The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread

[BnaBreaker]

50 minutes ago, nashville_bound said:

Taking a break from summer vacay to again engage the group-think. 

Just because your opinion on a subject within a particular group is the minority opinion, doesn't mean the majority are a bunch of unthinking drones just going along with the crowd.  It could just as easily mean that you simply haven't caught up with conventional wisdom. 

I am not advocating that a double-decker interstate system is the answer to our traffic congestion in Nashville as I have seen no metrics (costs, time savings, etc...) to support such a position. Yet, neither have I seen data supporting mass-transit (as proposed by the recently defeated referendum) as a solution for Nashville. 

That is because, again, mass transit is not intended to be a traffic reduction tool.  It might have a marginal positive impact, but the whole point of mass transit is to provide people with options to get where they need to be, not to cut a few minutes off of a suburbanite's daily commute.  

Yet, when comments are made again and again deriding the 'cars are a way of life' mentality of most of your fellow citizens it convinces me that all of you are also ensconced in your own 'mental' prisons. 

The "cars are a way of life"  mentality is one based on reality.  It's accurate.  Cars are a way of life, for the vast majority of people.  Those people essentially have no choice in the matter, however,  if they want any semblance of a life at all, and THAT is what myself and others object to.  Not the notion that some people prefer cars to trains, but the notion that the status quo is just the way it is and there is nothing that could or should be done about it, because America.  I don't know how many times it needs to be repeated that nobody is trying to force people out of their cars.  This is all about providing people with transportation and mobility options.  Nobody advocates for investments into mass transit because they are interested in infringing on anyone's freedom of movement or their 'way of life.'  It's quite the opposite.  People advocate for investments into mass transit because they are interested in EXPANDING freedom of movement and ensuring that  those who are uninterested in or unable to own an automobile, or those who just don't want to have to drive everywhere, are able to have a life like everyone else and aren't left behind, which can be difficult to do in a city as dominated by automobile culture and design as Nashville.  As I said above, I don't think this is a matter of the rest of us existing in "mental prisons," so much as it is a matter of you (perhaps intentionally?) misunderstanding the underlying position and the basis for it to begin with.  

I get most commenting on this thread are strong mass-transit enthusiasts, yet your strong support for these large, tax-intensive proposals have not been able to convince Nashvillians of their net benefit. I do not believe all of these voters are uneducated bumpkins beholden to the Koch Bros. 

I think that if you take an objective look throughout this thread you'd be hard pressed to find any more than maybe one or two people (if any) who don't openly acknowledge the fact that the pro-transit side failed miserably in their effort to convince voters of the benefits and overcome the disinformation campaign, and I think you'll find even less people who view the no-voters all as "uneducated bumpkins."  However, that doesn't mean that perfectly reasonable, educated human beings aren't susceptible to  falling for disinformation.  It also doesn't mean that just because the referendum failed that any and all pro transit opinions and transit based solutions are invalid or wrong.  It doesn't even mean the specific transit based solution voted down was invalid or wrong.  All it means is that people weren't convinced this time.  

To pivot just a bit, I am curious if any of you are concerned about the transfer of wealth from the poor to the middle class and wealthy in many of these transportation programs – historically and present day.  Quickly coming to mind are projects such as – Amtrak, the Concorde, small municipal airports, present day high-speed rail schemes etc..…

Investments in Mass transit obviously benefit the poor, because it helps to increase the mobility of those who find it financially difficult or impossible to purchase and maintain an automobile, and this is the case regardless of whether or not some poor Nashvillians and those who represent them were convinced of that this time.   The drawbacks of being broke are the same in Nashville as they are in Los Angeles or Grand Rapids or Bogota or Osaka.   As for those other modes of transportation, that's a different story, and a different debate for a different time (and thread.)  

[titanhog]

I see many tout "options" as the main reason for mass-transit...and I agree that we need more options and that we are never going to truly alleviate traffic issues...just offer more options.  However...in my opinion, mass-transit is not the only option that should be considered.   We already know that the car is king (not only in the south, but in most cities in America).  So...we need not only options for inner-city travel (like mass transit)...but to also continue to provide options for those who will be driving.

