The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread

[jmtunafish]

2 hours 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. 

A car dealer who sells a $25k car to someone without disclosing  the actual cost of financing the car is irresponsible and probably criminal.  And anyone who finances the purchase of a $25k car and doesn't realize that he'll end up paying a lot more than $25k is a fool.  While that buyer may not brag to his friends that he's going to end up paying $51k over 7-8 years for a $25k car, he undoubtedly had to sign his name to a form at the car dealership with the financial details before he could take possession of the car.  In addition, anyone who buys a car and doesn't factor in things like insurance, gas, and maintenance costs, is a fool. 

Likewise, those who vote yes for this transportation plan should be aware that the $5.4 billion figure thrown around is not the actual cost.  For that matter, the $9 billion figure that the Tennessean published is probably not going to be the actual cost, either.

Having said all that, I would still vote yes for this plan if I lived in Davidson County.

Edited March 9, 2018 by jmtunafish

[SoundScan]

1 hour ago, nashville_bound said:

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

...

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.
 

I understand where the $9 billion comes from, and I agree with you and other members that want to know and understand the total costs--and I think those costs should be reflected on the referendum ballot as well. I'm simply arguing against the transit opponents (mostly outside of this forum) who are framing the cost argument to the average voter in a way that makes it seem that they are purchasing a $9 billion car, rather than a $5.4 billion car that will cost another $4.6 billion to finance and operate over 15 years.

[PruneTracy]

5 minutes ago, SoundScan said:

I understand where the $9 billion comes from, and I agree with you and other members that want to know and understand the total costs--and I think those costs should be reflected on the referendum ballot as well. I'm simply arguing against the transit opponents (mostly outside of this forum) who are framing the cost argument to the average voter in a way that makes it seem that they are purchasing a $9 billion car, rather than a $5.4 billion car that will cost another $4.6 billion to finance and operate over 15 years.

But that $4.6 billion has to be spent for the $5.4 billion to have any effect at all. To keep up the car analogy, if you buy a new car for $25,000, then discover after the fact that you can't afford or don't want to spend the $26,775 over the next 6.5 years to finance, maintain, and operate it, that car is useless to you. You're not going to be able to use it for the reason you bought it. What was the point, then, of spending the $25,000 in the first place?

The framing cuts both ways. It could just as easily be said that the transit proponents are omitting the costs needed to actually run the transit lines being constructed to make it seem like it costs less to implement than it really does.

But I agree with what you said earlier, I think both figures ($5.4 billion or $9 billion) are so far above what the average voter can relate to that a change from one to the other isn't going to make anyone switch their position on it.

[Edgefield D]

I always take the total charge, including financing, into account when making a purchase. I do think it's a little whacky for people to talk only in those terms. I've never asked someone what they paid for a house or a car and they gave me the total after financing charge. It's just not the way people normally communicate. 

Here's a personal anecdote. My partner and I were going to build a garage around 6 or 7 yrs ago. We had $25,000 saved up....the cost was going to be $35,000. My partner, being the uber financially conservative person he is that doesn't believe in borrowing money...said no, we have to wait til we have $35,000. So...fast forward to last year and getting a garage built. Guess how much the garage actually cost. $70,000. Which was the smarter decision?

Sorry...I know that was a little off track....but it was what popped into my mind.

[Guest]

Good discussion and I appreciate the views which have been posted.

My point is asking the relevancy of $15B or $21B vs. $9B was to gauge if it would make  a difference to your perception of the Transit Plan. Based on your answer a higher overall cost it would not dissuade you. I believe most voters are interested in the total cost to which they are committing Metro and at some point the costs would impact the support of the plan.

 

2 hours ago, samsonh said:

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 Guest

[SoundScan]

6 minutes ago, PruneTracy said:

But that $4.6 billion has to be spent for the $5.4 billion to have any effect at all. To keep up the car analogy, if you buy a new car for $25,000, then discover after the fact that you can't afford or don't want to spend the $26,775 over the next 6.5 years to finance, maintain, and operate it, that car is useless to you. You're not going to be able to use it for the reason you bought it. What was the point, then, of spending the $25,000 in the first place?

