-100/US 70S split).  West of that point up 70S is relatively wide and “cruisey”, serving as “fresh meat” for an LRT operation.  So then you have a good LRT/Streetcar hybrid mix, from Five Points to way out west.

 

As is stands for the planned route, LRT just is not practical for the contemporary needs along that corridor.  Had it been, say, partly along the street and also utilizing some of the parallel CSX ROW (the Bruceton Division), then it might be even more capable of capitalizing on the purpose of “hauling ass”, figuratively and literally.   Of course, this would require some design compliance with FRA standards for operating alongside heavy railway equipment.  Again, as stated above, a future major extension “up and out west” could warrant serious evaluation of upgrading the line to LRT, especially when considering that many commuters “go the distance” on 70S as an alternative to I-40.  I’d go further to say that an effective LRT also has some of the conveniences of streetcar, in the manner that streetcars and BRT- (and even standard buses) have more closely spaced stops along the surface and accessible at grade.   This also is a point that I had made many paragraphs ago in some previous post.

 

But it is just as important to have the capability to attain sustained speed along extended suburban distances.  Convenience of clustered multiple stops (within sub-districts) and attractive speeds similar to those of heavy-rail are what make LRT fulfill a need fit for its purpose.  There just is no point in planning an LRT for a relatively limited run as that of the AMP, the route of which runs entirely through roadway congestion.

 

LRTs operate as hybrid reasonably well (as does the N-Judah of SF Muni) on Cleveland’s RTA Van Aken and Shaker Blvds. from the burbs to downtown (as Green and Blue Lines).  These, too, were constructed as streetcar routes during the first half of the 20^th century, as streetcar lines running surface streets and separated at grade, as they approach Cleveland-proper.  These, of course, were transformed into effective LRTs during the early 1980s, as PCC streetcars (1940s Presidential Conference Cars) running in singles or as coupled 2-car trains, were being retired.

 

SF-Muni’s Sunset Tunnel (as well as the Twin Peaks Tunnel) helps to make the original streetcar lines effective as modern-day LRTs because of the “natural” barriers to non-rail traffic.  Muni’s downtown subway segment and the tunnels are what make the routes as the K-, L-, M, and N-lines run “attractive” as LRTs (while running along the surface mix outside these tunnels).  Maintaining these tunnels as rail, instead of closing the historic bores in abandonment (as what would have been the norm during the mid-century) has permitted Muni to transform these lines from “tourist relics” into much needed high-capacity LRT trunk lines.

 

If you peruse the layout of other domestic LRT systems, you’d find that most of them operate as “super-streetcars in dense cores and as rail “sprinters” along the “edges”.  Take Boston’s “T”, San Diego’s MTS, Portland’s TriMet MAX,…, – the list goes on.   Many of them were fortunate to have been built in part along abandoned or shared segments of freight Class III railroad ROW, giving them a construction “boost”.

 

I just cannot see boring all that rock under the West End of Nashville anytime in the foreseeable future. New York still uses heavy boring machines for new lines deep under in Manhattan, even to this day, but then the need is justified.  In Nashville there would be some quite monumental barriers to surmount, before that could happen – not to say that is will not indeed happen, though.   The AMP as planned is a small new-start, which as I have said, could gain some potential for a long-range LRT upgrade, but that’s not realistically a goal at this point for the proposed AMP project.  And as UTgrad09 alluded, there are other potential corridors which might be a better fit for LRT.

 

When the administration gets “driven”, it will get its first LRT in some day and age.[lol]

Edited October 8, 2013 by rookzie

[nashvillwill]

Rookzie, I see your argument and it is a good one. I honestly hadn't thought about how short (quick start/stop) the AMP route is compared to other systems I've used.

One system I have ridden and found very intriguing is Seattle's LRT. My knowledge is limited, but it seems like something we may possibly see in Nashville's future. There is the downtown tunnel, then it moves onto city streets (in commercial/residential areas similar to Nolensville Rd/White Bridge/Gallatin) and then moves to an elevated track on its way out to the airport. On the elevated portion it moves very fast and stops are limited. I could see that as a Murfreesboro Rd. (or similar) option in Nashville's future.

Another point that you may have touched on, but often isn't stressed in the layman Nashvillians transit conversation is going underground. I think the average joe would think that downtown is the most sensible place to go underground, but I would argue against that. For one thing, there are very obvious geological difficulties with a downtown tunnel. For two, it's the old city and not nearly as congested as people seem to think it is. If a tunnel were to go anywhere, I would think that midtown would be the place. It was developed in the automobile age. Therefore, transit is "in the way" and may best be operated underground. Also, the geology is better suited for such a tunnel. Additionally, it's the most prime for dense development and may better suit the needs for rapid transit than the core.