To me...we need to come together with a comprehensive regional plan that includes the possibility of light rail...commuter rail to the burbs...new bus system...some roads widened (including I-840)...possible I-840 NW loop (from Lebanon to I-65)...new road between Smyrna and Cool Springs...double decker highways (if appropriate)...elevated railway...etc...etc...etc.  All of these elements have their pros and cons...but no single element is going to help solve anything.  It's got to be a combination...and because of cost, it will have to be incremental and long-term.

[MLBrumby]

Actually, the private sector built the very first subways/transit. 

[Flatrock]

Informative, well-researched article from today's The New York Times on:  'How the Koch Brothers Are Killing Public Transit Projects Around the Country'

Most of the article is about NASHVILLE, and what went down. Tons of quotable pieces. Some new info, at least for me. On the up side, they use a different, updated photo of downtown Nashville....

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/climate/koch-brothers-public-transit.html

[samsonh]

2 hours ago, Flatrock said:

Informative, well-researched article from today's The New York Times on:  'How the Koch Brothers Are Killing Public Transit Projects Around the Country'

Most of the article is about NASHVILLE, and what went down. Tons of quotable pieces. Some new info, at least for me. On the up side, they use a different, updated photo of downtown Nashville....

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/climate/koch-brothers-public-transit.html

Lol as if right on time for NB.

 

Edit to add I agree with him that the Koch's didn't kill this bill however. 

Edited June 19, 2018 by samsonh

[Bos2Nash]

17 hours ago, nashville_bound said:

Taking a break from summer vacay to again engage the group-think. 

I am not advocating that a double-decker interstate system is the answer to our traffic congestion in Nashville as I have seen no metrics (costs, time savings, etc...) to support such a position. Yet, neither have I seen data supporting mass-transit (as proposed by the recently defeated referendum) as a solution for Nashville.  Yet, when comments are made again and again deriding the 'cars are a way of life' mentality of most of your fellow citizens it convinces me that all of you are also ensconced in your own 'mental' prisons. 

I get most commenting on this thread are strong mass-transit enthusiasts, yet your strong support for these large, tax-intensive proposals have not been able to convince Nashvillians of their net benefit. I do not believe all of these voters are uneducated bumpkins beholden to the Koch Bros. In fact, since the most recent vote was held in one of the few 'blue' (D) voting counties in TN it leads me to believe the case for Mass-Transit fell short based on economic considerations or cost v benefit.

To pivot just a bit, I am curious if any of you are concerned about the transfer of wealth from the poor to the middle class and wealthy in many of these transportation programs – historically and present day.  Quickly coming to mind are projects such as – Amtrak, the Concorde, small municipal airports, present day high-speed rail schemes etc..…

Coming from a city that had worse traffic problems and a heavily used transit system, it isn't a mental prison. It's an understanding that transit will be a viable option within the city. I don't think that the Koch Brothers single handedly ruined the referendum. I believe they had a hand in financing the blantant falsehoods that many of the opponents put out, but they arent entirely to blame. The for transit group did not do nearly  enough to remove the stigma of a tax paid program. It doesn't even need to be transit for that to be an issue. Any program that will bring debt to the city while also being paid for by citizens (through taxes) will be a hard sell at times. Unfortunately this time, transit was the program that has to suffer, but eventually the option of mass-transit (some form of it)  will NEED to come online.

FWIW, transit is actually quite the equalizer in a way for the poor/middle/high class issue you bring up. With lack of affordable housing becoming more and more of an issue, transit will be a HUGE player in how the lower paid workers get in and out of the city. Amtrak for instance is actually a federally funded/subsidized program that makes most of its money/revenue/profit (minimal) in the northeast corridor where commuters are going primarily Boston-New York-Washington DC.

Edited June 19, 2018 by Bos2Nash

[Guest]

Are you addressing my comment? 

I would never make an absolute statement such as you posted.   The market cannot resolve everyones problems...and neither can government.  The market is instructive if allowed to function unencumbered and imparts information which allowing for the most efficient use of resources.

