The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread

[BnaBreaker]

1 hour ago, nashville_bound said:

Your attempt at humor is actually legitimate point.

Does Metro has unlimited resources? Why would you not want your government to efficiently and effectively use taxpayer funds? 

If a street has become derelict due to changing development and traffic patterns it should be removed to save maintenance costs and hopefully the property would be returned to the tax rolls. 

Now of course your flippant example has nothing in reality to do with my advocating bus service that morphs over time to better serve the city residences. The dismissive attitudes of transit fanboys is a large reason the $9billion Transit Plan went up in flames. Instead of advocating endless bike lanes, more frequent bus service for empty busses, and dedicated transit lanes - to hell with the motorists  - maybe you should at least try and listen when others have ideas to improve the existing system.  A massive transit referendum will never pass in Nashville unless the majority of voters believe wise governance is in place, and that starts with the existing systems.

 

 

Nashville has to develop more of a transit culture if it has any hope in the future of developing a functional transit system.   So I think that at this point, some combination of route reduction and increasing frequency on more popular routes is probably the best solution for now.  I suppose it's a chicken or egg discussion, but I suspect most buses would be less empty if the system as a whole were more convenient to use.  So I don't think the solution for a poorly-funded, difficult to use, broken system is to fund it even less and make it even more difficult to use.  That being said, as you have argued, rather than increasing (or decreasing) the budget perhaps the transit budget could simply be used smarter and more efficiently by being focused more heavily on the lines that do get used the most.  I would support a transition like this if an effort were made to provide options for transit-reliant people, few in number as they may be, in the more far-flung neighborhoods who would be left out to dry as a result of said transition.  

Edited October 2, 2018 by BnaBreaker

[SoundScan]

You're only advocating for the automobile because it's the status quo. People commute in cars on roads because that's where nearly every cent of transportation spending has been allocated over the last 65 years. It also happens to be the most expensive and inefficient form of transportation in existence. Why does the bus service have low ridership in Nashville? Simple: because it receives no investment--a predictable result that should seem obvious in a capitalist economy. Compare BLS consumer expenditures on transportation and you'll find they are significantly (20%-40%) lower in areas with mature public/mass/alternative transportation systems.

Unfortunately, the development patterns borne by the now monolithic transportation infrastructure in Middle Tennessee makes correcting back toward a system of balance and options more difficult and expensive with every passing day. I agree that voters should have some say in how their dollars are spent in this area, but I think we can also agree that a large percentage of citizens know next to nothing about transportation systems and their various modes and models. It's human nature for most to embrace the status quo, but in Nashville's case there are many external forces that will necessitate some changes if the city wants to avoid a perpetual rush hour. Some of those changes will come naturally from the market, but anything significant is going to need real public investment.

[AronG]

4 hours ago, nashville_bound said:

Your attempt at humor is actually a legitimate point.

Does Metro have unlimited resources? Why would you not want your government to efficiently and effectively use taxpayer funds? 

If a street has become derelict due to changing development and traffic patterns it should be removed to save maintenance costs and hopefully the property would be returned to the tax rolls. 

Now of course your flippant example has nothing in reality to do with my advocating bus service that morphs over time to better serve the city residences. The dismissive attitudes of transit fanboys is a large reason the $9billion Transit Plan went up in flames. Instead of advocating endless bike lanes, more frequent bus service for empty busses, and dedicated transit lanes - to hell with the motorists  - maybe you should at least try and listen when others have ideas to improve the existing system.  A massive transit referendum will never pass in Nashville unless the majority of voters believe wise governance is in place, and that starts with the existing systems.

You misunderstand me my friend. In your fight for efficient and effective use of government funds I'm on your side. I'm actually in favor of efficient and effective use of all manner of funds. If you're open to debate on the topic, I'd make the case that what we're currently doing falls very low on any measure of efficiency. A comparison to many world cities and their ability to move people around will bear me out on this. Pointing out that the streets are often empty is not internet forum board trolling (which, as we all know is suuuuper juvenile and boring and played out). I'm not dismissing your thoughts on bus service, which sound fine to me. I'm only pointing out we'd be applying a double standard here if all the rigor is applied to buses and none to cars. Mostly empty streets occur for very similar reasons as mostly empty buses. Comparing them is fair and substantive if you let it be.

