The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread

[BnaBreaker]

4 minutes ago, FromParkAveToTN said:

I agree. I trusted the mayor had the city's best interest at heart, unfortunately,  she has proven to be self serving and untrustworthy. If her own husband can't trust her, how can we?  I can't help but to wonder If the transit system is just something she can add to her resume to further her political career. 

So anyone who ever makes a mistake in their personal life is unworthy of being trusted by anyone with anything ever again, no matter how unrelated to that mistake it might be?  Yikes... now that is a high standard!  

[Buildtall]

We all have secrets, that doesn’t mean we can’t be productive at our job.  Voting against the transit plan is a vote for more traffic which will eventually  paralyze the city.  Just my 2 cents

[Pdt2f]

18 minutes ago, BnaBreaker said:

So anyone who ever makes a mistake in their personal life is unworthy of being trusted by anyone with anything ever again, no matter how unrelated to that mistake it might be?  Yikes... now that is a high standard!  

A two year affair is hardly a “mistake.” It’s a persistent and repeated betrayal of promises made to the person who should have been able to trust her more than anyone, not a one-off flub-up stemming from passion and too much to drink. It’s her wanting to have her cake and eat it too. That definitely reflects on someone’s trustworthiness in other aspects of their life, most certainly as an elected official where public trust is so important. 

[grilled_cheese]

Have any other alternative plans been proposed yet?  I would legitimately like to see someone else's plan and would definitely consider it but none have surfaced AFAIK.  It's really hard to take the 'no' people seriously when they don't give us an alternative.  What are we supposed to do?  Just wait for it to continue to get worse while they continue to push back on everything while providing no alternatives or constructive feedback? 

[volsfanwill]

also, many of the people that i see commenting against it, do have other ideas, but those idea are usually making incorrect assumptions.  here are some i have heard from personal friends.  "they didn't even consider just having a train to Murfreesboro, there are already tracks there!"  "this does nothing to make the existing bus system better"   "they have no plan to build sidewalks to actually get people to these supposed train stations"  "I live in South Nashville and work in Brentwood, this does nothing for me"

obviously i try to educate everyone I can about these fallacies. but there is just so much bad info out there.

and my most favorite of all "they are raising my property taxes to pay for trains for those liberal millennials that arent even from here"

[Neigeville2]

33 minutes ago, Pdt2f said:

A two year affair is hardly a “mistake.” It’s a persistent and repeated betrayal of promises made to the person who should have been able to trust her more than anyone, not a one-off flub-up stemming from passion and too much to drink. It’s her wanting to have her cake and eat it too. That definitely reflects on someone’s trustworthiness in other aspects of their life, most certainly as an elected official where public trust is so important. 

One view.  On the other hand, I'd love to have an affair with a bodyguard, it sounds really hot.  Not to get too political, but you don't have to look too hard to see we don't necessarily elect people who embody our highest ideals.  I'm not sure everyone is going to be so judgmental about this.

[NashvilleObserver]

2 hours ago, grilled_cheese said:

Have any other alternative plans been proposed yet?  I would legitimately like to see someone else's plan and would definitely consider it but none have surfaced AFAIK.  It's really hard to take the 'no' people seriously when they don't give us an alternative.  What are we supposed to do?  Just wait for it to continue to get worse while they continue to push back on everything while providing no alternatives or constructive feedback? 

This is one reason people get so angry about the NIMBYs and the naysayers. Whether you're a Davidson County resident, or a daily commuter or an occasional visitor, EVERYONE can agree that something needs to be done about the Nashville congestion. So if a plan is proposed, and you don't like it, then what is the amazing alternative? You can't just say No, NO, NO!!! Mayor Barry came up with a well-thought-out (albeit expensive) plan, because the problem needs to be fixed NOW. What happens in 2030 and Nashville has grown beyond it's capacity, and people begin leaving the city in droves? Is it the BEST plan? Maybe not, but it is the first step of many. 

2 hours ago, Pdt2f said:

A two year affair is hardly a “mistake.” It’s a persistent and repeated betrayal of promises made to the person who should have been able to trust her more than anyone, not a one-off flub-up stemming from passion and too much to drink. It’s her wanting to have her cake and eat it too. That definitely reflects on someone’s trustworthiness in other aspects of their life, most certainly as an elected official where public trust is so important. 

I wish people would stop talking about this. An adult female made the decision to have an affair. People of all positions, CEO's, Mayors, or Presidents, do things they shouldn't. Mayor Barry was sure to do no wrongdoing as far as taxpayer funds are concerned, because she's smart (at least with that aspect) and knew what she was doing. She has done her job extremely well since her inauguration and will no doubt continue to do an amazing job. 

