Jump to content

The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread


TopTenn

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Neigeville2 said:

I can't read your link, but I read somewhere that Uber's revenue only covers about 40% of their operating expenses, which makes it seem kind of like a scam on their investors, not surprising given the apparent craziness of their founder, Travis Kalanick.   Lyft has never made a profit.  These services, like self-driving cars, may have been oversold.  I'm old enough to remember when atomic power was going to make electricity free!  It's fun to get excited about a new technology, but don't bet the farm, especially when someone is making billions promoting a concept that isn't turning a profit "yet".  It may be that  they will never be profitable.

This is my understanding, as well, but this is like going after Amazon in the early 2000's for not being profitable. They were losing money to gain market share. Uber is putting their money into three places right now: paying drivers, owning market share/global expansion, and research and development. The model, particularly without drivers, is not inherently flawed. Individual cab drivers have been profitable for a long time and the market certainly thinks that Uber will make a lot of money in the future. We are currently under-paying for service with a driver, but the driver is taking in 70% of the profits from each ride. I imagine that the cost per mile of a self driving ride could be under $1/mile for a single rider. With 10-12 people in a vehicle, it would be significantly less. And this is not even accounting for all of the in-ride purchases that we will likely see (i.e. Starbucks). 

Even if there is only a 50% chance that this sort of future is realized (although I suspect that the likelihood is much higher), if we are spending 9 billion dollars on a 30-year transit plan, would it not make sense to at least have a plan that would allow for this and not keep stating that rideshares are only for first mile/last mile service? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


@AronG

Hopefully the people behind the plan, get out in front and start explaining what is going to be happening. Like establishing a dedicated fund and being able to pivot if/when technology changes. 

They should really get better at advertising the 'nimbleness' of this project. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, BnaBreaker said:

I can respect that point of view.  There are also those out there though who insist that since they aren't hungry, then nobody gets to eat, and that view I cannot respect.  As long as people agree with the general notion that we need vastly improved mass transit, then there should be a spot at the table for them to put forth their ideas about how/when/where it should be implemented.  If, however, someone doesn't even think our lack of mass transit is a problem, then I don't even want them in the room, quite frankly.

 

Well that's not for you to decide. The people who live here and will have their taxes raised to support a boondoggle rightfully will have a say. There is going to be traffic whether someone building an obsolete light rail system or not. So the notion of travelling 20 miles in 15 minutes is a delusion. A lot of the very same people who will vote for this tax hike are the very same people who will be moving to their next city in 10 years leaving someone else holding the checkbook.

Edited by Ingram
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, AronG said:

Yeah, if this was politically viable I would definitely prefer it to the current light rail plan (although I'll bet you it would cost way more than $20MM). There's no doubt that it's a better match for Nashville's density. The problem is, people just don't get excited about buses, and it's easy to stir them into a mob over losing lanes on any given road. The Amp was an attempt to take a small first step towards this, and it failed for a reason. It's strange how many of the people now loudly praising dedicated bus lanes participated in killing it.

If this thing manages to get past the growing headwinds and pass in May, the most important factor to me is that it will establish a dedicated funding source for transit. It's cleverly designed to put as small a load on locals as possible, and it will yield $110 million/year, rising to $200 million in 2023. Which isn't some extravagant amount considering our budget for FY2018 is $2.2 billion. Much of those resources will go to right of way and engineering for what amounts to two dedicated lanes on all major corridors, designed to minimize impact on existing car lanes.

Tracks aren't scheduled to be laid until late in the 15 year timeline. If, 5 years from now, driverless cars are rampaging across the nation, I fully expect an update to the plan that tweaks it to address the new robot mini-buses or whatever. It could be as simple as switching to "trackless trains" (https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2017/11/can-we-just-call-this-a-bus/545189/) and establishing rates for 3rd party vehicles to share those lanes. There would be some waste as a result of the change, but not a crippling percentage.

If, on the other hand, driverless cars turn out to be an over-hyped dud, we will have a slightly over-specced light rail system, half-paid for by visitors, and new capacity to build much more housing, office, and retail around those lines without dumping ever more traffic onto our over-strained interstates.