Based on your comments you're pretty satisfied with our current transportation system. No worries! Let's not get all rude about it or spin up exaggerations to get offended by ('to hell with motorists'?). You and I would obviously disagree about a lot of stuff, but you're a smart guy and I enjoy reading your perspective when you aren't peaved.

[PruneTracy]

39 minutes ago, AronG said:

I'm not dismissing your thoughts on bus service, which sound fine to me. I'm only pointing out we'd be applying a double standard here if all the rigor is applied to buses and none to cars. Mostly empty streets occur for very similar reasons as mostly empty buses. Comparing them is fair and substantive if you let it be.

Doesn't that depend on the relative costs of maintaining an underutilized street versus an underutilized transit line?

[Guest]

Not offended at all, but I appreciate the concern.

Ah, but you see 'my friend' I am not for picking the pockets of citizens to fulfill the fantasies of technocrats. The beauty of our system is it allows the individual (for the most part) decide the best use for his/her earned income. 

Once the government has succeeded in picking the pocket of the individual I am all for the the most efficient use of those funds, mainly to combat the never satisfied gaping-maw of the state.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, SoundScan said:

Compare BLS consumer expenditures on transportation and you'll find they are significantly (20%-40%) lower in areas with mature public/mass/alternative transportation systems.

I appreciate your response. Yes we can spend Billions and Billions and Billions and yes, ridership would probably increase....that is no way to make the expenditure effective. What is the opportunity cost? This money is not created out of thin air (an aside to be precise and not political ....unless we are back in the Obama Admin and the presses are still on full blast).

Also, why do many on this board insist they know better than the actual taxpayers of Nashville. It is at once funny and insulting. The taxpayers have decided the transit model is NOT for them...not for their lifestyle...not for their wants or needs. Maybe I spend more on transit by owning a car, but hey I have a car! I can go where I want, when I want.... not sure of  the value proposition to counter those facts.

Edited October 3, 2018 by Guest

[Guest]

52 minutes ago, AronG said:

A comparison to many world cities and their ability to move people around will bear me out on this. Pointing out that the streets are often empty is not internet forum board trolling (which, as we all know is suuuuper juvenile and boring and played out). I'm not dismissing your thoughts on bus service, which sound fine to me. I'm only pointing out we'd be applying a double standard here if all the rigor is applied to buses and none to cars. Mostly empty streets occur for very similar reasons as mostly empty buses. Comparing them is fair and substantive if you let it be.

I already agreed to your point of closing abandoned roads...let's define abandoned. If the road leads to a residence/business it is not abandoned. In fact I have supported the abandonment of alleys that no longer support their historic utilitarian function.

My larger point is that I am not applying the same standard to buses and cars because the buses are operated with public funds and the cars are not. The roads are infrastructure not a conveyance... apples and oranges.

[SoundScan]

2 hours ago, nashville_bound said:

I appreciate your response. Yes we can spend Billions and Billions and Billions and yes, ridership would probably increase....that is not way make the expenditure effective. What is the opportunity cost? This money is not created out of thin are (an aside to be precise and not political ....unless we are back in the Obama Admin and the presses are still on full blast).

Also, why does many on this board insist they know better than the actual taxpayers of Nashville. It is at once funny and insulting. The taxpayers have decided the transit model is NOT for them...not for their lifestyle...not for the wants or needs. Maybe I spend more on transit, but hey I have a car! I can go where I want, when I want.... not sure of  the value proposition to counter those facts.

The best comparison to make would be to the total expenditures on road design, ROW acquisition, construction, maintenance, business disruption, and average commute times a over a particular time period against what a multi-modal transit system may have cost that would move similar numbers of commuters. This is obviously a complex calculation. I'm not pushing a silver bullet solution--cars and roads still need to exist.