17 hours ago, grilled_cheese said:

I thought the private sector was going to solve all our problems?

 

[Pdt2f]

4 hours ago, Flatrock said:

Informative, well-researched article from today's The New York Times on:  'How the Koch Brothers Are Killing Public Transit Projects Around the Country'

Most of the article is about NASHVILLE, and what went down. Tons of quotable pieces. Some new info, at least for me. On the up side, they use a different, updated photo of downtown Nashville....

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/climate/koch-brothers-public-transit.html

To be honest, reading about how well organized and effective their campaign was makes the complete bed-sh#%*ing that was the pro-transit campaign much more glaring. Like really the only interaction I had with pro-transit canvassers was bumping into a couple of them wandering around in Sevier Park talking to randoms. The data based canvassing is so much more effective. 

One useful comparison to make is to compare the energetic notax canvassers with the people in the picture attending the transit event at TSU. 

[Guest]

I will have to attempt to respond to your rejoinder in sections as I will be in and out.

First - Yes, it is quite possible I am behind the intellectual curve regarding transit which is why I continue to offer my opinions and am grateful when others share theirs.

Second -  I am not sure how you could have followed the Mass Transit debate and not encountered many, official and non-official talking points from supporters making the claim of reduced traffic congestion as a reason to vote 'Yes' on the referendum. 

This from a cursory google search.

 

The case – Mass Transit will reduce Nashville traffic congestion was indeed offered during the Transit 'politicking' phase. I am not sure what you mean by "suburbanite's daily commute"? Who exactly is a suburbanite? Bellevue? Green Hills? Spring Hill? Hermitage? Franklin? Belle Meade? This matter of course because only Davidson County 'suburbanites' could vote.

https://www.nashvillescene.com/news/cover-story/article/20975206/at-the-halfway-point-of-her-term-mayor-megan-barry-discusses-transit-the-death-of-her-son-max-shortterm-rentals-and-a-possible-soccer-stadium

(Mayor Berry) – “Well, I think we have a window here of people right now who are sitting in traffic and feel the congestion in Nashville, and they want a solution.”

https://reason.org/commentary/beware-of-politicians-claiming-transit-projects-will-deliver-traffic-congestion-relief/

"Politicians and officials frequently claim that mass transit reduces traffic congestion. 

Former Nashville Mayor Megan Barry, for example, claimed that a light rail expansion plan was the “number one way” to reduce the region’s traffic congestion."

http://letsmovenashville.com/site/web/themes/NashPlan/downloads/TM7TravelTimeSavingsMemo_2018-05April.pdf

https://www.wkrn.com/news/nashville-2018/who-will-mass-transit-benefit-if-passed-in-nashville/1119249517

“I-24 is crazy. But not just 24, All of the little through roads and everything, in this area, they are in the morning, rush hour, in the afternoons, they are like packed,” said Councilwoman Lee, who represents District 33, including Antioch.

Lee believes the proposed transit plan will help alleviate some of the gridlock and said Antioch stands to benefit if it passes. 

 “When that transit center comes out here in this area, that's going to be a good thing.” 

Professor Janey Camp, who studies transportation solutions at Vanderbilt University, said the hubs and increased bus routes mean more economic opportunity and improved quality of life.

“I think those living along routes are going to see opportunities and businesses pop up along those routes that weren't there before and I think it will be easier to get where you need to go,” said Professor Camp. 

Professor Camp has analyzed the plan and said apart from decreased travel time and increased economic opportunities, low-income people and senior citizens will benefit. 

https://www.tennessean.com/story/opinion/2018/03/24/opinion-why-nashvilles-transit-plan-proposed-only-option/431952002/

“We are confident that the plan can reduce congestion and, what’s more, provide multiple convenient, affordable transportation options for everyone who needs them.”

 

17 hours ago, BnaBreaker said:

Just because your opinion on a subject within a particular group is the minority opinion, doesn't mean the majority are a bunch of unthinking drones just going along with the crowd.  It could just as easily mean that you simply haven't caught up with conventional wisdom. 