This is a great argument, provided the plan is indeed this flexible. I love that trackless train article - I remember sending it to a bunch of people when it came out. Provided the technology is reliable, those would be fantastic.

Interestingly enough, I think that if the mayor's office actively advertised the hypothetical potential for additional vehicles to use these lanes, the project could have even more support. But perhaps they don't even want to mention that existing lanes for cars could be possibly be removed. 

I also think that the amp failed for many reasons, and not simply because people are opposed to BRT (particularly if you never call it BRT and package it correctly). They literally ran their first attempt at a modern public transit line directly into the only metro Nashville house district held by a republican. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, AronG said:

.. It could be as simple as switching to "trackless trains" (https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2017/11/can-we-just-call-this-a-bus/545189/) ...

Interesting article, but ultimately this looks to me like a bigger bus for routes that already have high ridership, rather than something that will lure a lot of new riders, and it definitely won't help much with development along the route since the path isn't really fixed.  And the author is just another train-hater.  She totally lost me when she cited LA's orange line BRT as an example of what buses can be.  There are definite plans to convert the Orange line to light rail, and most of its high ridership is because it connects to a rail line at each end of the route; that's where most of the users are getting on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a little glimpse into the discussion on my Nextdoor group:

" We all need to think on this 5.9 billon project, way to much money to only benefit small number of people. We the people of Davidson County will be paying for it. I have lived in East Nashville all my life and have seen first hand how this works. Just saying, to much money for the city to pay back. "

Well, which is it?  Does it not serve enough people or is it too expensive?  These are the kind of cyclical arguments that the anti-transit folks express and it just really doesn't make any sense.  And yet, when I ask them for their proposal their only response is:

" anyone can spend 10 BILLION dollars of other people's money and do something. Why not put a few hundred million extra into the current bus system ? But buses aren't sexy. "

Zero specifics.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Ingram said:

 

Well that's not for you to decide. The people who live here and will have their taxes raised to support a boondoggle rightfully will have a say. There is going to be traffic whether someone building an obsolete light rail system or not. So the notion of travelling 20 miles in 15 minutes is a delusion. A lot of the very same people who will vote for this tax hike are the very same people who will be moving to their next city in 10 years leaving someone else holding the checkbook.

As I have said before, if one has alternative ideas in regards to the how/when/where/how much of mass transit then by all means, I think we all welcome their input.  Those things are all highly debatable and  should be questioned/scrutinized to result in the best possible end product for all Nashvillians. 

If, however, one is the type who just thinks all mass transit in general is a big ole wasteful gub'ment boondoggle just because they, personally, don't use it, then they're more than entitled to their position and should go and vote on the referendum in May accordingly.  However, if it were up to me (which it's obviously not since I'm not the mayor,) I personally wouldn't allow them in the room when the details of the bill are being ironed out since they have nothing constructive to offer, in the same way that the three little pigs wouldn't invite the big bad wolf into a home construction meeting.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, BnaBreaker said:

As I have said before, if one has alternative ideas in regards to the how/when/where/how much of mass transit then by all means, I think we all welcome their input.  Those things are all highly debatable and  should be questioned/scrutinized to result in the best possible end product for all Nashvillians. 

If, however, one is the type who just thinks all mass transit in general is a big ole wasteful gub'ment boondoggle just because they, personally, don't use it, then they're more than entitled to their position and should go and vote on the referendum in May accordingly.  However, if it were up to me (which it's obviously not since I'm not the mayor,) I personally wouldn't allow them in the room when the details of the bill are being ironed out since they have nothing constructive to offer, in the same way that the three little pigs wouldn't invite the big bad wolf into a home construction meeting.  

So you wouldn’t let people who don’t believe Nashville needs improved public transit have access to meetings where it’s decided how their taxes will be spent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

**grilled_cheese - this is not directly toward you personally!!

15 hours ago, grilled_cheese said:

Toll booths at every entrance of Davidson County.