I was a taxpayer in Nashville for 16 years before I moved this year, and I feel pretty confident that I know far more about transportation solutions than the vast majority of the voter rolls. I think you'd find that most haven't had the opportunity to experience a true multi-modal transit model, especially outside of a tourist setting. An easy analogy is a child that dislikes a particular food he's never actually tried--experience makes liars of us all.

[samsonh]

2 hours ago, nashville_bound said:

I appreciate your response. Yes we can spend Billions and Billions and Billions and yes, ridership would probably increase....that is not way make the expenditure effective. What is the opportunity cost? This money is not created out of thin are (an aside to be precise and not political ....unless we are back in the Obama Admin and the presses are still on full blast).

Also, why does many on this board insist they know better than the actual taxpayers of Nashville. It is at once funny and insulting. The taxpayers have decided the transit model is NOT for them...not for their lifestyle...not for the wants or needs. Maybe I spend more on transit, but hey I have a car! I can go where I want, when I want.... not sure of  the value proposition to counter those facts.

“Pressers on full blast” = not understanding how banking and federal finance works.

[Guest]

I understand QE it and I despise it...although it seems to be the  saveur du jour for lefty economists.....

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/23/printing-money-books-john-cassidy

 

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, SoundScan said:

I was a taxpayer in Nashville for 16 years before I moved this year, and I feel pretty confident that I know far more about transportation solutions than the vast majority of the voter rolls. I think you'd find that most haven't had the opportunity to experience a true multi-modal transit model, especially outside of a tourist setting. An easy analogy is a child that dislikes a particular food he's never actually tried--experience makes liars of us all.

Thank you for making my point. I do not deny your truth.

It is quite a leap of logic to say that if only the citizens of Nashville were more experienced/worldly/intelligent they would support my position. I do not doubt your vast experience with transit, but it is your experience. I have ample experience with transit as well (split time in DC, lived in NY and Philly) and there is no substitute for my car...none. 

 

[SoundScan]

You haven't made any point, although as always you casually ignore the meaningful parts of my post. You call discussing low information voters "funny and insulting;" I simply call it reality. 

And you misunderstood the analogy. There is no assumption that the child (or voter) will like the food (transport model) once they tried it, simply that they've now gained the experience and knowledge to make an informed decision, for or against. 

Enjoy your car, sitting idle 95% of the time, and depreciating.

[Mr_Bond]

1 hour ago, nashville_bound said:

I understand QE it and I despise it...although it seems to be the  saveur du jour for lefty economists.....
 

Some minor economic points.  By "lefty" economists, I assume you mean Keynesian economics.  I'm not sure I would use the word 'lefty' to describe it but it certainly plays well with the 'big government' crowd, which includes quite a few from the right.  Keynesian economics does not work, makes the business cycle swing to higher highs and lower lows, creates a federal debt burden because it is paired with human beings in government, causes inflation, causes income inequality (if you care about that), and, well, that's enough for now.  If you want to believe an economic theory that works, study the Austrian school of economics.  www.mises.org

Actually, your comment about "presses on full blast" is pretty much spot on.  When the Fed buys Treasuries from a dealer, it takes possession of the Treasury and puts excess reserves (out of thin air) on deposit with the bank that sold the Treasury to the Fed.  That bank now has excess reserves to lend, also expanding the money supply.

Back to the Transportation Megathread!

[Guest]

I am an avid fan of Mises and Hayek.

[samsonh]

3 hours ago, nashville_bound said:

I understand QE it and I despise it...although it seems to be the  saveur du jour for lefty economists.....

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/23/printing-money-books-john-cassidy

 

Unfortunately he also misunderstands this issue. I will link a simple primer. Also a thought experiment: if QE is printing money, is QT money destruction?

https://www.pragcap.com/understanding-quantitative-easing/

 

one last question: why do you hate something that has worked? Seems strange.

this link might be the best for you guys:

https://www.pragcap.com/mechanics-qe-transaction/

 

Pretty sure no one In any important position takes mises seriously anymore. Even your Fed subscribes to MMT.

 

quote from Ben: “Now, what these reserves are is essentially deposits that commercial banks hold with the Fed, so sometimes you hear the Fed is printing money, that’s not really happening, the amount of cash in circulation is not changing. What’s happening is that banks are holding more and more reserves with the Fed.”

