The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread

[Guest]

Ha, not to wax philosophically, but we are self-interested (you may say selfish) creatures and for good reasons. To state the obvious, supporters of the transit plan obviously believe it will be a net benefit while opponents of the transit plan believe it will not be a net benefit.  It is always puzzling when I read postings of shock or dismay at this fact.  

[SoundScan]

The generational entitlement is strong in this thread. Just remember that the pendulum swings both ways.

[Guest]

ha...I love the word entitled, but I do not believe most people use it correctly. Are you saying the 'older' generation on this board is somehow acting 'entitled' as opposed to the 'younger' members on the board? Do tell...
 

[ruraljuror]

7 minutes ago, nashville_bound said:

Ha, not to wax philosophically, but we are self-interested (you may say selfish) creatures and for good reasons. To state the obvious, supporters of the transit plan obviously believe it will be a net benefit while opponents of the transit plan believe it will not be a net benefit.  It is always puzzling when I read postings of shock or dismay at this fact.  

Making personal decisions based on your own self interest makes one a rational actor.  Making group decisions based on your own self interest makes one...something else.     

Though I disagree with it, I think you make a much stronger case that waiting for market solutions is what is in the city's best interest than waxing philosophically about the benefits of selfishness.  In addition to being self-interested creatures, we are social creatures and the early hominids wouldn't have gotten very far if the tribe fire pit was voted down by a coalition of raw food eaters, fur blanket traders, and those philosophically opposed to non-sun-related heat.  

[nashvylle]

1 hour ago, Flatrock said:

 

I'll be in my 70's when my own corridor (Nolensville Pike/Woodbine) light rail plan becomes a reality.  If I'm still alive, it won't be quite as exciting a prospect for me. Selfish? Maybe, but it's my reality.

 

you will be living long past your 70s!!

[AronG]

On 3/9/2018 at 5:11 PM, SoundScan said:

[snip] The total cost doesn't concern me given the amortization timeline, even when taking an overly conservative approach to forecasting Nashville's 30-year population growth and economic outlook. [...] My main concerns are the unknown amount of flexibility in the plan, the lack of dedicated right-of-way for much of the light rail system, and in the chosen primary routes in some areas. I also think more of the funding (or just more dedicated funding) should be appropriated for substantial increases in surface bus frequency and availability.  Would be curious to know others thoughts on the actual plan, for or against.

Yeah, it's a shame the way this has to play out. I wish there was more good-faith, informed discussion and debate about the actual plan (here and elsewhere). Like, about how to intelligently invest in a way that addresses both our short/medium term needs and take steps towards making Nashville the best possible city in 30 or 50 or 100 years. Instead the misinformation and FUD spigots open up and the volume gets turned to 11 and we spend all our time yelling back and forth about the definition of basic words and concepts. We're like the thousandth city in the world to reach the size where car traffic becomes impractical, do we really have to re-debate the nature of government or whatever?

If it wasn't all hands on deck to defend the basic idea (marginally raise taxes to start getting serious about transit) we could presumably devote more effort towards making the plan stronger. I was thinking, for example, that they should consider phasing in the heavier transit on the corridors. Like, they could do the land/ROW acquisition, but just pave it at first and get it up and running with dedicated-lane Bus Rapid Transit with scaled-back stations. Spend a few years getting all the corridors running, improving sidewalks, and encouraging more dense development to fill in with less parking, then start switching over to tracks. This would also have the benefit of allowing us a few more years to assess where autonomous cars are headed.

Unfortunately, any debate about the details of the plan right now is quickly drafted into the cause of trying to kill the whole thing. I guess the time for nuance was during the nMotion/NashvilleNext process, etc. Maybe after the vote passes (if it does) people will be able to let go of the angry, ideological part of this and have more constructive debates about exactly how to proceed.