The framing cuts both ways. It could just as easily be said that the transit proponents are omitting the costs needed to actually run the transit lines being constructed to make it seem like it costs less to implement than it really does.

But I agree with what you said earlier, I think both figures ($5.4 billion or $9 billion) are so far above what the average voter can relate to that a change from one to the other isn't going to make anyone switch their position on it.

It appears we're stuck in a semantics debate.  What would the average person say is the price of their $25,000 car? What would Lee Beaman say is the price of a $25,000 car he has for sale? Would he tell you his cars are useless without committing another $26,775? I haven't heard any transit proponents claiming that operating and financing this transit plan is free. They're asking that the costs be framed in such a way that is consistent with any other large and ongoing purchase or project.

[SoundScan]

Breaking out of the car analogy for a moment...I can't say whether I would vote for or against the transit plan in it's current state. The total cost doesn't concern me given the amortization timeline, even when taking an overly conservative approach to forecasting Nashville's 30-year population growth and economic outlook. I think the funding mechanisms are appropriate although I have concerns about the realized level of contribution from the federal government. My main concerns are the unknown amount of flexibility in the plan, the lack of dedicated right-of-way for much of the light rail system, and in the chosen primary routes in some areas. I also think more of the funding (or just more dedicated funding) should be appropriated for substantial increases in surface bus frequency and availability.  Would be curious to know others thoughts on the actual plan, for or against.

[volsfanwill]

we should also consider.  when we were lucky enough to have a presentation at our monthly meet up in December.   We learned where the price tag comes from to begin with.  They were fully aware that government projects often run over budget.   So they estimated the costs with that already in mind.

The took the high estimate and added a set percentage on that.       I want to say it was 30% but i could be wrong.     

Basically it broke down like this.  simplified.    If the estimate was $90-100.   they went with $100.  then added 30%.   so the presented price is $130.    but in reality could cost as little as $90.

[PaulChinetti]

I haven’t read deep into things yet. What will the penalties be for late completeion, or have they got that far yet?

[Guest]

Cautionary tale of cost overruns and delays, but it makes the $9B cost of our planned system seem extremely expensive....compared to milage and technology....

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-bullet-train-cost-increase-20180309-story.html

Bullet points

400+ miles of high speed rail

LA to SF

over 36 miles of tunnels

 

[Neigeville2]

^way off topic, but I follow this pretty closely and I wouldn't trust anything the LA Times says about CA High Speed Rail.  Their coverage has been as negative (and as fast and loose with the facts) as Fox news's.  The main problem there is California's absurd environmental review process, and the way it has been abused by various "environmental" groups (funded by airlines?) to delay the project.  The alternative for California is untold billions in spending on their already at-capacity airports and highways.  California, with its high population and cities arranged in a north-south line, is a perfect environment for high speed rail.  The airlines are looking at the low air fares in Europe (where they have to compete with a fully developed passenger rail system) and soiling their knickers.

Edited March 10, 2018 by Neigeville2

[Guest]

Thanks for your insight. And I think it is on topic ... this is the ... The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread!

[nashvillwill]

I haven’t actually read the Tennessean article that is, apparently, the source of the $9B figure. But from everything I see on this forum, that is the actual cost AND the operational costs. But, for how long? Are they assuming a fixed number of years? Couldn’t you argue that the system could be in place for the next hundred years or more? Therefore the “real” cost could be in the trillions? Or, you could say, that it will only run for one day, so the cost would be $5.4B + $1.

I’m not trying to argue the merits of taking all costs into account, just what the metrics are. 

Again, this brings us to the car analogy. Your $25k car may actually cost you $50k over the course of 10 years. But it may cost me $65k over the course of 20. Or 25k and a tank of gas if I total it tomorrow.

