The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread

[producer2]

How about that Amp thingy...... I doubt that any ideological positions will be changed on this board.... I think my view is correct and logical and I am sure all of you do as well. I do not know a true single issue voter and thus a simple transit dispute is always likely to morph into a larger disagreement and general venting of views. 

I have found that it is more productive and enjoyable to talk politics with supporters and opponents alike face-to-face and would welcome such discourse. To do so over an impersonal message board is an exercise in futility, IMO.

People have great points on all sides but at the end of the day it is ALWAYS about ideology when it comes to issues like healthcare, public transportation, etc. It just is....

[UTgrad09]

People have great points on all sides but at the end of the day it is ALWAYS about ideology when it comes to issues like healthcare, public transportation, etc. It just is....

 

And ideology is fine, but let's try to keep it in perspective. When debating the merits of public transit, and any political involvement, bringing up other political ideologies that a poster might or might not support (especially in the spectrum of social politics) is not helpful, and eventually, as we have seen, leads to some pretty nasty e-confrontations and debases the overall argument.

[Paramount747]

Agreed P2. The flaw is that one side will never acknowledge that the opposing side may actually be correct about something. Human beings have faults and weaknesses, but the abuse that some people get for their beliefs and ideologies is truly shameful. The fact some people are in the media saying some of the things they do is truly what is destroying our country in front of the world. The rest of the world looks at our political discourse and laughs at us for being so hateful on both sides of the aisle.

 

The abuse the LBGT community, Latino, and the African American communities receive in this country is sick and depraved, and the fact that ones race, creed, religion, sexuality, socieo-econimic status, or other would be political fodder for one side or the other is deeply immoral.

 

That is the problem I have been stating for a long time. A lot of the issues with the AMP is not financial, logistical, budgetary, proprietary, or even tactical when it comes to engineering and design, it is the PERCEIVED ridership that comes in question for many people. That is what is shameful.

[ruraljuror]

No, you were rather mild. My "heat" you sensed, however, was probably in the range of a balmy 80 degrees. To RJ's posts, a smidge higher. The problem I've had with virtually every post he's made on political subjects is that he has either completely dodged points, engaged in projection with his arguments, apples to oranges comparison or rhetorical hyperbole. Going back to when I said I was proud of this legislature, that is only something of a recent occurrence.

When RJ threw out issues of nearly a century ago to equate with today, this was disingenuous. It was also one party (not the current majority) that had control for nearly 140 years uninterrupted (indeed, it was the "liberation" from that party a few years ago that caused me to be proud of it after a lifetime of not being so). Simply put, it wasn't a GOP majority that mandated separate drinking fountains.

The Scopes Trial was also a lot more complex than warranting a brief "bad legislative" reference to score a point for an argument, and still has repercussions to this day. What teachers are allowed to teach (or even their personal behaviors) is an issue that goes beyond "legislative control", and has concerned me since I was in school (with textbooks and teachers engaged in a heavily slanted presentation of factual issues, which has worsened in the 3 decades since I was there, and isn't just in Tennessee).

The whipped cream of the replies was the spinning to equate past Presidents whom calmly and methodically laid out their agenda vs. an arrogant, entitled politician, anointed to said office, who declared like a community organizing thug, "I won. Deal with it." And the proverbial cherry on top was trotting out "the Koch Brothers", which has become the favorite red meat, frothing-at-the-mouth, leftist whipping boy. It fully deserved the derisive laughter from my side of the aisle when that was entered into the "AMP" argument. Even funnier is the left's attempts to make these successful Libertarian businessmen into that single Alinsky-style target has utterly failed, since most of the public has no idea who they are (and if those that don't did, would be puzzling over why they were being attacked at all -- especially given that they are way down the list of people and groups giving money to candidates and causes, most of which are from the left that earn nary a fraction of the attention or attacks).

Anyway... That's why I asked that with that blizzard of attacks coming forth all centered from a disagreement over the AMP, was it all really worth it over an expensive bus ? I think the whole thing has reached a level of absolute farce.

 

 

Thanks again, FMDJ.  I always prefer it when you write calmly and substantively instead of going off the death cult rails (speaking of cuing scary music)!