[BnaBreaker]

4 hours ago, Pdt2f said:

A two year affair is hardly a “mistake.” It’s a persistent and repeated betrayal of promises made to the person who should have been able to trust her more than anyone, not a one-off flub-up stemming from passion and too much to drink. It’s her wanting to have her cake and eat it too. That definitely reflects on someone’s trustworthiness in other aspects of their life, most certainly as an elected official where public trust is so important. 

I was willing to give folks the benefit of the doubt at first when they said it was merely the potential (and as yet unproven) usage of city funds they had a problem with, because I can understand why that might, if true, make it difficult to trust her.  But of course, given time,  the real reasons begin to emerge.  Let's be honest.  Even if this were just a one off thing, most of the people coming down so sharply on her over this would be making the exact same arguments they are now, and that's the real crux of the matter here isn't it?  Some people just love to get on their high horse and wag the finger about other people's personal lives, particularly when it's somebody whose political positions don't generally line up with their own.   I personally don't care one bit about the sex lives of a politician so long as nothing criminal is taking place, no matter where they fall on the political spectrum.  It sure would be nice though if those who want to invent the arbitrary rule that anyone involved in martial infidelity cannot be trusted as a politician were CONSISTENT in who they applied their arbitrary rule to, instead of using their supposed moral outrage only as a tool to kill unrelated legislation they oppose.  

Edited February 15, 2018 by BnaBreaker

[samsonh]

7 hours ago, FromParkAveToTN said:

I agree. I trusted the mayor had the city's best interest at heart, unfortunately,  she has proven to be self serving and untrustworthy. If her own husband can't trust her, how can we?  I can't help but to wonder If the transit system is just something she can add to her resume to further her political career. 

This is a bad post, even from a troll account.

[smeagolsfree]

Back on topic before the paddle is brought out folks. 

Take it to the Coffee House

 

This is the Transit thread!

[nashvillwill]

Can someone please clarify when exactly this will be going to the polls? 

Also, when should we expect the campaigning (from both sides) to really ramp up?

Also, if passed, what’s the date(s) this will come online?

 

I know I could google all this, but I like reading this site more. 

Edited February 15, 2018 by nashvillwill

[Will]

May 1 is the referendum. Here's what was proposed for the ballot late last year, although I couldn't find the updated version with the $9b price tag that the Metro Council approved last week:

“Passage of this measure will allow the Metropolitan Government to improve and expand its transit services to include: expanded bus service countywide; new transit lines; new light rail and/or rapid bus service along Nashville’s major corridors, including the Northwest Corridor and a connection through downtown Nashville; new neighborhood transit centers; improvements to the Music City Star train service; safety improvements, including sidewalks and pedestrian connections; and system modernization. The Metropolitan Transit Authority and the Metropolitan Department of Public Works will undertake the projects and implement the program. The transit improvements and expansion will be funded by tax surcharges that will end once all debt issued for the program has been paid and the Metropolitan Council determines upon the adoption of a resolution that the revenues from the surcharges are no longer needed for operation of the program. The surcharges will consist of: (1) a sales tax surcharge of 0.5% for the first five years, increasing to 1% in 2023; (2) a hotel/motel tax surcharge of 0.25% for the first five years, increasing to 0.375% in 2023; (3) a 20% surcharge on the business/excise tax; and (4) a 20% surcharge on the rental car tax. The capital cost of the program is estimated to have a present day value of $5,354,000,000, with recurring operations and maintenance costs having a present day value at the year the improvements are completed of approximately $99,500,000.”

So the vote is really on whether we the people approve the 4 new surcharges to create a dedicated revenue stream for transit. As for the plan details, I think those are still left to Metro's discretion (though to what degree isn't exactly clear); the language above is meant to illustrate what the surcharges will be used for generally. 

[Guest]

This is a recipe for a disaster...

https://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2018/02/15/could-nashville-change-its-transit-plan-post.html

The article states no one knows if the plan may be changed post-referendum (unlike Metro's assurances).  The (state) law as written is vague and says changes to the plan must be voted on in another referendum. So litigation seems the likely path forward if any changes are made along the way.  As always litigation =  costs and delays. 

[PaulChinetti]

I can't read the article so someone explain to me if I'm wrong BUT...

I thought the point of the plan is that it would morph and change as the city needed?

[Will]

The key point is that the IMPROVE act (TN law enabling this kind of transit referendum)  says this:

"If either a transit improvement program or a public transit system project that is part of a transit improvement program becomes unfeasible, impossible, or not financially viable, the revenue from the surcharge for the transit improvement program may be directed to and utilized for a separate transit improvement program or public transit system project that:

(1) Has been approved by:

(A) The local government's legislative body, as required in § 67-4- 3206(e)(1); and

(B) A majority of the number of registered voters of the local government voting in an election pursuant to the procedures in § 67-4- 3202; and

(2) Otherwise meets the requirements of this part"

So one big problem is that there is a lot of scope to quibble and litigate over whether the current plan is "unfeasible, impossible, or not financially viable." It's not clear who decides that. If in fact that is decided, then the new plan would have to be approved by the Metro Council as well as the citizens in another referendum.