What do you think?

[rookzie]

...

...

Another point that you may have touched on, but often isn't stressed in the layman Nashvillians transit conversation is going underground. I think the average joe would think that downtown is the most sensible place to go underground, but I would argue against that. For one thing, there are very obvious geological difficulties with a downtown tunnel. For two, it's the old city and not nearly as congested as people seem to think it is. If a tunnel were to go anywhere, I would think that midtown would be the place. It was developed in the automobile age. Therefore, transit is "in the way" and may best be operated underground. Also, the geology is better suited for such a tunnel. Additionally, it's the most prime for dense development and may better suit the needs for rapid transit than the core.

What do you think?

 

You've given me a "dog biscuit" to sniff on before I munch on it [LoL], with that question, nashvillwill.  I'm "fixin'  " to hit the sack, but I do intend t respond.  I also admit, that, while I have had some extensive exposure to mostly older, heavy-rail set-ups (while living in locales with heavy-rail systems long before the phrase "light-rail" became "catch", but relatively limited opportunity to ride LRTs of recent,  I need to do some "homework", as it were, to be able to crank out a decent, informed opinion to your statement, the premise of which I had never considered until now

 

And so far, I don't believe that I have even heard any suggestively serious discussion on elevated or subterranean runways in the Nashville region.   I think that that's one for all of us to nibble on, in part, because of the design advantages (mechanical and operational) LRT has over heavy-rail urban or suburban electric. [you guys are out there, and you know that I now know who you are, so I could use some input "booster shots" to help come up with ideas]

 

Probably one of the longest excavations in the region is the stretch of I-440 roughly from the Acklen Park Terr. overpass (on the west) to a point just east of the Granny White Pike overpass (west of Lealand LN.).  Although some tunnels do exist in Tennessee, they are mostly railroad tunnels little known to the public (the reason that I know this is that I used t ride passenger trains through them on my way from Nashville to Birmingham and from Nashville to Chattanooga and Atlanta.  Deep tunnel boring does not require the extent of blasting as does strip excavation (a local topic of unending concern because of its predictable, or rather unpredictable, collateral damage), so tunnel boring (undertaken with rotary cutting machinery) just might be a more realistic, amenable alternative to that concern.

Edited October 8, 2013 by rookzie

[nashvillwill]

Well, I'm looking forward to your response. Especially the part about the "design advantages" of LRT over Heavy Rail. Again, my knowledge is limited, but I've always seen heavy rail as the most advantageous (when practical) vs LRT.

Hope to see it tomorrow. Take care.

[volsfanwill]

Just a quick thing to point out. since it was mentioned that our downtown is possibly not the best place to consider underground trains. The Buffalo NY Metro, (Light Rail) is above ground in the CBD  1.16 miles and below ground heading away from town 5.11 miles. and it on a major arterial road, not a parallel side road. but the above ground portion is closed to all other traffic. 

 

My Personal pipe dream though is LRT lines above ground from the suburbs following beside heavy rail ROW and converging in the gulch then turning east by union station and heading underground under Broadway to 4th then turning north. that is two sharp turns but since there would be stations adjacent to them trains would already be stopped anyway. a new Union station (I don't mean destroy our nice historic one, just build new platforms, maybe on the north side of broadway) would be the hub of the system with amtrak and at least 2 MCS lines stopping there as well.

the underground portion would be about 1.18 miles. but would require tunnel boring machines 

[bwithers1]

Houston has a light rail system operating at or just above street grade that goes from their downtown area to the museum campus and quite a ways out through town. It operates on their downtown streets and in doing so it permanently removes lanes from car travel. And frankly, during my visit to Houston the folks using that mode of transportation were a similar mixture to the ones who use Nashville's current bus sytem (some poor folks but also a surprising number of downtown professionals - I'm thinking of the #20 Scott Ave bus and the #4 Shelby bus which are used by East Nashville office commuters). So that on-street light rail model does nothing to allay fears among some of the naysayers that the Amp will create traffic problems by taking up travel lanes for cars. It's just that it would operate on a rail instead of a dedicated street lane. Again, there are two key things that make the BRT model more effective than light rail here along West End: (1) the BRT model is less costly to implement and (2) the fact that the BRT travels on wheels gives it flexibility to change routes if needed for street closures, road construction, traffic accidents, et al. Light rail would require rail spurs to do that.

