The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread

[timmay143]

When I was in SLC a few years ago, there were buses everywhere as well (bike lanes, and "urban" Walmart, etc).  I think SLC has a more transit oriented demographic.  Having the Olympic Winter Games there probably helped spur transit along as well, on top of their efficient grid street layout.

[rookzie]

With all the references to comparisons and environments such as grids, overlays, politics, geo location,..., it would appear that Nashv'l doesn't have a snowball's chance ─ at least no closer than on the horizon (if that close) ─ for starting an LRT.

[bwithers1]

That can't be true. Even if you lived at Capitol Towers and walked to the bus station, got on the bus as it was pulling out, it would still take longer than having a taxi pick you up at Capitol Towers.  For me, on the No. 7 route, I'd have to catch the bus to downtown and then switch.  The $25 flat fee from mid-town is worth the convenience; and is considerably quicker.

Good point. I meant time and money from my experience living in East Nashville outside of 5 Points. I would have to call a cab and wait up to a half an hour for one to arrive, then proceed down the streets with stoplights for a couple of miles to get to the interstate, etc, and depending on the time of day be stuck in rush-hour traffic. Whereas I can walk to Gallatin Pike, get on the 56 BRT and be downtown in 15 mins, then get on the express bus and get to the airport in the same amount of time or less. Especially if I am smart about checking the schedules for timing. And even if both the express bus and the taxi are stuck in the same stop lights and interstate traffic on the way to the airport, at least I have paid a flat fare for the bus: a total of $3.40 one way after paying the two bus fares.

 

Even when I lived in Chicago, when I took a train to the airport, I would have to walk several blocks to the el stop with my luggage, shlep them through a turnstyle and up stairs, wait on the train, take that downtown and transfer to another train, which may or may not also involve shlepping luggage up and down multiple flights of stairs, then wait on another train to take me to the airport. At Midway, I would then have to drag luggage up a bunch of stairs and down long hallways (albeit with some of the check-out-line roller things in spots) and across a very lengthy parking garage to get to the airport terminal. It may be a little better now, I haven't visited in a little while.

 

Paying convenience in a taxi is always an option. But in terms of public transit between the downtown area and the airport, Nashville does have a reasonable option, especially during daytime hours. It's not a whole lot different than the SEPTA train schedules to Philadelphia's airport, which costs $8 one way cash only.

[rookzie]

... But in terms of public transit between the downtown area and the airport, Nashville does have a reasonable option, especially during daytime hours. It's not a whole lot different than the SEPTA train schedules to Philadelphia's airport, which costs $8 one way cash only.

 

 

Yeah, that $8 SEPTA fare does sound steep for a "local" trip to the airport.

Thanks for bringing up the SEPTA example, because it brings to light a basic difference in the taxonomy of passenger rail as applied to urban mobility.   Most likely the reason for this elevated fare is that, unlike with most other US airport rail connectors, Philly's SEPTA branch provides true commuter-rail type train service, rather than provide light-rail, as in many newer upstart systems, and even existing heavy-rail (primarily electric 3rd-rail) subway-elevated ("el") systems of larger networks.

As opposed to light-rail and heavy-rail urban systems, commuter-rail systems basically are true railroad trains (subject to RR rules and RR labor unions), and have much more overhead operating costs than other rail-based transit systems.  The SEPTA airport line is considered "regional" and perhaps could be considered as an overkill set-up for its intended purpose.  A decision to utilize and to extend an existing underused railroad and added spur was one based on economics and operating logistics, which requires that this chosen set-up employ the use of commuter-rail equipment rather than LRT or HRT. (Commuter-rail is forbidden to be operated in mixed traffic with LRT or HRT) The fact that these 1- or 2-car self-propelled trains use an overhead electric catenary power system, subscribing to the same power system as electric high-speed trains (12kV @ 25-or 60-hz), only helps to jack up the costs of operation (again still steep compared to "lighter" systems).

 

Whether push-pull loco-hauled (pure-electric or diesel-electric) or self-propelled (electric, diesel-electric or diesel-hydraulic), commuter-rail trains are beefy in construction and can take the rigors of railroad activity, as well as many common wayside interferences (e.g. stray and errant automobiles).  On the other hand, this beefy anatomy makes commuter-rail unsuitable for operation along runs of short spacing of scheduled, frequent stops.