 

Regarding the segregated water fountains, need i remind you that you chastised me just a few posts ago, saying "What's funny is that you seem to think this is a "relatively" recent happening (say within the past 60 years)."  Now suddenly it's "nearly a century ago."  Those are your quotes.  We're talking about the same time period, you know.  That's a bit disingenuous, don't you think?

 

More importantly, how many times do we have to talk about how irrelevant the letter next to a politicians name was at the time they came up with some bad laws?  You know that parties all but flipped on race issues after the Civil RIghts Act was passed.  I can't think of a more disingenuous argument to make than blaming modern progressive and liberal Democrats for the actions of the conservative Democrats of olden days.  This is the quintessential example of the talking points and red herrings you so regularly decry but don't seem to shy away from employing when it suits your agenda. 

 

Also, yes the Scopes trial and surrounding issues were pretty complex.  I was in no way trying to simplify it or even get into the details.  It was merely an example to counter your point that the State Legislature had spoken so the law was set in stone.  I now understand that you apparently only meant that you supported the 'recent' actions of the legislature.  Thanks for clarifying.

 

Regarding presidential mandates, you are welcome  to call Obama a "community organizing thug" (which is pretty telling, by the way) for expressing the exact same sentiment as almost every other president over the last 60 years (is that a long time ago now or the recent history, I can't remember?) but you should at least try to come up with a reason to back up your claim.  Why was Obama's mandate worse?  Because he's a community organizing thug?  Or is it because Obama seemed so unpolished relative to what we got used to with the ever 'calm' and 'methodical' George W. Bush?  This would also be a good time to talk about the unprecedented levels of obstructionism that Obama has faced relative to presidents past if we were having a serious discussion.  If you disagree with that assessment, I'll be happy to provide plenty of evidence about filibuster abuse and unprecedented federal appointee gridlock.  Also, the line was "I won" not "I won, get over it" (that sounds suspiciously like deliberate disinformation!) and he was specifically referring to the stimulus package on which he had campaigned, and yes 'won.'  Now was that really so awful?

 

 

For the last 6 months, Rookzie has written the most thorough, informative, fact-based, transit-related posts on the board and he's bee nothing but friendly and considerate to everyone else here.  He even gave Tim a highlight reel when he was moving away.  Also, UTgrad is clearly on the short list if not the heir apparent to the Moderator position here.  Both of these extremely reasonable gentlemen felt the need to speak up directly to you about the tone of your posts.  Do you really think everyone is out to get you?

 

It's disingenuous to play the victim card considering I think you'll have a lot harder time coming up with examples of occasions on which you've been personally attacked than you appear to think.  For example, I can't remember anyone ever saying anything even close to 'all you Cons are inhuman, life hating, amoral, ready-made death cult following, etc....'  As much as I appreciate your vitriolic poetic license (which I sincerely do for creativity points if nothing else) you dish out way more than you take.  Likewise, despite the fact that you often lament the long run Democrats have been in power in Nashville, I can't remember anyone ever telling you to move somewhere else if you don't like it.  When you then went on to suggest that people who disagree with you and the current State Legislature should move to a place with more like minded leaders, I don't remember anyone ever mentioning the word hypocrite.  How many times do you think you've called other people hypocrites on this board?

 

I wasn't blaming you for turning the AMP debate into a political issue, that's unavoidable.  What can be avoided is letting the conversation degrade into Red vs. Blue, Con vs. Prog, D vs. R.  Local and National politics aren't the same thing--or at least they don't have to be unless we let the discourse devolve to that level.

Edited April 1, 2014 by ruraljuror

[fieldmarshaldj]

In any event, I don't think it is good to have outside influences, no matter the side of the political spectrum, flexing their political muscle here. I don't think it is in the best interest of Nashville to become a battleground of interest groups, especially given how one-sided the politics are in our state government. The same would've held true when the legislature was under Democratic control.

What about how one-sided things are in city government ? And now, under Karl Dean, Metro's credit rating has just been downgraded.

[BnaBreaker]

I personally don't mind the political discussions, but IF the moderators' ultimate goal is to squash any and all political debate in the main forum, I think it's worth pointing out that, entirely justified or not, the people who were taking shots of frustration specifically at the extreme minority who happen to be anti-transit conservatives on our state legislature, do so because they, almost exclusively, are who is responsible for derailing The Amp, which is the topic of conversation.  In other words, at least they are more or less on topic.