Edited October 8, 2013 by bwithers1

[dmillsphoto]

Awesome rundown from the Journal in a point-counterpoint article on the AMP.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/print-edition/2013/10/11/all-aboard-the-amp-not-so-fast.html?ana=sm_nsh_ucp4&b=1381435996%5E12964642

[rookzie]

Well, I'm looking forward to your response. Especially the part about the "design advantages" of LRT over Heavy Rail. Again, my knowledge is limited, but I've always seen heavy rail as the most advantageous (when practical) vs LRT.

Hope to see it tomorrow. Take care.

 

I'm not dead or anything, nashvillwill.  I've been swamped with work-related tasks this past week  Also, before i address the comparative advantages of LRT and HRT, I plan to draft up fundamental descriptions of the two, as well as to include a third one, "commuter rail", which, as you are aware, constitutionally is different from the other two.  This I plan as a basis for elucidating the differences in the modes, as well as to provide some notable examples.  Then I plan to cite at least a few of the more definable advantages of each, including the third one, which is important to be introduced into the equation of the comparisons, because of some salient and qualified circumstances that could make commuter rail favorable to the other two

 

Awesome rundown from the Journal in a point-counterpoint article on the AMP.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/print-edition/2013/10/11/all-aboard-the-amp-not-so-fast.html?ana=sm_nsh_ucp4&b=1381435996%5E12964642

 

Yeah, it is...

Some of the very same points I myself have made in terms of being made fully apprised of all factors for planning and considering long-term costs, applied to ANY kind of system, BRT of otherwise, as well as the consideration of variations of a system based on practices from multiple examples, not just one or two.  I'm not against the AMP  I'm just plumb dead against the manner in which has been forced on the taxpayers without having been made on a truly informed decision from diverse observations and resources, and founding a conclusion and decision solely from a single analysis.  I'm not knocking the professional analysis itself  Rather, I don't feel that nearly enough questions were asked, answered, and added to a comparison for costs, both in capital outlay and in operation and maintenance.  Of course, a fully detailed cost analysis may not have been practical, as it would have been proportionately more costly, and not without skepticism, but had far more questions and suggestions been posed by those from locales with operating advanced transit systems, then I believe that the approach for making a case for the decision might have been far more persuasive and compelling, especially since at least a few unanswered concerns stem from what even the undecided have perceived as less than sound reasoning.

 

Thanks for pointing us to this, as it does "spur development" of further discussion, make no mistake about that!

Edited October 12, 2013 by rookzie

[volsfanwill]

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/print-edition/2013/10/11/all-aboard-the-amp-not-so-fast.html?ana=sm_nsh_ucp4&b=1381435996%5E12964642

the anti amp guy seems to just keep repeating his concerns about removing traffic lanes, and when asked about economic development he recommends putting it where the poor people are.  my favorite line he gives is his answer to would you ride it?  "no, i dont live there" and his recommendation for other transit options is to make taxis cheaper.    this guy is ridiculous, every where I have traveled the only cities with cheap taxis are one with good mass transit. cities with buses only have expensive taxis just like nashville.

 his one good point though was that he kept calling it a bus, as we have discussed, a bus is a bus no matter how pretty it is.  my only fear is that too many pwoplw will see it this way.

[rookzie]

the anti amp guy seems to just keep repeating his concerns about removing traffic lanes, and when asked about economic development he recommends putting it where the poor people are.  my favorite line he gives is his answer to would you ride it?  "no, i dont live there" and his recommendation for other transit options is to make taxis cheaper.    this guy is ridiculous, every where I have traveled the only cities with cheap taxis are one with good mass transit. cities with buses only have expensive taxis just like nashville.

 his one good point though was that he kept calling it a bus, as we have discussed, a bus is a bus no matter how pretty it is.  my only fear is that too many pwoplw will see it this way.

 

The anti-Amp, Vandy guy probably is not representative of Vandy as I whole (I hope not anyway), since it should have a vested interest in whatever is planned to go past the campus.  Vandy (followed by Belmont) was the first institution or entity to even provide it's employees with free passage on the MCS, from the very day that it commenced service in mid Sep 2006.  I was at the Donelson station during all the morning runs, for the week and a half of shirt-and-tie volunteer staffing arranged between the RTA and the TCRM (Tenn. Central Ry Museum), since many of us are annually "certified" to handle the safety of passengers on excursion passenger trains.  At the platforms, and not just at Donelson (all the stops), it had been observed that at least a third of these first-time passengers were VU staff.  The fare provision was Vand'y attempt to help promote mass transit, as it already had such fare privileges for staff on buses.  Others have followed on free MCS fares for its employees, such as the State and Metro.