 

Essentially, as things stand now, we don't really know what a Yes vote on the referendum gets us. That's bad for all concerned. It should be clear one way or another what this vote means for Nashville going forward.

 

[Rockatansky]

1 hour ago, Will said:

$9b price tag

The plan costs $5.4B.

[jmtunafish]

15 minutes ago, Rockatansky said:

The plan costs $5.4B.

That's just to construct the light rail portion and the downtown tunnel.  

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2018/01/04/mayor-barrys-transit-plan-balloons-9-b-nearly-double-construction-price-tag-when-totaling-other-cost/1004229001/

[BolaKnows]

On the politics front, I saw a "Yes on transit" sign just over the bridge in East Nashville on Main Street and the person I was travelling with said he's seen quite a few of those signs in East Nashville.  Maybe that's just consistent with the thoughts that the East Nahsville neighborhoods are more supportive than other parts of the city for public transit so I'm curious to know what others are seeing.  

[PaulChinetti]

I saw a Yes and a No and that was on Franklin Pike on the way to Brentwood. The Yes surprised me, especially on that road.

[Neigeville2]

2 hours ago, Will said:

The key point is that the IMPROVE act (TN law enabling this kind of transit referendum)  says this:

"If either a transit improvement program or a public transit system project that is part of a transit improvement program becomes unfeasible, impossible, or not financially viable, the revenue from the surcharge for the transit improvement program may be directed to and utilized for a separate transit improvement program or public transit system project that:

(1) Has been approved by:

(A) The local government's legislative body, as required in § 67-4- 3206(e)(1); and

(B) A majority of the number of registered voters of the local government voting in an election pursuant to the procedures in § 67-4- 3202; and

(2) Otherwise meets the requirements of this part"

So one big problem is that there is a lot of scope to quibble and litigate over whether the current plan is "unfeasible, impossible, or not financially viable." It's not clear who decides that. If in fact that is decided, then the new plan would have to be approved by the Metro Council as well as the citizens in another referendum.

 

Essentially, as things stand now, we don't really know what a Yes vote on the referendum gets us. That's bad for all concerned. It should be clear one way or another what this vote means for Nashville going forward.

 

The last thing we want is a referendum that locks us into executing a specific plan when parts of it may be greatly more expensive or turn out to be far cheaper (the tunnel for example could go either way), may be more useful than predicted or less so.  This is why we elect council members and mayors, to make these decisions.  Amazon choosing Nashville for example would probably necessitate some modification to the plan (a spur to River North?) to gratify their employees.  It would be a catastrophe if we had to relitigate something like that at the ballot box every time a change is made.

[ariesjow]

On 2/14/2018 at 12:18 PM, FromParkAveToTN said:

They need to stop focusing on tourism and hospitality and worry about how the cost of this project is going to impact local residents and people who are barely making ends meet.  

I was planning to  vote YES in May, but I think I'll be voting NO since their focus seems to be all about tourism and hospitality.

 

This complaint doesn't make much sense. If the focus of the transit plan was all about tourism and hospitality, then why was the Charlotte Pike line revised and extended thanks to proactive West Nashville residents like myself?  Also,  if tourism was the primary focus, then why would the transit plan even include areas like Northwest Nashville and Nolensville Pike, areas that Nashville tourists are not really pining to visit? 

Edited February 15, 2018 by ariesjow

[Rockatansky]

3 hours ago, jmtunafish said:

That's just to construct the light rail portion and the downtown tunnel.  

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2018/01/04/mayor-barrys-transit-plan-balloons-9-b-nearly-double-construction-price-tag-when-totaling-other-cost/1004229001/

It also includes improvements to the MTA bus system, 3 BRT lines and improvements to sidewalks. The $5.4B number is consistent with all other Metro capital projects.

[Guest]

The fact of the matter is $9B of taxpayers monies will be committed to being spent on mass transit by virtue of a YES vote on the referendum.  A NO vote does  not spend the $9B. 

[PaulChinetti]

@nashville_bound Where does the 9 billion dollar number come from that you keep quoting? 

The only thing I read is that, the $9 billion comes from counting maintenance for the life of a system all at once.

[BnaBreaker]

7 hours ago, smeagolsfree said:

Back on topic before the paddle is brought out folks. 

Don't you threaten me with a good time!