We all know that most infrastructure in this country is kept into service until the 11th hour (or later). Most bridges in this country are 50 years or older. We don’t apply the same metrics to building a bridge. 

Again, I’m all in favor of looking at “total” costs. But what exactly are those totals including?

What was the “real” cost of the NYC subway system? Or the U.S. Army? What will my Apple stock be worth when I die?

[grilled_cheese]

I'm still waiting on an alternate plan to be unveiled.  Also, where are those private companies that will step up and provide transportation service?

[nashvylle]

7 hours ago, nashvillwill said:

I haven’t actually read the Tennessean article that is, apparently, the source of the $9B figure. But from everything I see on this forum, that is the actual cost AND the operational costs. But, for how long? Are they assuming a fixed number of years? Couldn’t you argue that the system could be in place for the next hundred years or more? Therefore the “real” cost could be in the trillions? Or, you could say, that it will only run for one day, so the cost would be $5.4B + $1.

I’m not trying to argue the merits of taking all costs into account, just what the metrics are. 

Again, this brings us to the car analogy. Your $25k car may actually cost you $50k over the course of 10 years. But it may cost me $65k over the course of 20. Or 25k and a tank of gas if I total it tomorrow.

We all know that most infrastructure in this country is kept into service until the 11th hour (or later). Most bridges in this country are 50 years or older. We don’t apply the same metrics to building a bridge. 

Again, I’m all in favor of looking at “total” costs. But what exactly are those totals including?

What was the “real” cost of the NYC subway system? Or the U.S. Army? What will my Apple stock be worth when I die?

I believe I read: 

the time it took for the entire $5.4bn plan to be built out is X number of years +

The operations costs as each segment of the entire plan is completed and running +

the interest and other financing costs to build out the plan. 

Assuming the entire plan takes ~25-30 years... construction + operational + financing costs over 30 years = &9bn 

 

[jmtunafish]

1 hour ago, nashvylle said:

I believe I read: 

the time it took for the entire $5.4bn plan to be built out is X number of years +

The operations costs as each segment of the entire plan is completed and running +

the interest and other financing costs to build out the plan. 

Assuming the entire plan takes ~25-30 years... construction + operational + financing costs over 30 years = &9bn 

 

Here you go:

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/

The breakdown on spending for the transit plan, dubbed Let's Move Nashville, from 2018 to 2032 is projected to be:

• $5.4 billion for light rail on five corridors, the downtown tunnel and other related costs (61.2 percent)
• $1.1 billion for enhancements to the city’s current bus system (12.8 percent)
• $1.2 billion for interest, principal repayment on debt and financing costs (13.2 percent)
• $934 million for operating and maintenance (10.4 percent)
• $211 million for reserves (2.4 percent)

The report also says a number of other factors could increase the cost of the transit plan over time, including inflation.

“The transit improvement program represents a $5.4 billion infrastructure investment in the future of Nashville,” Barry spokesman Sean Braisted said in an emailed statement. “Just like when you buy a house, if you add in long-term operating, interest, maintenance and other costs, the initial purchase price looks higher.

[Guest]

you make a great point...even if unintended.

Uber and Lyft are creating new, cost-effective possibilities with existing transit options.
https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2016/03/28/metro-explores-linking-uber-lyft-bus-system/82336598/

The dearth of other market-solutions demonstrates there is no profit to be made at this time to provide any solutions to alleviate Nashville's traffic congestion. Nashvillians and commuters are complaining about traffic, but clearly not enough are motivated by this frustration to pay for enhanced services from the private sector. Instead, we have a top-down, government solution proposed which can only operate with ongoing tax-payer subsidies.

10 hours ago, grilled_cheese said:

I'm still waiting on an alternate plan to be unveiled.  Also, where are those private companies that will step up and provide transportation service?

 

[Neigeville2]

43 minutes ago, nashville_bound said:

..
The dearth of other market-solutions demonstrates there is no profit to be made at this time to provide any solutions to alleviate Nashville's traffic congestion. Nashvillians and commuters are complaining about traffic, but clearly not enough are motivated by this frustration to pay for enhanced services from the private sector. Instead, we have a top-down, government solution proposed which can only operate with ongoing tax-payer subsidies.