Edited March 12, 2018 by AronG

[Guest]

My statement was consistent. Making group decisions based on your own self interest makes one....not something else at all, but a rational actor when you are making a decision as a group because your individual self-interests aligns with the other individuals in the group. 
I may not like it, but my individual self-interest, even when aligned into a larger group may be trumped by a another self-interested group via majority vote (within parameters). My recourse is to campaign to recruit other like-minded individuals to my group, thus increasing its size, or move to another locale where I join other like-minded individuals. Happens everyday.


 

28 minutes ago, ruraljuror said:

Making personal decisions based on your own self interest makes one a rational actor.  Making group decisions based on your own self interest makes one...something else.     

Though I disagree with it, I think you make a much stronger case that waiting for market solutions is what is in the city's best interest than waxing philosophically about the benefits of selfishness.  In addition to being self-interested creatures, we are social creatures and the early hominids wouldn't have gotten very far if the tribe fire pit was voted down by a coalition of raw food eaters, fur blanket traders, and those philosophically opposed to non-sun-related heat.  

 

[SoundScan]

28 minutes ago, nashville_bound said:

ha...I love the word entitled, but I do not believe most people use it correctly. Are you saying the 'older' generation on this board is somehow acting 'entitled' as opposed to the 'younger' members on the board? Do tell...
 

All generations have a sense of entitlement that only deepens as they age. And yes, older generations have a natural tendency toward projecting their own inherent sense of entitlement onto the generations that come after them. It is simple human nature that people in power will attempt to shift and deflect blame or responsibility. That is why I mentioned that the pendulum swings both ways: each subsequent generation tends to correct--and even over-correct--for the one preceding it, for better or worse. 

[Guest]

Are you able to better define the referenced entitlements with specifics? 

[PaulChinetti]

https://www.vox.com/2017/12/20/16772670/baby-boomers-millennials-congress-debt

I read this today. The book is in my cart to buy. 

"I'll give you something abstract and something concrete. On an abstract level, I think the worst thing they’ve done is destroy a sense of social solidarity, a sense of commitment to fellow citizens. That ethos is gone and it’s been replaced by a cult of individualism. It’s hard to overstate how damaging this is...."

[Guest]

Because....I want PLAN A, PLAN A is good, if anyone objects to PLAN A by definition they are not good. How dare anyone actually discuss the merits or the means to obtain the obviously good PLAN A! If everyone with just shut about PLAN A we could then make PLAN A better!!! 

All hail PLAN A! ha

 

23 minutes ago, AronG said:

Yeah, it's a shame the way this has to play out. I wish there was more good-faith, informed discussion and debate about the actual plan (here and elsewhere). Like, about how to intelligently invest in a way that addresses both our short/medium term needs and take steps towards making Nashville the best possible city in 30 or 50 or 100 years. Instead the misinformation and FUD spigots open up and the volume gets turned to 11 and we spend all our time yelling back and forth about the definition of basic words and concepts. We're like the thousandth city in the world to reach the size where car traffic becomes impractical, do we really have to re-debate the nature of government or whatever?

If it wasn't all hands on deck to defend the basic idea (marginally raise taxes to start getting serious about transit) we could presumably devote more effort towards making the plan stronger. I was thinking, for example, that they should consider phasing in the heavier transit on the corridors. Like, they could do the land/ROW acquisition, but just pave it at first and get it up and running with dedicated-lane Bus Rapid Transit with scaled-back stations. Spend a few years getting all the corridors running, improving sidewalks, and encouraging more dense development to fill in with less parking, then start switching over to tracks. This would also have the benefit of allowing us a few more years to assess where autonomous cars are headed.

Unfortunately, any debate about the details of the plan right now is quickly drafted into the cause of trying to kill the whole thing. I guess the time for nuance was during the nMotion/NashvilleNext process, etc. Maybe after the vote passes (if it does) people will be able to let go of the angry, ideological part of this and have more constructive debates about exactly how to proceed.

 

Edited March 12, 2018 by Guest

[BolaKnows]

23 minutes ago, AronG said:

Unfortunately, any debate about the details of the plan right now is quickly drafted into the cause of trying to kill the whole thing

Unfortunately, that seems to be our trend since the 1980s: https://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2017/07/01/a-generational-failure-as-the-u-s-fantasizes-the-rest-of-the-world-builds-a-new-transport-system/

The promise of whatever new whiz-bang technology always justifies doing nothing now and investing the bare minimum, if that, instead of actually getting started on the work of building a system.