 

Quote

I am not advocating that a double-decker interstate system is the answer to our traffic congestion in Nashville as I have seen no metrics (costs, time savings, etc...) to support such a position. Yet, neither have I seen data supporting mass-transit (as proposed by the recently defeated referendum) as a solution for Nashville. 

 

That is because, again, mass transit is not intended to be a traffic reduction tool.  It might have a marginal positive impact, but the whole point of mass transit is to provide people with options to get where they need to be, not to cut a few minutes off of a suburbanite's daily commute.  

 

Edited June 19, 2018 by Guest

[titanhog]

^^This is probably part of the problem when it comes to an attempt to get citizens of Davidson County on board.  They're not as clueless as some believe.  They hear "it will help reduce congestion"...but then they see a $5 Billion plan that is just a few light rail lines in the middle of the city and they add up 2 + 2 and realize that what they're being told isn't going to happen.  It comes across as disingenuous.

Citizens need to know that mass transit is just an alternative way to get from A to B...not something that will help with congestion.  Until they are made to understand what they're getting...and also made to see the big picture and actually convinced of where it can personally help them in the future, they'll continue to vote it all down (and it won't matter what the Koch brothers or all other conservatives think in this blue county).

[Guest]

Quote

The "cars are a way of life"  mentality is one based on reality.  It's accurate.  Cars are a way of life, for the vast majority of people.  Those people essentially have no choice in the matter, however,  if they want any semblance of a life at all, and THAT is what myself and others object to.  Not the notion that some people prefer cars to trains, but the notion that the status quo is just the way it is and there is nothing that could or should be done about it, because America.  

(The above quote should be RED to be consistent)

I am not questioning the existence of an American nature of independence…it exists and historically it has included the revolution, democracy, liberty, the West, frontier, guns, mercantilism, capitalism, farming, and yes the automobile. I was questioning the derision used when transit boosters refer to the ‘cars are a way of life’ mentality. 

Is it not arrogant to believe the ‘vast majority of people’, currently ensconced in the afore mentioned ‘cars are a way of life’ mentality are somehow held captive in that primitive state? Is there no semblance of life in driving a car? Ha Seriously, these are the same people who voted 2:1 against mass transit in Nashville. ..or choose not to vote- which is choice against change. 
 

Quote

Not the notion that some people prefer cars to trains, but the notion that the status quo is just the way it is and there is nothing that could or should be done about it, because America.  I don't know how many times it needs to be repeated that nobody is trying to force people out of their cars. This is all about providing people with transportation and mobility options.  Nobody advocates for investments into mass transit because they are interested in infringing on anyone's freedom of movement or their 'way of life.' 

Not knowing you personally I hesitate to use the word disingenuous, yet I feel it fits when you say, “nobody is trying to force people out of their cars” for while you personally may not want less cars on the road, reducing cars is exactly the goal of many mass transit advocates. 

http://smartcity.deloitte.com/client_innovations/smart-cities-of-the-world-london/

“London’s congestion charging model, implemented in 2003 in Central London and then later expanded to Western parts of the city, is still more than a decade later the largest implementation of its kind in the world. The objective: reduce congestion by bringing about a modal shift away from single passenger vehicles in central London”


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/use-of-public-transit-isnt-surging/2014/03/20/0b44e522-b03b-11e3-95e8-39bef8e9a48b_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2eab3ef62312

“Resting our hopes on a transit comeback distracts from our real transportation problem, which can be summarized in four words: Driving is too cheap. Drivers impose costs on society — in delay, in pollution, in carbon, in wear and tear on our roads — that they don’t pay for. As a result, many of us drive more than we otherwise would. Ending this underpriced driving — through higher fuel taxes, parking and congestion charges and insurance premiums based on miles driven — is a central challenge for local, state and federal transportation officials. 

Charging the right price for driving would give drivers a better-performing system, both by reducing congestion and raising revenue to help repair roads. It would help communities and the planet by reducing pollution. And, not least, it would help public transportation by leveling the playing field between transit and private vehicles. Increased subsidies for public transportation have neither reduced driving nor increased transit use. But ending subsidies to driving probably would do both.