A 30-minute headway for the SEPTA airport line is not bad for commuter-rail, and access to SEPTA via 4 airport stations serving the airport's 6 main terminal concourses is quite unusual.  I cannot think of any other retrofit commuter-rail-to-airport line in the US (except similar trains of NICTD [formerly the "South Shore"] from the South Bend, IN airport to Chicago Randolph Street Metra station, most of which is not a retrofit).  The SEPTA airport branch is less than 30 years old.  Adding to the cost of riding the airport line itself is the fact that a rider has to find a way to get to the heart of downtown at the 30th-Street Station (Amtrak's main passenger terminal, shared with SEPTA) to catch the line, unless she or he happens to be conveniently near a boarding point where the line runs extended to a few distant points on the other side of Philly.

So generally one has to find a way to the 30th Street Station and board a train to the airport, not nearly as convenient or as cheap of a fare, as with other systems, which permit point-to-point movements with transfers.  Still, SEPTA airport line carries a whole lot of passengers, and you'd understand the reason, if you ever had to meander to that airport via I-95/I-76 complex.

In light of all this reasoning, there is no practical way to utilize the NERR or the CSX r.o.w for a "cheap" way to the Nashv'l Int'l Airport.  Even if there were some ways to branch some spur rails (say, along Briley Pkwy, Donelson Pk., or from Curry Rd along the team spur to Triumph-Vought [formerly, Avco]), utilizing either RR would require use of compatible commuter-rail equipment (diesel-electric loco-hauled), or a completely separated LRT system "partitioned" but paralleling mainline RR traffic (for safety reasons).  Neither of these alternatives would be practical or as cost effective as planning an integrated branch of a comprehensive LRT system.

 

BUT!!

 

A vehicle referred to as a "DMU" (Diesel Multiple Unit) is a newer type of "cross-breed" design of modern passenger transit equipment which looks much like light-rail, and essentially is light-rail.  The "cross-breeding" refers to the structural design of the cars, which can be chosen to conform to light-rail transit standards or to the beefier FRA standards, the latter of which would permit these strange beesties to operate "amphibiously" (except for not being able to negotiate sharp curves typical with LRT).  The DMU is a revival of a older concept, established during the mid-1950s ─ the Rail Diesel Car [RDC] ─ highly used on low-volume passenger runs in the Midwest, Northeast, and Northeast (but never in the South).  In Denton County, TX, the "A-Train", a standalone extension of Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) operated a number of rebuilt 55-year-old RDCs, from 2011 to late 2012, at which time the proven usefulness of these well-maintained stainless-steel "jalopies" led the authorites to fund upgrading to modern DMUs.

 

A few of us back-porch "analysts" have concluded that the DMU is the most affordable way to go for an Ashland-City─Clarksville MCS, and it likely would be acceptable for an airport connector.  One thing that KS (UTgrad09) shared with me during the Saturday Nashville Forum meeting (04 Jan), was his concurrence on the potential justification of tying in an airport connector with a predictably very expensive southeast corridor regional extension to Murfreesboro.  This still would be costly, but not s much as it would be, compared to paralleling the CSX with a partitioned r.o.w  for LRT, although without a doubt, CSX would stipulate at least 2 additional mainline tracks and a separate signalling system along a widened  r.o.w. funded with external sources.  Such a project would need to be examined as that alternative compared to a totally standalone LRT undertaking utilizing roadway paths (along, say: Lafayette, Murf Pk, Lowry, NW Broad), with a branch to BNA.  It just has to be borne in mind that, while DMUs can be constructed at the factory to be like commuter-rail on the cheap (with LRT-like features), a trade-off is that they still require moderately broad curves and therefore cannot be well adapted to street running and turning as can LRT.

Edited January 5, 2014 by rookzie

[smeagolsfree]

An article in the Nashville Ledger.

 

AMP planners uninterested in compromise that could increase West End-area support, cut costs

 

http://www.nashvilleledger.com/editorial/Article.aspx?id=70810

[timmay143]

An article on just shooting the breeze with "big ideas" for Huntsville, AL.  This one is on a monorail.  Pie in the sky, but maybe an interesting discussion nonetheless.

