The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread

[dmillsphoto]

4 minutes ago, markhollin said:

I agree that this would be a quality solution for the south loop.  But the cost (would probably take up a significant chunk of TDOT's annual budget for at least half of a decade) and time involved (I'm guessing 5-8 years) would drive certain people completely out of their ever-lovin' minds (remember all the construction to improve the freeways in Atlanta to prep for the Olympics in the early-mid 90s?). Everyone wants to complain, but many don't want to pay the price.  

Or just, as was done in the Plan of Nashville a few years ago, eliminate the south loop altogether. Make Briley the new 440 and make the loop downtown a parkway.

[PaulChinetti]

It's such a divider between downtown and South Nashville, I would be all for that. Just a big asphalt gash through downtown. 

[japan]

Really, it boils down to eliminating semi truck traffic  within 440.  Figure out a way to charge large trucks for not going around downtown.

[PaulChinetti]

I'm confused as to what you mean @japan ?

[smeagolsfree]

10 minutes ago, japan said:

Really, it boils down to eliminating semi truck traffic  within 440.  Figure out a way to charge large trucks for not going around downtown.

Too many truck stops, warehousing facilities, gas tank farms, etc. You probably see where this is going. Until all of those types of businesses are gone, it would be impossible to enforce. They don't even enforce the HOV lanes and even if they did, that  would not make a difference as most people driving into Nashville from the burbs are by themselves. 

This is why when the opponents of transit say enforce the HOV lanes, I just laugh because very few people want to be inconvenienced having to wait to car pool participants. Most of the opponents of the mass transit are out of touch with reality and just don't want to do anything that will inconvenience them. Most of these people that oppose can well afford the increase in the small amount of taxes that would happen. 

 

I did not hear the moans and groans from them when the most recent reappraisal went into affect. That cost the rich backers of transit a whole lot more than the small increase in tax with the current plan. In reality much of the burden does go to the visitors that cause a lot of the congestion. Many of the backers of the no tax for tracks plan are self serving, narcissistic, hypocrites. This is not name calling, this is reality.

[nashvillwill]

44 minutes ago, japan said:

Really, it boils down to eliminating semi truck traffic  within 440.  Figure out a way to charge large trucks for not going around downtown.

I’ve had a thought on this for a few years now, but on a larger scale. 

If you ever drive on I-40 mem-nash-Knox, you know that a high percentage of the traffic is trucks. Granted, many of these trucks are doing “local service”, making stops along the 40 corridor in TN. But I would bet that many of these trucks are just passing through to other states. 

I would like to see a plan in place to have a truck to rail transfer station at the easy&west state lines on 40. A place a truck driver could literally have his whole rig, cab and all, loaded onto a rail car. You could charge a fee to do this, but charge a penalty to not do it. And the way I see it, everyone is a winner. 

-Rail services. Companies like CSX (or whoever) would have a new steady source of revenue. I understand the challenge of establishing this and that there may be multiple players involved. But if there is money to be made, why not. 

-Roads. Reduce congestion. Reduce wear & tear on roads. Improve safety. Reduce needed expansion costs  

-Trucking. Increase downtime for drivers. With all the new regulations on driver downtime, a truck could span hundreds of miles, while the driver is “off the clock”. Of course, they would want to be paid for this time, but that would be a question for the logistics experts.

-tax base. The trucks who avoid this and pay the penalty, would contribute to the tax base. 

 

Sure, there would be some shift in logistics all together, with companies making some effort to avoid TN all together. But with I-40 being such an important transcontinental route, many companies would just suck it up and see its advantages. 

 

Just a thought. 

[Guest]

^^

Is John M back posting?

Lots of name calling and generalizations without any cited facts...a new low for UP...and yet, - posted by a mod and liked by another mod?!

 

Edit: I was referring to smeagolsfree post....

” In reality much of the burden does go to the visitors that cause a lot of the congestion. Many of the backers of the no tax for tracks plan are self serving, narcissistic, hypocrites. This is not name calling, this is reality.”

 

Edited March 8, 2018 by Guest

[dmillsphoto]

25 minutes ago, nashville_bound said:

^^

Is John M back posting?

Lots of name calling and generalizations without any cited facts...a new low for UP...and yet, - posted by a mod and liked by another mod?!

I don't even know what that was. It's gone.

[NashvilleObserver]

2 hours ago, smeagolsfree said:

Most of the opponents of the mass transit are out of touch with reality and just don't want to do anything that will inconvenience them. Most of these people that oppose can well afford the increase in the small amount of taxes that would happen. 