Ending these subsidies will be hard work, politically. Yet we will have no incentive to do this work if Americans continue to believe that transit is making a comeback on its own. It isn’t. Transit, like the rest of our transportation system, is in trouble. We need to act quickly to save it.”

https://www.uvm.edu/~transctr/research/trc_reports/UVM-TRC-13-010.pdf

“CONCLUSION 

While the social, economic, demographic and land-use obstacles to reducing SOV use are formidable, this research suggests that there are examples where government agencies and non-profits are reducing individual vehicle use. Reducing SOV use will take a combination of public policies (restricting parking, unlimited access programs) as well as organizational and individual behavior changes. Organizations can clearly play a role as we show here, but major changes will have to occur in both public policy and societal norms to address the institutional barriers that constrain change. “

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-san-diego-mass-transit-2016aug28-htmlstory.html

“A number of major cities, including D.C., have started to embrace dense, walkable development paired with expanded mass-transit systems. Some elected officials have even promoted controversial policies that discourage driving, such as making public parking more expensive or eliminating most of it.”

“At this point, there’s not sufficient political leadership. Transportation experts nationwide said that to realize small but consistent gains over many years, cities need to significantly expand mass-transit infrastructure, get businesses to subsidize employees who take the bus or train to work, create protected bike paths and make it painful for people to commute by minimizing parking lots and street parking.”
 

Quote

People advocate for investments into mass transit because they are interested in EXPANDING freedom of movement and ensuring that  those who are uninterested in or unable to own an automobile, or those who just don't want to have to drive everywhere, are able to have a life like everyone else and aren't left behind, which can be difficult to do in a city as dominated by automobile culture and design as Nashville. 

When not speaking in a military and/or national defense context, my Spidey-Sense always triggers when  people proclaim ‘freedom’ as their objective and higher taxes as the mechanism. Regardless I support you right to continue pressing to free the oppressed masses from their automobile shackles…. Regardless of their wants or desires.

20 hours ago, BnaBreaker said:

I am not advocating that a double-decker interstate system is the answer to our traffic congestion in Nashville as I have seen no metrics (costs, time savings, etc...) to support such a position. Yet, neither have I seen data supporting mass-transit (as proposed by the recently defeated referendum) as a solution for Nashville. 

I love the NYT piece! It demonstrates how issues important to the grassroots voter can be effectively championed with minimal resources. 

Makes one wonder where all the money for the 'Yes' camp went?!?$!$ I mean they had a 3:1 advantage and the power and full force of Metro behind the plan....what did all those PR consultation fees buy?

7 hours ago, Flatrock said:

Informative, well-researched article from today's The New York Times on:  'How the Koch Brothers Are Killing Public Transit Projects Around the Country'

Most of the article is about NASHVILLE, and what went down. Tons of quotable pieces. Some new info, at least for me. On the up side, they use a different, updated photo of downtown Nashville....

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/climate/koch-brothers-public-transit.html

 

Edited June 19, 2018 by Guest

[Tennessine]

My $.02 from a 21-year old. I think it's ironic when people cite the sales tax hike necessary for funding the transit plan as outrageous, yet they don't take issue with TN's flat tax rate that puts the sales tax through the roof? Haven't heard much fuss about our sales tax being the second highest in the nation.

[e-dub]

Yes, *just like you rarely hear about the fact that the tax burden here is incredibly low - for better and for worse.

Edited June 19, 2018 by e-dub

[Tennessine]

3 minutes ago, e-dub said:

Yes, *just like you rarely hear about the fact that the tax burden here is incredibly low - for better and for worse.

It's bizarre reasoning to me. It's like nonchalantly going about your day when 18 inches of rain is forecast for the evening, but losing your marbles and boarding up everything when the forecast is changed to 19 inches of rain.  

I'm not arguing against Tennessee's tax bracket, but rather confused with middle-class residents in Davidson County who were successfully convinced that their sales tax rate would be astronomically higher than the existing rate if it were increased half a percent, and another half a percent during the next decade. If the sales tax was a major concern to them when they went to the polls, shouldn't they also be frustrated with the state government's rate? 