Or, Davidson could fix their schools so suburbanites would actually WANT to live in Davidson County

15 hours ago, grilled_cheese said:

Oh, you don't like our policies and actively meddle in our affairs and decisions but still want to come here to work and play?  Pay me.

There are now more commuters travelling from Davidson County to Williamson County than vice versa. Brentwood and La Vergne would profit greatly from this type of arrangement

15 hours ago, grilled_cheese said:

Oh, you want to go to a show at the Ryman, Bridgestone, Cannery, Mercy, Marathon Music Works?  Pay me.

Oh, you want to come and see the Preds, Titans, Nashville SC?  Pay me.  This one is even more egregious since we subsidize these teams and the suburbanites get to reap the benefits without any type of contribution except for the price of a ticket.

Ryman, Preds, etc. All of these Nashville amenities could exist today without the support of non-Davidson County residents

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Pdt2f said:

So you wouldn’t let people who don’t believe Nashville needs improved public transit have access to meetings where it’s decided how their taxes will be spent. 

I wouldn't invite them to meetings regarding the initial construction or subsequent altering of the bill, no.  I mean, really, why should anyone who is vehemently opposed to mass transit be at a meeting about how to improve mass transit?  Should people opposed to public schooling be giving their input at public school board meetings?  If crossing their arms and yelling NO is all someone has to offer the debate, then that's fine, but that's what the vote is for. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Predators would 100% not be here if it were up to just the suburbs.  They would've never gotten the team in '98 and they would have not weathered the storm of '07.  Not to mention the fact that they would have never voted to pay for their own arena and I doubt they would've been able to come up with enough money anyway.  It's debatable whether or not the Ryman  would exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/8/2018 at 8:07 AM, grilled_cheese said:

Oh, you want to come and see the Preds, Titans, Nashville SC?  Pay me.  This one is even more egregious since we subsidize these teams and the suburbanites get to reap the benefits without any type of contribution except for the price of a ticket.

One tiny footnote:  state funds (therefore, "suburbanite" funds) were used to help pay for the construction of Nissan Stadium/LP Field/Adelphia Coliseum in exchange for letting TSU play its home football games there.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, grilled_cheese said:

The Predators would 100% not be here if it were up to just the suburbs.  They would've never gotten the team in '98 and they would have not weathered the storm of '07.  Not to mention the fact that they would have never voted to pay for their own arena and I doubt they would've been able to come up with enough money anyway.  It's debatable whether or not the Ryman  would exist.

I think the point that @LA_TN was making is that the city and its suburbs are co-dependent when it comes to the features and luxuries of our city. Without Nashville, Williamson county would just be another rural Tennessee county with maybe a manufacturing plant and some warehouses. Without the population and high earners with disposable income of its surrounding counties, Nashville wouldn’t be able to support sports teams, concert venues, and all the other cool stuff that makes it great. 

11 hours ago, BnaBreaker said:

I wouldn't invite them to meetings regarding the initial construction or subsequent altering of the bill, no.  I mean, really, why should anyone who is vehemently opposed to mass transit be at a meeting about how to improve mass transit?  Should people opposed to public schooling be giving their input at public school board meetings?  If crossing their arms and yelling NO is all someone has to offer the debate, then that's fine, but that's what the vote is for. 

That’s like saying democrats shouldn’t be allowed into meetings regarding border control because they’re pro-immigration and lost an election. Whether anti-transit folks support transit or no, they still deserve, as taxpayers and citizens of our city, to be part of the discussion. If only to serve as a counter-balance to those who would bankrupt the city trying to create Tokyo-style transit or something. I’m pro-transit, too, I just don’t think opposing transit should mean that one’s voice shouldn’t be heard. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm for people being opposed to transit in meetings about transit, as long as they have ideas to fix things other than just, no.
NO NO NO. Is not an answer to any of the current congestion problems. 
Constructive criticism pushes the entire debate forward and makes the idea(s) better for everyone.
Well said!