Edited October 3, 2018 by samsonh

[Nathan_in_DC]

On 10/1/2018 at 10:07 AM, titanhog said:

Channel 4 now taking on "empty buses."

https://www.wsmv.com/news/empty-and-near-empty-city-buses-cost-taxpayers-millions/article_a7adafda-c1e2-11e8-b87e-4ff5c9eea0a0.html

There's something Linda Henderson can't help but notice about her daily commute.

“There's usually less than 5 people on it,” Henderson said.

And a News4 I-Team investigation found her situation isn't unique.

Route after route with empty seats. All while taxpayers pay millions for these routes.

“There are many times when I was coming back from a play at TPAC and I’m the only one on the bus,” said Rae Keohane who was against the transit plan.

News4 found one bus, which runs along West End avenue empty for more than 30 minutes.

On the Grassmere-Edmondson route, it was empty for 19 minutes before someone finally got on. And that was during morning rush hour.

The transit authority is currently examining routes to see which routes may have too few riders. But then there's this problem. Take away the route, and what happens to the riders?

“That's still a service those people, and they may only be the one or two people on that bus but they rely on that bus,” said Clelland.

Of course, there are times when the buses are packed.

Like the bus running along Dickerson Road on a busy Friday afternoon.

I read this yesterday. What horrible reporting. They completely ignore the reasons for low ridership and just pander to the anti transit crowd. 

[AronG]

Ability of some on this forum to drive conversations about city building back into endless rehashing of national political/tribal grievances is formidable. It's kind of a waste of everyone's time though; we're all pretty familiar with the talking points by now.

If your #1 priority is small government/market solutions, and the effort to build a great city is somewhere below that, you're obviously going to arrive at different conclusions. You would prefer, for example, to accept a less efficient and useful transportation system if its funding was routed through private entities (e.g. requiring businesses to build parking, tacitly requiring citizens to own cars, etc.).

To me I'm not really ideological about the size of government or whatever, I care only about the end result. And in my experience, every single great urban environment I've been in relied on public amenities, funded and managed through the mechanisms of the local government. If there are exceptions - urban environments with great quality of life that were created with minimal public investment - I would love to hear about them from the small government crowd, because it seems like those could be some interesting areas of common ground.

[Guest]

I do enjoy hearing the viewpoints of others...even those of which I disagree. Let me offer a suggestion.  If you find my posts to be ideologically driven and not responsive to the subject at hand....ignore them. Simple! I would never encourage you to sully your ideologically agnostic bona fides on my behalf. It is surprising I find the need to offer this suggestion as I assume you are an adult and more than capable of deciding which posts elicit a response. I often just 'like' a response and do not type a reply...if so-called, feel free to do the same.

To be clear: I care much more about the state of our larger society, including individual freedoms, than I do about Nashville mass transit. There I said it, whew...out of the closet at last!!

 

Edited October 3, 2018 by Guest

[AronG]

48 minutes ago, nashville_bound said:

To be clear: I care much more about the state of our larger society, including individual freedoms, than I do about Nashville mass transit.

Yes, you've been entirely consistent on that accord. Very reliably consistent. Relentlessly consistent, one might call it.

As you are charitably dedicating your time towards contributing your thoughts here on the Transportation & Mass Transit thread on the Nashville UrbanPlanet site, though, you presumably have *some* interest in Nashville transportation. In celebration and emulation of your salutary enjoyment in hearing the viewpoints of others, may I ask again what cities or urban environments best blend individual freedoms with the greatest ability to navigate the urban landscape? Are there cities larger than Nashville that we can learn from, or are we forging a new path?

[Mr_Bond]

 

15 hours ago, samsonh said:

Unfortunately he also misunderstands this issue. I will link a simple primer. Also a thought experiment: if QE is printing money, is QT money destruction?

https://www.pragcap.com/understanding-quantitative-easing/

 

one last question: why do you hate something that has worked? Seems strange.

this link might be the best for you guys:

https://www.pragcap.com/mechanics-qe-transaction/

 

Pretty sure no one In any important position takes mises seriously anymore. Even your Fed subscribes to MMT.