 

So I would hope that we would have some cooperation on behalf of this thing, from Vandy, and that it would not settle for some unilateral dispersion from one faculty member (although we don't know just who's "playing the tape" there).  At any rate, the thing about taxis was a bit evasive and prevaricating, you think?  So I suspect he has never seriously considered riding any currently available MTA or RTA runs now in place, and if he is not readily served by these options, then he never expressed concern for potential patrons, including himself, as advocates.of how public transit might better serve those from "out west".  As large of an employer as Vandy is (although some now would beg o differ, with the controversial downsizing that it has initiated lately), it stands to gain immensely from whatever "decides" to go past its campus.

 

Yes, a bus is a bus, even if you paint it like a hippo on roller skates.  That's a fundamental issue here – making the "sale" to tunnel-visioned people.

 

He also hit a sore spot with me on the Gallatin Pike thing.  The mayor did renege on his initial deal to make it a "pet project" as he had been a proponent of during 2010.  The AMP is a great launching effort, but, because the mayor's received Council support on at least half of his major efforts, had he "stuck" with the intent, then with the will somehow, the city would have had some enhanced form of transit on Gallatin Road by now – I don't mean some half-assed BRT lite (which always is a good start).  While I don't live or work anywhere near Gallatin Road, I really had held hopes for escalating to advanced transit in that arterial "spine" of East Nashville.  The current N°56 BRT Ltd -stop run has shown markedly increased ridership since the start, and perhaps that route would have become a poster-child of success by now (a matter of academics at this point).

 

Dude's got another good point  The Nashv'l MTA could have made quantum-leap strides, though, in gained validation from a large proportion of its non-transit-dependent force, if it would follow Seattle's and others' in providing both signage and smart-one posting of real-time locations and arrivals of its fleet, since it has had GPS data available for several years now.  I know that the BRT-lites have had this since inception at the intermediate micro-stations, but it's needed as free apps on phones especially.  It also would be better serving by not requiring Adobe Reader for being able to view existing bus schedules on its Web site.  All this should be readily viewable as HTML formatted content.

Edited October 12, 2013 by rookzie

[volsfanwill]

Dude's got another good point  The Nashv'l MTA could have made quantum-leap strides, though, in gained validation from a large proportion of its non-transit-dependent force, if it would follow Seattle's and others' in providing both signage and smart-one posting of real-time locations and arrivals of its fleet, since it has had GPS data available for several years now.  I know that the BRT-lites have had this since inception at the intermediate micro-stations, but it's needed as free apps on phones especially.  It also would be better serving by not requiring Adobe Reader for being able to view existing bus schedules on its Web site.  All this should be readily viewable as HTML formatted content.

my favorite part of traveling the last couple years has been using google maps on my phone.  i used it in san francisco, chicago, DC, and Philadelphia.

just put in your destination and it tells you which bus/train to get on, when it arrives, what stop to get off at, it even buzzes in your hand to let you know your stop is next and to get off. or while waiting, that your ride is next so you dont get on the wrong one.  obviously it doesnt work in subways, but it works above ground great, and you can get the directions for subways before going underground.

[drewbert]

Dude's got another good point  The Nashv'l MTA could have made quantum-leap strides, though, in gained validation from a large proportion of its non-transit-dependent force, if it would follow Seattle's and others' in providing both signage and smart-one posting of real-time locations and arrivals of its fleet, since it has had GPS data available for several years now.  I know that the BRT-lites have had this since inception at the intermediate micro-stations, but it's needed as free apps on phones especially.  It also would be better serving by not requiring Adobe Reader for being able to view existing bus schedules on its Web site.  All this should be readily viewable as HTML formatted content.

 

I've long thought that, while long term big projects like the Amp are nice, MTA is really missing out on the little details that could make the experience better for everyone.

 

I would say that roughly half the time I try to buy a bus pass out of the automated kiosks in the transfer station, not a single one of them will accept any of my credit cards. The restrooms, while admittedly out in the open and available to anyone and everyone, are beyond filthy.

 

Communication from MTA to its riders is rare. To say nothing of an actual real-time smartphone app, a few months ago when there was a power outage through much of downtown, there was not so much as a Twitter post from MTA that buses would be badly knocked off schedule. I've gone to public hearings about proposed route changes that attracted maybe two members of the public - probably due to a lack of publicity and inconvenient scheduling.