 

http://blog.al.com/breaking/2014/01/a_disney-type_monorail_in_the.html#incart_river_default

[rookzie]

An article in the Nashville Ledger.

 

AMP planners uninterested in compromise that could increase West End-area support, cut costs

 

http://www.nashvilleledger.com/editorial/Article.aspx?id=70810

 

First, recall for reference:

 

UTgrad09 on 26 November 2013 - 02:39 PM

“….My concern with Dean right now is that he has so much going on right now that I think there's a possibility for some blowback on this simply because of concerns about the budget and taxes.

I am happy as hell that the mayor advocates public transit, but I'm worried that his approach might actually put the whole thing in jeopardy.

You're likely never going to change some people's minds about rapid transit...but in order to get this to work, Dean needs to worry about getting more allies, not trying to ram it through.”

 

Neigeville on 26 November 2013 - 08:43 PM

 

“…It's going to take a mixture of allies and ramming.  There's almost always a fight over a rapid transit system when it first starts…”

 

______

 

[me] on 14 December 2013

 

Yes, it always does take a mixture of allies and ramming (aggressive assertiveness).  There exists a large range of reasonable ramming spectrum, but I think that the mayor’s choice of ramming “vectors” has resulted in an errant trajectory which needs to be redirected toward achieving his intent.

 

…The current perception seems to be regarding the decision as distorted reasoning layered on rigid constraints (path/route).  What it boils down to, is not so much as what is decided at a first or “up-start” RT project, but rather what and where one can be created which can predictably and attractively move numbers of people without long-term reduction in capacity of the present mobility infrastructures.  That term “attractive” encompasses much, but implicitly it refers to garnering much, much better level of public buy-in than what has been attained.

 

…the fact that the administration has insisted on such an obviously controversial and inflexible choice of path, with all the justification that can be gleaned, does not necessarily make the proposal a best fit for the western segment – rubber or rail. …The more dialog we have on this forum sub-topic, the more is revealed in terms of valid (and perceived) concerns

 

… With the daily diurnal traffic overload at Harding Rd at White Bridge, Woodmont, Kenner, and Bosley Springs intersections (with St Thomas West, Belle Meade Plaza, and venues like Kroger, Harris-Teeter, Publix, and the nearby Lion’s Head district and Nashville State Community Col.), I wouldn’t even want to try to predict any long-term outcome, with claims publically touted that the E-W project will solve grid-lock [on West End].

 

 

… the scheduling of public meetings on the E-W Connector plans.  This is only the most recent set of several such town meetings on the project.  None of them seems to have resulted in any substantive effort by the planners and administrators to address the concurring and meritable concerns, among many individuals who bother to attend these meetings. (this usually applies to most other suggestions for improvements in other transit practices as a whole)

 

From personal experience, the gatherings usually have consisted of only justification of choices in decisions on some unpopular or questionable proposal details.  The administrators almost always have had their minds made with unyielding conviction, even concerning suggestions not directly related to routes.  In some instances, the respondents conducting the discussions have expressed scoff or retort ─ even if unintended ─ to questions or to common suggestions for reconsideration.  Unfortunately, even an MTA-RTA office staffer whom I have known for a number of years, and who is self-apprised of internal discussion, appears to agree that the decision makers generally have been closed to re-evaluation for even some rational, well-founded public concerns; in fact, this person (employed there for at least 15 years) voluntarily informed me of this pre-disposition.

______

 

 

This is what I’ve been saying all along, as far as the transit agency's stand on planning is concerned.  Being stone-faced and unyielding on any front, will ramify into lopsided distrust long after completion of the AMP.

 

[Nashville Ledger]

“…though Metro Transit Authority spokesperson Holly McCall says the route and 16 stations have been finalized…

 

“The real question is whether anybody’s really listening.” [ James Kelley, Richland West End Neighborhood Association].  …the plan Kelley says he presented in a meeting with representatives from MTA and the Transit Alliance…. he came away feeling that the design had already been decided.

“Their mission is to build The Amp. There never was a public forum, before the design was decided, as to whether that was the right design. There doesn’t appear to be any mechanism to change the design and that’s the frustrating part,” he says.