 

quote from Ben: “Now, what these reserves are is essentially deposits that commercial banks hold with the Fed, so sometimes you hear the Fed is printing money, that’s not really happening, the amount of cash in circulation is not changing. What’s happening is that banks are holding more and more reserves with the Fed.”

The Federal Reserve is a Keynesian institution.  The Austrian school says it is detrimental.  It causes inflation (they have a mandate for price stability but have set a 2% inflation target).  It inflates the money supply in the mistaken belief that an increase in money supply will stimulate economic growth.  It does not.  It reduces interest rates which cause business decision makers undertake projects they would not otherwise undertake, thereby stimulating the economy with artificially viable activity.  Once the tightening begins, business decision makers see that their projections which showed the viability of a project are no longer valid, so economic activity decreases.  We are left with massive debt but an economy which hasn't grown much.

Yes, QT is money destruction.

Quoting and referencing Keynesian economists is to use circular logic.  Of course they will state that their theory works.  However, it does not.  The debt added to our national economy via Keynesian fiscal and monetary policy has reduced the rate of growth of our GDP.  Do a graph of the federal debt and annual growth rates in GDP since 1970 and you will see.

Actually, there are "important" people who are Austrians.  Besides, this is not a popularity contest.  Truth is not defined by how many people believe it.

[markhollin]

Metro wants to get cars off the city's crowded downtown streets, and it's launched a new program to make it happen.

Here's how the program is designed to work: A downtown employer will contact Clements' team to conduct an analysis of what alternative transportation options might best suit the needs of the company's employees. That free analysis will make a variety of recommendations, including potential flexible work hours, carpool or vanpool options and transit solutions. After the analysis is finalized, the program's success hinges on Clements' team educating employees about what options are available.

"We want to create a shift in how people think about transportation," Clements said, adding her team's goal is to persuade 10 percent of the downtown employees who drive to work alone to change their habits, even if it's just for a few days per week. Currently, 84 percent of downtown's roughly 72,000 employees drive to work alone, according to Clements.

More at NBJ here:

https://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2018/10/09/metro-launches-program-to-get-downtown-workers-out.html

[PaulChinetti]

"Currently, 84 percent of downtown's roughly 72,000 employees drive to work alone, according to Clements."

That is insane!

https://ag.tennessee.edu/cpa/Information Sheets/CPA 222.pdf

Roughly 150 spots per acre in a flat lot. 60ish thousand people parking downtown, that's 403 acres of property taken up by parking. (assuming my math is correct (it's not my strong suit, ha)) Obviously some of that is in garages. But hot damn that is still a lot of land allocated to cars that are only there 40 hours a week. 

Edited October 10, 2018 by PaulChinetti

[PaulChinetti]

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2018/10/08/nashville-capital-spending-mayor-david-briley/1564826002/

Good god man, there are bike lanes in there! I am excited about the sidewalks though. Hopefully they are built where the most people walk. 

I hope that traffic management program goes to installing some car sensors at lights around the city or at least retiming them for the various parts of the day.

I also wonder if it's just for bridge maintenance or for any new bridges. 

"Public works to receive third of funding

Nearly one-third of the new 2018-19 capital-spending plan — $107 million — would go to Metro Public Works, including $30 million apiece for sidewalks and street paving and an additional $15 million for new roads.

• $30 million for street paving
• $30 million for sidewalks
• $15 million for roads
• $4 million for bridges
• $3 million for the department's traffic management program
• $2 million in matching funds to move to twice-a-month recycling pick-up
• $1.5 million for traffic-calming efforts
• $1.5 million for bikeways
• $20 million for east bank infrastructure work near River North
• $10 million for new greenways and park land acquisition"

[markhollin]

The Value of Defeat: Transit officials say failed Let's Move Nashville effort could yield progress.

More at Nashville Post Magazine here:

https://www.nashvillepost.com/business/nashville-post-magazine/article/21026829/the-value-of-defeat

[CenterHill]

Dead bird