[Guest]

you lost me at VOX! 

J/K I read the piece...not adding much....Baby Boomers are bad (I am not one) they killed everything good and wholesome in the world....if only the Millennials and GenX would put down the bongs and vote we would have Utopia!

 

5 minutes ago, PaulChinetti said:

https://www.vox.com/2017/12/20/16772670/baby-boomers-millennials-congress-debt

I read this today. The book is in my cart to buy. 

"I'll give you something abstract and something concrete. On an abstract level, I think the worst thing they’ve done is destroy a sense of social solidarity, a sense of commitment to fellow citizens. That ethos is gone and it’s been replaced by a cult of individualism. It’s hard to overstate how damaging this is...."

 

Edited March 12, 2018 by Guest

[SoundScan]

7 minutes ago, nashville_bound said:

Are you able to better define the referenced entitlements with specifics? 

I'm speaking of entitlements as a psychological construct, not some political hot potato like Social Security or Medicare. That people feel more entitled as they age is pretty well understood and accepted, as is their tendency to project it onto others. That they don't feel even a tinge of irony when doing so is a perpetual conundrum.

[dmillsphoto]

8 minutes ago, nashville_bound said:

you lost me at VOX! 

Vox only skews liberal. (Well, "ox" below)

 

[SoundScan]

TLDR: Baby Boomers wanted to feel the same sense of accomplishment of their parents' generation, mortgaged their kids' generation to get it, remains to be seen whether GenX/Y generation will pay the price or attempt to kick the can down the road, as it were.

[Guest]

I am unable to send vocal on your posted graphic. Here is one I like to reference....alas all are subjective.

 

 

 

^^We are in complete agreement. However is this the entitlement referenced above?

 

Edited March 12, 2018 by Guest

[ruraljuror]

36 minutes ago, nashville_bound said:

My statement was consistent. Making group decisions based on your own self interest makes one....not something else at all, but a rational actor when you are making a decision as a group because your individual self-interests aligns with the other individuals in the group. 
I may not like it, but my individual self-interest, even when aligned into a larger group may be trumped by a another self-interested group via majority vote (within parameters). My recourse is to campaign to recruit other like-minded individuals to my group, thus increasing its size, or move to another locale where I join other like-minded individuals. Happens everyday.


 

 

 

I think it's kind of telling that you completely fail to acknowledge any situation in which your self interest might conflict with the best interests of the group.  In fact you fail to acknowledge a greater good beyond your self interest at all.  If you find that your perception of what's best for the city (or state, or country, or your family, company, etc.) is always perfectly in line with what is best for you personally, then it's a pretty good sign that you may be letting a little personal bias seep into your decision-making process.   

 

[ruraljuror]

 

While I can empathize with the reaction, I certainly don't think it's fair to single out the Baby Boomers for anything really.  Every generation has more than its fair share of rotten apples, and if any given problem is truly more widespread among the Boomers, then it's really hard to blame them since the causes would have had to have been systemic and about the circumstances under which they were raised for the generational variation to be significant. 

Edited March 12, 2018 by ruraljuror

[Flatrock]

4 hours ago, PaulChinetti said:

I admire (begrungingly) that you at least admit you're being selfish. 

Do you have kids, friends, family that would use the system? Do you really not care about anybody else in the city but yourself?

That to me is the craziest part. 

Really didn't see any of that coming. I cannot imagine how you got that from me sharing my perspective, but you did.

Actually, the point I tried to convey - is that the extended timeline doesn't excite me.  Was hoping for access within my lifetime. Was hoping for a solution that  could be implemented faster. Does that make me a bad person? The reason I'll (likely) ultimately vote for it is absolutely for posterity...for the benefit of others.  I care deeply about people, though I live that out imperfectly on a daily basis.

By the way, if a person can't admit to having selfish motivations on a regular basis, reality may have evaporated.