 

Kelley says he can’t think of a reason why MTA can’t simply eliminate the dedicated lanes on the 1.6-mile stretch and add express service instead. Federal funding isn’t dependent on having a minimum percentage of exclusive lanes to route length, MTA reps told him.

 

“That’s the worst part of this process. We may be talking, but is anyone with authority to make a change listening, and do they have any interest in making a change if there are valid arguments?”

 

The short answer: No.

 

Kelley’s compromise is not going to be considered because it’s a “halfway solution” that would not incorporate the time-saving features of BRT, which include traffic signal prioritization, McCall explains.

 

Kelley says he understands the issues, and agrees with the need for enhanced public transit options, but adds MTA needs to be open to making reasonable changes on West End, where the one-fits-all system simply doesn’t fit the roadway

 

….“You can always build exclusive lanes later, but if you spend the money, you’re never going to undo it. 

“That’s what’s frustrating. The MTA people acknowledge that this is all true, but so what?”

 

 

 

The Ledger article editor also brings to light a reference to Cleveland’s HealthLine BRT and its touted success, a testimonial that ALways seems to be dredged up in justifying the construction of the AMP.  But time and time again, all press discussion ALways  never mentions any reference to the Greater Cleveland long established rail network which works in synergy with the HealthLine.   I have discussed this shortcoming of rationale in at least two previous postings.  Those aware of the real comparisons see well through this shallow reasoning.

 

I’m not about NOT wanting the project to get underway.   What’s damning and maddening is that the Ledger article reveals the “true color” of the mayor’s administration and the MTA in its forged and intransigent “executive” role in the implementing the project.

 

I don’t think it’s far-fetched to expect a balloon of negative public perception to the extent of alienating a sizable spectrum of the city from the way government has determined to do business.  These hardline tactics stand to become an uncalculated risk and even to become a posthumous inheritance of political and agency distrust well into the succeeding administration.

 

Disgusting, at the very least.  Again from what I have observed first hand for a nearly a decade, the MTA’s stance comes totally with no surprise.   I think it’s going to be head-roll time around the corner (CFO, Director of Planning,…).   Municipal planning agencies generally have fared well with moderate latitude in deference rather than in total defiance.

[CenterHill]

The solicitation of public input is coming way late in this process. I can't see any way the meetings are going to result in anything resembling overall support for the current AMP proposal. The administration needs to be in serious listen mode. Agree with you Rookzie, if the agencies are combative and patronizing, it will only solidify public distrust.

[smeagolsfree]

I have noticed more support on the East and more opposition on the West. If the city does not get the state money, then they have to find money from another source. I don't think the state will cough up the needed dollars.

[rookzie]

I have noticed more support on the East and more opposition on the West. If the city does not get the state money, then they have to find money from another source. I don't think the state will cough up the needed dollars.

 

Right, and then, it just might end up being protracted for an indeterminant amount of time, until the mayor can somehow weasel a new budget for an upcoming fiscal period.  In a sense this could "buy" time for the opposition, or at least allow the pressure cooker to turn the skirmish into a civil war.

 

No doubt all this likely will make its way somewhere into a few of the journal publications out there ─ both local and national.

 

-=ricky-roox=-

[Rockatansky]

The solicitation of public input is coming way late in this process.

 

Public input was sought and received in a series of public meetings in 2012. Those meetings were well publicized and attended.

 

The admin has not been entirely inflexible concerning the route. Earlier in the process the route was changed to avoid Lower Broad.

Significant route changes of the type mentioned recently are infeasible because of the necessity of federal funding.

Edited January 13, 2014 by Rockatansky

[Guest]

Just because a meeting is held does not mean input is being sought. The overwhelming opposition is coming from West End and Harding Road…. the meetings were publicized and attended but the feedback is being ignored by MTA. As rookzie has intimated, Dean was checking a box on a list, nothing more. IMO




 

Public input was sought and received in a series of public meetings in 2012. Those meetings were well publicized and attended.

 

The admin has not been entirely inflexible concerning the route. Earlier in the process the route was changed to avoid Lower Broad.

Significant route changes of the type mentioned recently are infeasible because of the necessity of federal funding.