 

Just like every other transportation method.  We could sell the roads to private entities and let them charge by the mile for usage and close down any roads that become unprofitable but 1) can you imagine the screaming and 2) it would almost certainly be a huge impediment to people getting and getting to jobs, would turn every community downturn (eg Antioch since the 70's) into a death spiral as roads are not maintained and eventually closed), and I could go on. 

Unfortunately there is always a political dimension to some of the subjects on this thread and I don't want to start a boring and abrasive argument, but it is absolutely true that to function the market needs all kinds of things, from rule of law to transportation networks to healthcare, that it can't provide or does a deeply lousy job of.  We have a massive level of business subsidies in this country, from obvious things like direct subsidies, gifts of land, and tax breaks, to less obvious things like under-enforcement of anti-trust laws and over-protection of copyrights and patents, but those are framed as "pro-business" (which people mistakenly think means "pro-market" when it's usually exactly the opposite) while investing in infrastructure is always suspected of being wasteful.  I'd rather we subsidize mass transit than Amazon, for a million reasons.  If we wait for the market to solve our transportation problem we'll be waiting a long time.

[Guest]

It is not political to state the obvious. Yes, there is a role for government - civil and criminal rules of the game, an unbiased (hopefully) enforcement , mechanism, certain communal needs - defense and infrastructure come to mind. 

At no time in my comment did I state there was no role for government in our lives or in transportation. I was answering a question as posed....where was the private sector in the Nashville Transit debate. You do not even address my response, in fact you quote my post and then do not speak to its content. 

Finally, you are preaching to the choir regarding the government picking winners and losers in business and almost every other endeavor - I am a flat tax proponent!

[PaulChinetti]

https://www.fastcompany.com/40536114/uber-and-lyft-is-taking-people-off-public-transit-lines-and-putting-them-in-cars

Well there’s this new report coming out also. 

 

[Guest]

^ exactly! The prognosticators are unable even today to predict with any accuracy the impact of various emerging technologies and actors entering the transportation market ... how accurate do we believe their projections will be for 2 To 5 decades out?

[BolaKnows]

14 hours ago, nashville_bound said:

how accurate do we believe their projections will be for 2 To 5 decades out?

Uber is hemorrhaging money and might not be solvent over the course of 5 years, much less 20-50 years.  I can't understand how it's prudent to rely on them to provide mass transit options.  

[Guest]

There are no guarantees than any one company will survive for any length of time, but a market will fill a need and thus another company will emerge.

Amazon bled money for 2 decades.... Uber is sacrificing profits for market share and waiting to cash in when autonomous vehicles arrive.
https://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Pesky-Humans-Uber-Introduces-Robo-Taxis-to-Cut-Labor-Costs-20160819-0014.html

[Flatrock]

Watching this topic with interest. I've been a strong proponent of the current transit plan since inception. Now, I'm on the fence...and do not know which way I'll vote.

Why the change of heart?

Timing. Not so much cost, though money is always a consideration in my decision tree.

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

Granted, any plan requiring dedicated lanes / rights of way will require a huge design process, property acquisition, eminent domain, and significant construction. Still, I wonder if there are faster, workable options out there. I'm doing my own research but don't have a counter proposal to offer. I think it's ok to be undecided and opposed with the plan without a better idea. I still may vote 'yes', but it's not an easy decision, at least for me.

 

[PaulChinetti]

I don't know I would rather my city try to fix the problem themselves now, then wait for some ambiguous future company to come along and save us from ourselves.

 

Besides the transit system, I am eagerly awaiting the density that it should bring. Hopefully MDHA realizes these things now and lifts/alters restrictions on height/density/parking etc in areas around transit stops. 

3 minutes ago, Flatrock said:

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

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

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

That to me is the craziest part.