[PaulChinetti]

Just how I read it from your post, I obviously misread, I apologize. 

I don’t like it taking forever either but Rome wasn’t built in a day and neither are transit systems.

I defintely admit to liking the plan because it fixes problems in my neighborhood but I doubt I will still be living here by the time they are actually implemented/fixed. But it will make life better for the people that come after me in the neighborhood. 

[fishsticks176]

This discussion seems to belong in the "Self Interest" coffeehouse thread. However, since it's happening here, I'll add my two cents below:

 

I understand where Nashville_Bound is coming from in that group decisions are reached by tallying a multitude of self-interested parties, and the party with the most amount of people then comes out the victor. It seems an honest way to weigh the pros and cons of a decision against the general population and to avoid the possible convolution of everyone politely voting against their own desires due to an impression that others want and would benefit from a contrasting vote, thus ultimately resulting in an decision that does not benefit the masses and that very few actually desire.

 

There is, however, another level that I think should weigh heavily on one's vote--the *extent* to which either party will be impacted (negatively or positively) by a vote either for or against. Hypothetically, if a proposed plan affects me negatively more or less to the same extent that it affects the other party positively, then a self-oriented vote is the only fair method of coming to a conclusion. I think where a lot of the contention is coming from on this thread is the notion (perceived or otherwise) that the naysayers of the transit plan are doing so not because the plan will negatively affect them in any major capacity, but because it will not explicitly *benefit* them, or because it will negatively affect them in a way that is disproportionately small compared to the positive benefit that it is expected to have on a perceived majority of Nashvillians or on Nashville itself. 

 

My personal opinion is that the funding plan is set up in a way that no Nashville resident is majorly inconvenienced or negatively impacted by it, and so anti-transit arguments basing themselves on one's personal increased spending on sales tax (which is estimated to be only $300-some dollars per year per household, according to a Nashville Biz Journal post that Mark has previously posted on this thread) seem *unjustifiably* selfish when weighed against the larger benefits that the plan is expected to give to many Nashvillians, even if those many do not represent the majority ("Most of you aren't even going to use it!") I can understand more the arguments basing themselves on the inconvenience of construction or the worry of financial ruin for the city, the latter of which I may argue is not selfish at all. 

 

All that said, it's not evil to vote according to your own self-interests, but I do believe it to be distasteful to throw out the scales completely and adamantly value one's own very minor issue over the very major issue of others.  

 

 

Edited March 12, 2018 by fishsticks176

[Flatrock]

1 hour ago, PaulChinetti said:

Just how I read it from your post, I obviously misread, I apologize. 

You're good with me, brother. Thank you!

[Rockatansky]

19 hours ago, ruraljuror said:

Making personal decisions based on your own self interest makes one a rational actor. 

Not when those decisions stand in opposition to the greater or common good.  A rational, reasonable person understands that political decisions should be made primarily with the people in mind, not ones self.

Edited March 13, 2018 by Rockatansky

[Guest]

We definitely should bring the conversation back to transit.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/12/17109708/via-arlington-texas-rideshare-app-replaces-bus

 

 

and a short response.....

To make such an all-encompassing, hypothetical statement without any specifics is useless. I mean are you asking me - if I would willingly sacrifice myself if my death today would save the world tomorrow (think the movie Armageddon or Jesus Christ).... ? ...  or are you asking me - if I will vote higher taxes on myself so monies, which could be more efficiently spent by me, could be given to a bloated,inefficient government entity for a vanity project? As you would expect I would have different responses to those questions.

now on to the miracle of our time - transit!

 

18 hours ago, ruraljuror said:

 

I think it's kind of telling that you completely fail to acknowledge any situation in which your self interest might conflict with the best interests of the group.  In fact you fail to acknowledge a greater good beyond your self interest at all.  If you find that your perception of what's best for the city (or state, or country, or your family, company, etc.) is always perfectly in line with what is best for you personally, then it's a pretty good sign that you may be letting a little personal bias seep into your decision-making process.   

 

 

Edited March 13, 2018 by Guest