[Paramount747]

The rich NIMBY's on the west side will win with this as they did by getting the tower reduced in Green Hills. They also have Lee Beaman on their side. The rich always get what they want...always.

 

Nevermind the fact we all saw the woman in the original meeting video who said "We don't want those people congregating in Belle Meade..." We all know what she meant. In fact, one of our members who was at that meeting saw that same woman a day later in a retail store. He talked to her and she said she meant what she said about "those people".

 

It's a shame this all boils down to the race card, and assuming everyone who rides the bus is poor, uneducated, and a person of color. Does she not realize Vanderbilt pays ridership fees for its employees? When are the people of the West Side going to wake up and realize this is a diverse city? Thank God I am on the East Side. We want the AMP regardless who rides it.

 

The West Side racism never ceases to amaze me.

[RandomHero]

To generalize an entire quadrant of Nashville as a bunch of rich, backward thinking, hate mongers is just about as ignorant and short sighted as the people you are attempting to describe. There are a laundry list of legit concerns related to the AMP proposal and the impact this will have on the lives of West Nashville residents is far and beyond the impacts in East Nashville given how much of the route is on the west side of town. One disgruntled lady does not represent the entire opposition. And speaking of those rich NIMBYs I'd be interested to see how much of the city tax revenue that will be directed toward this effort come from West Nashville as opposed to the other regions. The "rich" folks consume more, drive more, and pay more property taxes so they are definitely footing a disproportionate chunk of the city's share of the AMP funding. So let's see they are going to be impacted more by the AMP and they are going to be paying for most of it so maybe it's not right to completely marginalize their concerns and anoint the East Siders as the crusaders for all that is right and just in Nashville.

[MLBrumby]

I wonder where I'd stand on the matter if I lived in the Richland, Whitland, Harding Road areas... and lean toward being against it.  I am a big fan of light rail, and I think this is a waste of money, not to mention a huge traffic obstruction for motorists.  If I were king... er, mayor, I'd start that LRT right at the transit hub on Charlotte... go out and come back up 15th to Hayes which I would make exclusively LRT and pedestrian. So straight down Hayes to 21st, then wind it back to Music Row around Grand (or back down Division to Demonbreun)...from Grand to 16th then back down Demonbreun past the MCC, and back up Fifth Avenue to the transit hub on Charlotte. That would be phase 1... then the next phase would go straight out Main to Five Points then back up Shelby to parallel 5th Avenue (which by then might be exclusive LRT).  Then phase 3 would go out to Sylvan Park and a line down Charlotte, connecting back to the transit hub.  LRT would tie it all the close-in neighborhoods together in about 10-15 years. The only thing that I can tell with AMP, is it will really mess up traffic along West End.

Edited January 14, 2014 by MLBrumby

[Paramount747]

To generalize an entire quadrant of Nashville as a bunch of rich, backward thinking, hate mongers is just about as ignorant and short sighted as the people you are attempting to describe. There are a laundry list of legit concerns related to the AMP proposal and the impact this will have on the lives of West Nashville residents is far and beyond the impacts in East Nashville given how much of the route is on the west side of town. One disgruntled lady does not represent the entire opposition. And speaking of those rich NIMBYs I'd be interested to see how much of the city tax revenue that will be directed toward this effort come from West Nashville as opposed to the other regions. The "rich" folks consume more, drive more, and pay more property taxes so they are definitely footing a disproportionate chunk of the city's share of the AMP funding. So let's see they are going to be impacted more by the AMP and they are going to be paying for most of it so maybe it's not right to completely marginalize their concerns and anoint the East Siders as the crusaders for all that is right and just in Nashville.