And that pretty much sums it up!

[Guest]

So tired of the character insults to opponents of Nashville’s 9 billion transit plan. You have a plan, great, cheerlead and support the referendum. Why the constant need to denigrate fellow Nashvillians? 

If you see spending $9B as the answer to a problem have at it. However, consider not everyone sees a problem...and many who do see a problem do not see the transit plan as the solution. Instead of trying to understand and address the objections of the transit opponents, many on this board take the easy path and insult, demean, and otherwise dismiss legitimate concerns.  I will try to stay away from politics, but this hubris is reminiscent of the ‘left’ during the 2016 elections.

All this is to say, state your case and enthusiastically support pro transit position. If the case is strong and the answer solid you should win the vote. Of course, the opponents of the transit plan should do the same. There are many issues at play, but the largest is city debt and taxes. The track record of ballooning buildout costs and ongoing construction delays on many transit problems is problematic, all Nashvillians -pro or con- should be wary and perform due diligence. Much is made of tourists footing the bill and this is a laudable part of the revenue stream. However, one is reading a crystal ball to project Nashville tourism over the 2 decade buildout phase and the 5 decade debt pay down schedule. Tourists or no the debt will have to be paid... ask Detroit.

Edited March 8, 2018 by Guest

[Pdt2f]

I agree with @nashville_bound, I’m pro transit but I think we can discuss the issues without questioning the intelligence or sincerity of those who oppose our views. If we’re wanting to discuss whether it’s ok to advocate for a position that is in one’s self interest, there’s a sub-forum in the coffee house on that subject. 

[Rockatansky]

20 hours ago, nashville_bound said:

Nashville’s 9 billion transit plan

Sigh. The plan costs $5.4 billion.

[dmillsphoto]

1 hour ago, Rockatansky said:

Sigh. The plan costs $5.4 billion.

$5.4B for construction. 

[Guest]

This is great point... 
 

2 hours ago, Rockatansky said:

Sigh. The plan costs $5.4 billion.

The build out is 'projected' to cost $5.4B. Yet the total 'projected' cost for building and operating the new transit plan is $9B. 

The answer to these 2 questions are the actual cash outlay in my opinion.

How much money are we are we voting to spend with a 'YES' vote?

Answer $9B.

How much money will we be voting not to spend with a 'NO' vote?

Answer $9B.

 

..and this $9B is best case .....

[Guest]

This leads to another question...

So what are Plan B and Plan C in case of optimistic forecasting regarding the buildout?

Meaning, must another referendum be held to find additional funds or are does the current referendum cover a contingency? 

[samsonh]

Nashville Bound,

 

There is also a cost to doing nothing, and that cost increases with each passing year. Consider the below linked study that says traffic costs the average Nashville driver $1,308 annually.  There will never be a plan that everyone agrees on, somehow will always feel left out. That's why we get to vote on it.

 

https://www.vanderbilt.edu/sustainvu/2017/07/traffic-costs-tennessee-cities-more-than-1-1-billion-annually/

 

I find the inclusion of interest and operating costs interesting in the transit opponents argument that the plan costs 9 billion. Would they add in that cost for the stadiums we have built? Or only for projects they oppose?

 

 

[SoundScan]

If a typical person purchased a new car for $25,000, would they tell you that it cost them $25,000 or that it cost them $51,775 (purchase price, plus U.S. average annual operating cost x 6.5 years U.S. average ownership length)? To say that this transit system costs $9 billion is purposefully disingenuous. The average person does not associate purchase price with total cost of ownership and applying it to this plan serves only to mislead the typical voter in the interest of political expediency. 

[SoundScan]

To clarify my position, $5.4 billion is a large enough number that it should swing moderate-to-heavily leaning individuals to either side on it's own. Let the plan be judged on its merits as an actual transit solution (good or bad).  

[Guest]

I find the study you cited moot. Let's take the numbers at face value, I have not seen anyone with authority claim the $9B Transit Plan will alleviate the congestion referenced. Additionally, while a case can be made regarding the cost of future congestion, such a cost is not addressed by this study.

To answer your second point, my answer is YES.  All associated costs to be incurred for the  project should be included for all projects. Anecdotal, but when I buy a house I am given a TILA (Truth in Lending Statement) which shows me the charges which will make up my payment total to service the debt.

1 hour ago, samsonh said:

Nashville Bound,

 

There is also a cost to doing nothing, and that cost increases with each passing year. Consider the below linked study that says traffic costs the average Nashville driver $1,308 annually.  There will never be a plan that everyone agrees on, somehow will always feel left out. That's why we get to vote on it.