And just like you said, Tennessee's total tax burden is among the lowest in the nation already. I was browsing through the Facebook threads  back in April (I know, I know), and people were convinced- literally- Davidson County would be taxed like Los Angeles. 

I know there's also much more to the story than just the tax increase itself, though I stand by my claim that it was the biggest concern for Davidson County voters. As we can see by the turnout in Davidson's middle and lower class precincts, it appears these folks also felt they weren't getting something that would actually benefit them at all. I scratch my head and wonder why they were so staunchly anti-transit, but it is their county, and they got to the polls and said, "This isn't for us. Try again!"

[Guest]

^^ The State of Tennessee voted to constitutionally prohibit all taxes on income by passing Amendment 3.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/28/tennessee-becomes-only-second-state-ever-to-eliminate-its-income-tax/

Income taxes levied on regular income was already unconstitutional, but prior to Amendment 3, TN levied income tax on investment income...this is now being phased out by reducing the rate 1% each year.

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2016/05/20/gov-bill-haslam-signs-hall-income-tax-cut-repeal-into-law/84044810/

So Tennesseans have decided a consumption tax or sales tax (along with business taxes, used fees and other sources) are the best way to fund the state operations.

Finally, a major reason you do not hear much grousing over the State Sales Tax (and local option) is it would still be here even if we had a state income tax ...see almost every other state.

[Pdt2f]

2 hours ago, nativetenn said:

As we can see by the turnout in Davidson's middle and lower class precincts, it appears these folks also felt they weren't getting something that would actually benefit them at all. I scratch my head and wonder why they were so staunchly anti-transit, but it is their county, and they got to the polls and said, "This isn't for us. Try again!"

Many of them rent, so property value increases would only serve to drive their rents up and push them further out. That’s just my thought for those who live in lower-middle class areas where there were going to be big improvements in transit. For those  who live where there wouldn’t be big improvements, not much of a surprise that those least able to afford any tax increases would vote against it. 

I think part of the problem with this transit attempt was that there was the perception that the plan was primarily to benefit those in the wealthier gentrified areas. And this may be untrue, I’m not arguing the validity of it. But that’s what I heard a lot of from people who lived outside of east Nashville, Inglewood, WeHo, etc, or at least from those who aren’t development nerds like myself and the present company. For myself being a homeowner in a part of town (Madison) that would have seen some decent upgrades with some possible future route expansions, I was seeing dollar signs. But for the people around here and other places that are lower-lower middle, they probably just looked at it as a step being taken to drive them out. 

[PaulChinetti]

Interesting graphic.  No more info on where the numbers come from though. 

Some of the replies ask some good questions. 

[PaulChinetti]

And this story on more interstates (lanes) and the costs that would entail. 

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/tn-elections/2018/06/20/tdot-diane-blacks-transportation-infrastructure-plan-could-cost-billions/718604002/

[nashvylle]

What does the Tennessean mean by “could” cost billions?? 

[Neigeville2]

On 6/18/2018 at 2:55 PM, GregH said:

I'm not in any way qualified to evaluate it but most of the transit folks I follow online seem to think Musk is all hype and no substance in this area. Example: https://pedestrianobservations.com/2017/12/15/elon-musks-ideas-about-transportation-are-boring/ 

Good article.  Frankly I have nothing but contempt for Musk and I'm sure he's selling fairy dust here, but it'll be interesting if he gets into a put-up-or-shut-up contract with Chicago.  He gets the most uncritical fawning reactions claiming as his own, various old ideas that he clearly hasn't thought through.  I'd rather people study why these cost reductions have already been achieved in full-size subways in Stockholm, Seoul and Madrid, as the article states.  I suspect it has more to do with politics and management than technology.

[PruneTracy]

11 hours ago, PaulChinetti said:

And this story on more interstates (lanes) and the costs that would entail. 

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/tn-elections/2018/06/20/tdot-diane-blacks-transportation-infrastructure-plan-could-cost-billions/718604002/

TDOT looked at the need to widen all rural interstates to six lanes a few years ago as part of their corridor studies.