Not generalizing, not ignorant, nor short sighted, just stating my experience. I lived in Bellevue from 1967-2012 until I moved, except for when I was in college. The West Side has fought change for decades. The area around St. Henry's fought the widening of Highway 70 South citing traffic issues. Bellevue fought sustainable building standards, and fought Metro for trying to regulate  development to keep poor development from happening. Bellevue fought integration of Bellevue High School, and it finally closed in 1980. Bellevue fought against having more single family housing in favor of poorly developed apartment buildings, and former councilmen like Vick Lineweaver fought any initiatives metro had for protecting the environment, and initiating sustainable building standards as far back as the 1970's. School integration issues were hard fought on the West Side for decades, so yes; my experience from living on the West Side for 40+ years has shown me that people like the woman in question are far more common than you acknowledge by your post. Again, I stand by my statement that race is an issue in this AMP discussion whether vocalized or kept quiet. Until people in a public forum can admit race is an issue, growth cannot be achieved, and true self actualization cannot occur. Public projects of this magnitude always invoke race and issues of socio-economic status, and the woman in the video is either not keenly aware, or she is in denial of how race is an issue, and unfortunately one bad seed like her can destroy an entire garden, or at least leave it with sour and rotten taste.

 

BTW, Belle Meade has had public issues with race for decades. Real Estate agents in the past would not sell homes to wealthy African Americans, and for multiple decades, Belle Meade Country Club would not admit African Americans. Due to public pressure and media stories, the country club admitted it's first black members recently. As of last year there were 3: One absentee member who lives in Atlanta, and a couple in Nashville. The man is a prominent  executive, and the woman a professor and award winning writer.

 

So yes, in the West area communities, people  still have a problem with race as evidenced by this woman's public comments.

Edited January 15, 2014 by Urban Architecture

[Guest]

The irony in your statement is of course that this particular area of Nashville is the epicenter of the Democrat's (Big D) power in Nashville. ha

 

 

Even with that being the case, I will state - RACE IS NOT AN ISSUE in opposition to the AMP

Edited January 15, 2014 by Guest

[Paramount747]

The irony in your statement is of course that this particular area of Nashville is the epicenter of the Democrat's (Big D) power in Nashville. ha

 

 

Even with that being the case, I will state - RACE IS NOT AN ISSUE in opposition to the AMP

I respectfully disagree my friend and brother, but race is a factor in everything, especially in capital projects such as this. Remember the interstates divided neighborhoods? They were constructed in poor parts of town. Regardless, if you are correct, then what did this woman mean when saying "those people"?

[Neigeville]

I respectfully disagree my friend and brother, but race is a factor in everything, especially in capital projects such as this. Remember the interstates divided neighborhoods? They were constructed in poor parts of town. Regardless, if you are correct, then what did this woman mean when saying "those people"?

 

I hate to get involved in this, but I must mention there is such a thing as class and it is not coterminous with race.  Pet peeve of mine, our nation's endless public discussion of race is often used as an excuse to not talk about class. 

 

Interstates and other large capital projects unfortunately victimize poor neighborhoods for very practical reasons.  Look what happens when you build thru affluent areas:  440 was incredibly expensive, 840 was delayed by lawyers for years.

 

And it's unfair to take that pearl-wearing fool as typical of the entire district.

[Guest]

We had the 'race' discussion several times and will never agree….. it is all good.

I respectfully disagree my friend and brother, but race is a factor in everything, especially in capital projects such as this. Remember the interstates divided neighborhoods? They were constructed in poor parts of town. Regardless, if you are correct, then what did this woman mean when saying "those people"?

[titanhog]

Just noticed this on Facebook

 

http://us7.campaign-archive1.com/?u=6cb5cfd1aa065232d2b708319&id=54263acc1e

[BnaBreaker]

Perhaps I shouldn't be cynical about the motivations of the 'stop the AMP' people, because it's not as if there aren't some potentially valid concerns.  However, I just can't help but think that for most of these folks, the public concerns are merely just more acceptable sounding covers for their private concerns.  I simply don't buy that the majority of these people are merely passionately opposed to bus rapid transit as solution on that particular street.  What I think is more likely is that they are anti-mass transit in general, and more broadly, anti-change that they don't understand.  If this proposed system was LRT instead of BRT that was going down Charlotte instead of West End, I suspect we'd still hear the same general complaints, from the same general segment of the population (traffic, change, cost etc.)

Edited January 17, 2014 by BnaBreaker

[MLBrumby]

Don't be so sure BNA... it's my sense that putting the line at least partially down Charlotte Avenue was a huge "miss" on Dean's part.  I mean, with the public housing... proximity to downtown hub and healthcare facilities in the other direction!   I posted a route in my previous post on this thread that I believe (either LRT or BRT) would be a sure winner with the citizenry.  I can't help but think that St. Thomas has a heck of a lot riding on this BRT plan.  However, I don't expect the local fishwrap to do any investigative reporting worth a damn.  I mean... Gail Kerr?  Yeah, riiiiiiight!