 

https://www.vanderbilt.edu/sustainvu/2017/07/traffic-costs-tennessee-cities-more-than-1-1-billion-annually/

 

I find the inclusion of interest and operating costs interesting in the transit opponents argument that the plan costs 9 billion. Would they add in that cost for the stadiums we have built? Or only for projects they oppose?

 

 

 

[nashwatcher]

When you buy a house do you include the cost of your air conditioning, lawn maintenance, gas bill, cable television expenses, future painting allotment, etc etc etc in the cost of your home purchase?

[samsonh]

5 minutes ago, nashwatcher said:

When you buy a house do you include the cost of your air conditioning, lawn maintenance, gas bill, cable television expenses, future painting allotment, etc etc etc in the cost of your home purchase?

Plus your interest costs. No of course you don't. 

[Guest]

I will use a similar example (see below) to yours in an attempt to show the validity of the $9B number.
 

Quote

Council member Jeremy Elrod had another take.

"You're going to go buy a car," said Elrod. "You're going to have a certain number that you buy that car for. It's not going to include how much the gas is for the next 20 years that you're owning the car. It's not going to include how much the tags are for the next 20 years, how much it is to clean for the next 10 years or how many oil changes you're going to have to have and how much it's going to cost."

So, when I shop for a car the driving factor is the price of the vehicle. I also have a monthly payment in mind which is made up of the negotiated price of the vehicle, financing charges, and taxes. However, I also call my insurance agent and ask for the effect of this car purchase on my insurance and I calculate the total operating cost of the vehicle. I mean is this not the entire selling point for the electric car...the reduced operating costs compared to a gas guzzler. Everyone's tolerances are different but a total cost of operating a vehicle is relevant....at least to my family.

 

31 minutes ago, SoundScan said:

If a typical person purchased a new car for $25,000, would they tell you that it cost them $25,000 or that it cost them $51,775 (purchase price, plus U.S. average annual operating cost x 6.5 years U.S. average ownership length)? To say that this transit system costs $9 billion is purposefully disingenuous. The average person does not associate purchase price with total cost of ownership and applying it to this plan serves only to mislead the typical voter in the interest of political expediency. 

 

I fear  we are all talking past each other...we do not have to agree as individuals approach their budgeting their own way.

To answer your question, I attempt to factor in as much 'knowns' as possible when making any major purchase. Some expenses are voluntarily variable (CATV, Lawn Care, Pest Control, a schedule for long-term maintenance) and some are fixed and required (mortgage payment, property taxes, insurance, HVAC).. I attempt to have a full understanding of my exposure and add contingency.

 

9 minutes ago, nashwatcher said:

When you buy a house do you include the cost of your air conditioning, lawn maintenance, gas bill, cable television expenses, future painting allotment, etc etc etc in the cost of your home purchase?

 

[Guest]

Reading this comment confuses me.

 

8 minutes ago, samsonh said:

Plus your interest costs. No of course you don't. 

Are you actually saying you make major purchases without concern to the interest rate/charges? 

What if the $9B dollar were $15B or $21B? Would that make a difference? Would you still support the transit plan? 

[samsonh]

15 minutes ago, nashville_bound said:

Reading this comment confuses me.

 

Are you actually saying you make major purchases without concern to the interest rate/charges? 

I do, but when I purchased my home I didn't tell people the amount of my potential outlay. When the convention center was built we didn't include nearly $700 million in interest expense when talking about the project's cost. You want to do that here because you are against the project. 

 

Also, what is your point of disagreement with the Vanderbilt study? Do you disagree that traffic has costs to individual drivers? Do you not believe these costs are increasing? 

 

Edit: Yes it would make a difference if the number were substantially higher. The bond market would be telling us we cannot afford this project. It is not telling us that. Nashville is in a fantastic fiscal position. 

Edited March 9, 2018 by samsonh

[Guest]

Please refrain from speculating on my motivations or intentions. I am leaning towards not voting on the referendum as I am somewhat ambivalent about the matter,  but I may vote 'NO".
I have stated my preference regarding other Metro projects requiring a referendum and they should all be as transparent as possible. 

I attempted be very precise in my objection to the the Vandebilt study...detailing it's irrelevancy to the current debate. There are currently costs associated with traffic congestion, the Transit Plan does not purport to alleviate the current congestion thus there is not cost savings and the costs will continue to be absorbed. Yes, there may be increased congestion if the Transit Plan is defeated (or even if it passes)  and such costs are not addressed in the link you shared.


 

Edited March 9, 2018 by Guest