• https://www.tn.gov/tdot/government/g/planning-studies/interstate-24-multimodal-corridor-study.html
• https://www.tn.gov/tdot/government/g/planning-studies/interstate-65-multimodal-corridor-study.html
• https://www.tn.gov/tdot/government/g/planning-studies/interstate-40-interstate-81-corridor-feasibility-study.html
• https://www.tn.gov/tdot/government/g/planning-studies/interstate-75-corridor-feasibility-study.html

The general conclusion of the studies was to undertake spot improvements, such as truck climbing lanes, as well as options for truck/rail diversion. But almost all of Tennessee's rural interstates are projected to operate at LOS D or worse within the next 25 years. Discounting developing technologies that would improve capacity, such as truck platooning, they will have to be widened if for no other reason than to maintain commerce.

As an aside, the "cost estimating tools" mentioned in the article are very conservative. It would still be expensive, though.

[PaulChinetti]

I have no idea about the costs that's for sure. It was mostly posted because it was in a tweet as I was half following along with the republican debate. And Diane Black didn't like the transit plan because it costs too much but she's ok with more money being spent on roads. 

 

Side Note:

urbanplanet is loading incredibly slow for me, like minutes to load, it just start at the end of last week and I can't figure it out. It's the only site that's having the problem. I haven't changed anything browser wise, anybody else having problems??

[donNdonelson2]

Loading at normal speed for me, both on mobile and home devices

[PaulChinetti]

It's 2 ads. 

Woof

[AronG]

13 hours ago, PaulChinetti said:

And this story on more interstates (lanes) and the costs that would entail. 

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/tn-elections/2018/06/20/tdot-diane-blacks-transportation-infrastructure-plan-could-cost-billions/718604002/

This article is full of amazing quotes.

Quote

Black's campaign said she wanted to add a third lane to interstates in rural areas because "driving from Lebanon to Cookeville during high volume windows can be just as hectic as downtown Nashville."

Finally. Lebanon to Cookeville. Right at the top of our priority list needs to be making sure that people can rocket from Lebanon to Cookeville, unimpeded, 100% of the time. Can you imagine if there were high volume windows where traffic on the huge interstate connecting these two rural locations dropped below 70 mph? Or if, in some kind of a horror story scenario, people were forced to use the deluxe backup highway system that is also maintained at high standards connecting those same municipalities, each of which represent a vanishingly small percentage of our state's economic activity?

Diane Black took a highly principled stand against the billion dollar government boondoggle transit plan. Sure, Nashville may be the economic engine of the state, but if big-city liberals want to spend a bunch of money on an alternative to crippling traffic jams they can get george soros to pay for it. That's why it makes 100% sense and isn't a boondoggle at all to spend $2.5 billion finishing 840, building a hundred miles of overspecced superhighway through vast stretches of sparsely populated farmland. Imagine the economic rewards we will reap when people are finally able to get from Dickson to Clarksville in 35 minutes instead of 45, and in quantities vastly greater than anyone is even remotely interested in. If we're lucky, it will be similar to the hotbed of economic activity unleashed when 840 finally provided interstate-grade connectivity between Dickson and Thompson's Station. Our problems will be solved. It's a no-brainer.

And that's before you even factor in Diane Black's trump card. As her spokesman triumphantly informs us:

Quote

Her plan can be paid for with a combination of federal, state and local funds over time, without raising taxes. She will use her relationships with the Trump Administration to make sure that federal funds can be used.

That's right! She knows how to kiss the ring. Can't put a pricetag on that. In theory these things are considered on the merits blah blah blah. Ha! Forget that; she has *relationships*. She knows a guy. She's going to call in a favor and make it rain.

The ex-TDOT guy's quote at the end pretty much sums up the state of play, if we had a lick of sense:

Quote

Speaking more generally on Black’s plan, Nicely said, “It seems to me that would be extraordinarily costly. Interstate improvements are one aspect, but I’m of the mind you’re never going to pave your way out of this problem,” he said