 

(I have heard several times that the smartphone app itself was delayed due to the flood, but I find it hard to believe that's the whole story by this point.)

 

I could go on, but it would just make this post even more of a whine! I've been a daily rider for 13 years and you could say I've accumulated a few gripes. Then again I think about the jalopies they had on the road in 2000 and am grateful for what progress they have made.

[rookzie]

my favorite part of traveling the last couple years has been using google maps on my phone.  i used it in san francisco, chicago, DC, and Philadelphia.

just put in your destination and it tells you which bus/train to get on, when it arrives, what stop to get off at, it even buzzes in your hand to let you know your stop is next and to get off. or while waiting, that your ride is next so you dont get on the wrong one.  obviously it doesnt work in subways, but it works above ground great, and you can get the directions for subways before going underground.

 

Google mapz is a good basic transit app, but it's a geberic at best.  Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that Google opens with start and finish boxes for your trip.  If you're like me (but as the momsie told me decades ago, at least there's only one of me), then you already know where you want to go, and Google maps lacks the ease of use that some other "regionalized" apps offer (for towns other than Nashv'l, that is) in quickly navigating to the one thing that you're hell-bent on at the moment – where's my bus!.  Seattle's OneBusAway has offered, for at least 3 or 4 years now, a readily viewable look-and-touch approach to checking on the real-time location and estimated time of arrival of any bus on the system, without being forced to type in a "start from" and a destination, as most basic apps require.  OneBusAway has expanded coverage to several other transit agencies since 2009.  Google maps is a software facility to attract the interests of agencies who might otherwise not invest in the resources for the advanced development of a mobile app which offers what should be instant intuitive usability, without the hassle of info "drill-down" on the part of the user.

 

A number of other apps have been available as freebies, just as is Google maps, but some of the more robust ones are at cost of a couple of dollars.  Transit Now of Nashv'l says that they have resumed (a delayed) development of an app that might fill that void – I don't know what, we'll just have to wait and see.  Good thing with 3rd-party interests such as OneBusAway is that they frequently offer an API (Application Programming Interface) for the daring and salivating "Daniel Boones" out there who are driven to tie in with a transit agency's real-time datastores (if the agency permits it).  Seems that with that TIGER grant that timmay143 posted Sep 06, on the MTA's receiving $10G for enhancing the M'boro Rd. BRT-lite, it's supposed to be toward traffic-signal prioritizing/pre-emption, and, from what I have read on the Transit Now Nashville site, some funding is earmarked for hardware needed to broadcast the real-time GPS data to be offered for public use..

 

If Transit Now Nashv'l's app gets launched and boosted (before dropping out of orbit), perhaps it might become a pivotal point in fostering a more positive perception among "choice" bus riders, who are the primary vocal skeptics on reliability, when their bus doesn't show up.on time (if at all, in some cases, when one of the more aging units has broken down, or a downtown event has ensnared and/or detoured the normal passage of buses).  It's not practical, of course, to erect real-time arrival panel displays all over town, but a good mobile app will go far to serve as a damage control in the trenches, to diffuse anxiety against "where is that d_mn bus anyway".  As a "choice" rider, I have echoed that as one of my most common "bus" expletives, especially since the MTA will hold a departing connection for school kids yet to arrive from Meigs Magnet, even as long as 15 minutes, as far as my own experience is concerned.

Edited October 13, 2013 by rookzie

[rookzie]

I've long thought that, while long term big projects like the Amp are nice, MTA is really missing out on the little details that could make the experience better for everyone.

 

I would say that roughly half the time I try to buy a bus pass out of the automated kiosks in the transfer station, not a single one of them will accept any of my credit cards. The restrooms, while admittedly out in the open and available to anyone and everyone, are beyond filthy.

 

Communication from MTA to its riders is rare. To say nothing of an actual real-time smartphone app, a few months ago when there was a power outage through much of downtown, there was not so much as a Twitter post from MTA that buses would be badly knocked off schedule. I've gone to public hearings about proposed route changes that attracted maybe two members of the public - probably due to a lack of publicity and inconvenient scheduling.

 

(I have heard several times that the smartphone app itself was delayed due to the flood, but I find it hard to believe that's the whole story by this point.)

 

I could go on, but it would just make this post even more of a whine! I've been a daily rider for 13 years and you could say I've accumulated a few gripes. Then again I think about the jalopies they had on the road in 2000 and am grateful for what progress they have made.