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is utterly false. How do you not allow that a 'No' is every bit as valid as a 'Yes'?  A No vote by definition means a Davidson County taxpayer believes the current status quo is not only a solution, but a better solution than a 9 billion transportation plan.  You have every right to disagree, but it is hubristic to believe you may dictate the rules of civic engagement.

 

1 hour ago, PaulChinetti said:

I'm for people being opposed to transit in meetings about transit, as long as they have ideas to fix things other than just, no.

NO NO NO. Is not an answer to any of the current congestion problems. 

Constructive criticism pushes the entire debate forward and makes the idea(s) better for everyone.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, isn't making our city better.  I agree you can't force civic engagement, some people literally do not care. I don't think reasonable discourse is too much to ask for though? 

I completely understand No, I don't agree with everything our city does but you know what I do, I talk to my councilperson, I got to neighborhood meetings, I tweet, I email. 

To use a very recent example, Cloud Hill (old Greer) was a Yes in my book. But the No(s) won. Now they actually brought an idea to the table make it a park, for several reasons, etc. But they didn't have any idea how to pay for any of it, so now. Cloud Hill (old Greer) will sit there and continue to rot and nobody will be able to use it. So 'No' works and has worked, all I am saying is that you can be No and bring ideas to the table.

The status quo is not a solution. It's cost everyone (individuals, companies), time, money, pollution. So everyone should come to the table with ideas and not with No's.

http://thinktennessee.org/nashville-drivers-lose-33-hours-1300-per-year-traffic/

For people that think everything is just fine and we shouldn't change anything... you are right, I really don't have an answer for them, other than voting. You get out of things what you put into them is all I can say I guess?

And I'm not picking on you specifically @nashville_bound just so ya know. :tw_heart:

EDIT: Why they ruined a perfectly good infographic with those jumbled numbers and letters at the bottom is beyond me, it's like someone said "We need to spice it up a bit". Way to lose some of your credibility with that at the bottom.

Tennessee_Traffic_ThinkTennessee_Costs.jpg

Edited by PaulChinetti
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Rockatansky said:

What is the source of this claim? I've seen no indication that Nashville's growth will stop or reverse.

I was just kidding in response to another user's claim. I included the quote that I was replying to in my post. 

EDIT: I don't disagree with Ingram that residents come and go, and that millennials especially seem to city-hop a lot. I just don't see that having a negative influence on Nashville's mass transit. 

Edited by fishsticks176
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PaulChinetti said:

No, isn't making our city better.  I agree you can't force civic engagement, some people literally do not care. I don't think reasonable discourse is too much to ask for though? 

I completely understand No, I don't agree with everything our city does but you know what I do, I talk to my councilperson, I got to neighborhood meetings, I tweet, I email. 

To use a very recent example, Cloud Hill (old Greer) was a Yes in my book. But the No(s) won. Now they actually brought an idea to the table make it a park, for several reasons, etc. But they didn't have any idea how to pay for any of it, so now. Cloud Hill (old Greer) will sit there and continue to rot and nobody will be able to use it. So 'No' works and has worked, all I am saying is that you can be No and bring ideas to the table.

The status quo is not a solution. It's cost everyone (individuals, companies), time, money, pollution. So everyone should come to the table with ideas and not with No's.

http://thinktennessee.org/nashville-drivers-lose-33-hours-1300-per-year-traffic/

For people that think everything is just fine and we shouldn't change anything... you are right, I really don't have an answer for them, other than voting. You get out of things what you put into them is all I can say I guess?

And I'm not picking on you specifically @nashville_bound just so ya know. :tw_heart:

EDIT: Why they ruined a perfectly good infographic with those jumbled numbers and letters at the bottom is beyond me, it's like someone said "We need to spice it up a bit". Way to lose some of your credibility with that at the bottom.

Tennessee_Traffic_ThinkTennessee_Costs.jpg

Paul, no worries, I do not take many things personally, but I appreciate your message.

The difference in our views originates in my belief  a 'No' is a conscious policy choice (as in traffic is tolerable versus spending $9BIL on transit) whereas you characterize a 'No' as somehow not an answer. Many times the 'cure' is much worse than the 'disease'.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.