[BnaBreaker]

Don't be so sure BNA... it's my sense that putting the line at least partially down Charlotte Avenue was a huge "miss" on Dean's part.  I mean, with the public housing... proximity to downtown hub and healthcare facilities in the other direction!   I posted a route in my previous post on this thread that I believe (either LRT or BRT) would be a sure winner with the citizenry.  I can't help but think that St. Thomas has a heck of a lot riding on this BRT plan.  However, I don't expect the local fishwrap to do any investigative reporting worth a damn.  I mean... Gail Kerr?  Yeah, riiiiiiight!

 

I can definitely understand your criticisms of the project, and truth be told, my skepticism of the Stop AMP group is in no way an endorsement of the West End route over the Charlotte route.  Despite occasional claims to the contrary, I just fail to believe that most of these people are in this fight because they want the city to do better.  They aren't fighting FOR light rail, or FOR an alternate route for bus rapid transit, they are fighting AGAINST the city doing something that might slightly alter the scenery and routine they are used to. 

 

I do realize there are potential downsides to the proposed route, and that those issues are worth having a conversation about.  I just think that the only people actually brought to the table over the nuts and bolts and technical stuff are urban development and transit nerds like you and I.  Actually, I almost said in my post just for clarity sake that I would never include people like MLBrumby in with this group, because I know that your primary objective here is doing what is best for the city of Nashville, and also that you are decidedly pro mass-transit. 

[rookzie]

... I posted a route in my previous post on this thread that I believe (either LRT or BRT) would be a sure winner with the citizenry.  I can't help but think that St. Thomas has a heck of a lot riding on this BRT plan.  However, I don't expect the local fishwrap to do any investigative reporting worth a damn.  I mean... Gail Kerr?  Yeah, riiiiiiight!

 

 

I can definitely understand your criticisms of the project, and truth be told, my skepticism of the Stop AMP group is in no way an endorsement of the West End route over the Charlotte route.  Despite occasional claims to the contrary, I just fail to believe that most of these people are in this fight because they want the city to do better.  They aren't fighting FOR light rail, or FOR an alternate route for bus rapid transit, they are fighting AGAINST the city doing something that might slightly alter the scenery and routine they are used to. 

 

I do realize there are potential downsides to the proposed route, and that those issues are worth having a conversation about.  I just think that the only people actually brought to the table over the nuts and bolts and technical stuff are urban development and transit nerds like you and I.  Actually, I almost said in my post just for clarity sake that I would never include people like MLBrumby in with this group, because I know that your primary objective here is doing what is best for the city of Nashville, and also that you are decidedly pro mass-transit. 

 

Both of you have pinged some nerves and have managed to coincide with a few "fleeting" thoughts of my own (fleeting referred to as being hopelessly dismissed).  MLBRumly, your posted zig-zag is the result of some rather decent analytics, if I must say so.  Tht's the kind of think that we should have had in "bottom-to-top" discussions, rather than the top-down planning that went into the mayor's initiative.  Perhaps then the administration would have had a truly formulated derivative ripe for participant consideration.  Instead what we have now appears to be a thousand-foot high atmospheric "dust devil" of contention.

 

BNABreaker, you hit a chord with your reference "...They aren't fighting FOR light rail, or FOR an alternate route for bus rapid transit,...".  The primary response as such I had alluded to a a couple of weeks or so ago, after someone's suggestion of ending the AMP at Murphy Road (to which I had hinted at a diverted path to Charlotte via Murphy and the "Nations" (an historical misnomer for the "state-named" avenues).  In that previous posting, I had challenged (without my taking sides) the "west" to formulate one of more alternatives or concepts to bolster and convincingly rationalize their opposition to the current proposal. Otherwise, their "true colors" indeed appear suspiciously cloaked as legitimate concerns (a number of which are logistically valid issues of interest).  But so far, all I have heard were "crickets chirpin' " but no fulfillment of answers.

 

-=ricky-roox=-