 

Thanks for what I have "hummed" as my own "refrain" in the MTA song-n-dance chorus.  You've amassed far more "exceptions" than I, who only have been a routine rider for just over 5-1/2 years now, on the Nashv'l MTA.  I could drive to work, but the 35-minute one-way bus ride is a privilege to me, since I don't have to transfer and because the State provides a swipe card.   Besides, the trip does give me some needed exercise, as I amble on the 3- or 4-block path to the boarding point.  Parking downtown would require the same distance from the parking site, but it would be all uphill (necessitating a second personal shower during the dog days of summer mugginess).  I've even become lazy in my ripe age and drive to work very rarely.  I call it getting prepared for when I DO have to ride the bus, and to be hauled around as a senior citizen (with or without a walker).

 

Even back when I had been a regular rider in the mid-'60s and early 70s on DC's pre-Metro system and on Boston's 'T', at least the headways in those towns were so short on the bus routes (and trolleys on the 'T') that missing a bus hadn't made that much difference to me. Yes, the aggregate sum of our gripes with the MTA could fill even a bottomless pit, but that could be another whole sub-forum in its own right (not appropriate here).  Perhaps, though, some of the more constructive criticism against the MTA's customer service shortcomings can be suggestions in the overall discussions for service enhancements.

Edited October 13, 2013 by rookzie

[nashvillwill]

Just a tidbit for you nerds out there. I'm currently driving across country (Nashville bound baby!) and I spent the night in Salt Lake City. When I was leaving my hotel, I noticed this;

UTA Trax light rail. It seemed pretty nice. A train every 5 min or so.

[rookzie]

Yes, as away from the mainstream as Salt Lake might seem to many, Salt Lake is another example of a community which proactively took care of its people with TRAX during the late '90s and FrontRunner about 5 or so years ago.

 

FrontRunner even has all new equipment, unlike Nashv'l's MCS, which is all second-hand stuff(from Chicago Metra, and from VRE [Va. Ry. Xpress]), much of it between 30-40 years of age.

 

Although they have only LRT, so far (unless I'm mistaken), Denver's RTD, is right decent also, in case you meander down along I-25 to I-70 on the way here; hear that they are laying an airport connection.

 

Also St.Louis' MetroLink LRT.  KCMO's introduction to LRT would help to provide a "missing link" to the array of sized US cities along the US "mid-beltline" having some kind of urban/suburban rail

Edited October 28, 2013 by rookzie

[timmay143]

Just a tidbit for you nerds out there. I'm currently driving across country (Nashville bound baby!) and I spent the night in Salt Lake City. When I was leaving my hotel, I noticed this;

UTA Trax light rail. It seemed pretty nice. A train every 5 min or so.

Ridden it. It's quite nice! They were building a line to the airport in 2010 while I was there.

[satalac]

One thing I noticed when I'd vacation in Park City and take a side trip to SLC. Pretty nice system. Beautiful city too, as long as the smog isn't covering everything up (it can get REALLY bad). 

[timmay143]

Yeah, SLC has the tendency of inversions!

[nashvillwill]

Hit up the Denver Light Rail last night. Stayed with some friends and we rode it into town. I forgot to take pictures though. Saw the airport connector construction. Looks like they still have a lot of work to do.

May try to see the rail in St. Louis on my way through (even though I've ridden it before).

Is there anything in Kansas City?

[UTgrad09]

Is there anything in Kansas City?

Overrated barbeque.

[rookzie]

On many visits to KC since 1970, I've never tried the BBQ.

 

No, KC has yet to "get launched" and has been stalling for a couple of decades now, plans constantly mired in internal controversy.  They've just won 20M from TIGER, for streetcar "prelims", but they might even end up bungling that effort.  At best, KC looks half-way on the verge, but iffy.  A shame that such a decent sized town (a second "gateway" in it's own right) on the opposite end of the state from St.Louis can't get itself together long enough to make it over the hump (in terms of any kind of fixed guide-way transit).  They seem to have issues with nailing local matching funding.

 

I just referred to KC as a subjunctive "what if", while trying to maintain a sense of (faded) optimism.

 

-=ricky-roox=-

Edited October 27, 2013 by rookzie

[nashvillwill]

Well, I did stop to try the BBQ and it was ok. Nothing mind blowing. Other than that, I didn't see much. It was night time and I was trucking on through. Big town though. Seemed about Nashville sized. Not much of a downtown though.

Having lunch with a friend in St. Louis tomorrow. May try to grab some pics of the light rail there.

[UTgrad09]

Punch a Cardinals fan while you're at it.