 

As is often the case, there is really only one person who, without any equivalent provocation, decided to introduce the completely unrelated and unadulterated, purely political mud-slinging to the discussion.  Now, perhaps it is true that the targets of his mud-slinging should have refrained from responding.  But if you are looking for who is to blame for putting arsenic in the soup, time and time again, I think it is obvious who your focus should be on. 

 

Now, my buddy FMDJ will probably just say that myself and others that share my political stripes are being 'too sensitive,' as he likes to do.  But it's not that I personally take offense to anything he says, or that I'm bothered by it at all. It's just that, and maybe this just means I've been in Chicago for too long, but it is pretty bizarre to me that he can throw a statement like 'progressivism is a cult of death' (and that's just the tip of the iceberg) into a discussion about public transit, and people just shrug it off as if he's saying 'the sky is blue.'  I mean, if you're looking for purely anti-social behavior, there you go. 

 

I don't intend to throw any one person under the bus, because most of us have made political statements from time to time, and I'm probably one of the worse offenders and will gladly accept appropriate blame.  However, as much as I like and respect Davy as a person (and I do), if you moderators are looking to end at least the political discourse that is truly negative and hate-based, then I think it's clear what direction you should be looking in.  I'm not, AT ALL saying that I think any action should be taken against Davy.  Let me say right now that I do not support that.  I'm JUST SAYING, if you truly want to mend this perceived problem, I think it's obvious that it would help much more if the moderators took it up with FMDJ himself instead of pretending that the blame can be spread equally amongst everyone.  It is fairly unavoidable, with a topic such as this, to keep politics out of it entirely.  But it is very possible to have this discussion without any of the black and white, us vs. them blood lust.  There are other conservatives taking part in this conversation too, and I don't think any of them are the least bit out of bounds.  Just my two cents.

Edited April 1, 2014 by BnaBreaker

[fieldmarshaldj]

Do you really agree that the Koch brothers should have a say in anything that happens in our city?

If George Soros were advocating for AMP, would you have a problem with it ?

If only we had a couple of these...it would solve all of our problems.

 

You wouldn't have to worry about center lane/right lane fiasco, no lanes will be lost, minimal construction costs, we could just retrofit old school buses that metro has stored over by the fairgrounds, and everyone would be one big happy family!

 

Maybe Sen. Ketron could submit legislation to fund this study next, after the monorail study is complete.

 

Heavy sarcasm aside, this actually isn't a bad idea. It may not be "sexy", but it would cost a helluva lot less to the taxpayers (unlike that monorail nonsense).

[fieldmarshaldj]

Thanks again, FMDJ.  I always prefer it when you write calmly and substantively instead of going off the death cult rails (speaking of cuing scary music)!

 

Regarding the segregated water fountains, need i remind you that you chastised me just a few posts ago, saying "What's funny is that you seem to think this is a "relatively" recent happening (say within the past 60 years)."  Now suddenly it's "nearly a century ago."  Those are your quotes.  We're talking about the same time period, you know.  That's a bit disingenuous, don't you think?

 

More importantly, how many times do we have to talk about how irrelevant the letter next to a politicians name was at the time they came up with some bad laws?  You know that parties all but flipped on race issues after the Civil RIghts Act was passed.  I can't think of a more disingenuous argument to make than blaming modern progressive and liberal Democrats for the actions of the conservative Democrats of olden days.  This is the quintessential example of the talking points and red herrings you so regularly decry but don't seem to shy away from employing when it suits your agenda. 

 

Also, yes the Scopes trial and surrounding issues were pretty complex.  I was in no way trying to simplify it or even get into the details.  It was merely an example to counter your point that the State Legislature had spoken so the law was set in stone.  I now understand that you apparently only meant that you supported the 'recent' actions of the legislature.  Thanks for clarifying.

 

Regarding presidential mandates, you are welcome  to call Obama a "community organizing thug" (which is pretty telling, by the way) for expressing the exact same sentiment as almost every other president over the last 60 years (is that a long time ago now or the recent history, I can't remember?) but you should at least try to come up with a reason to back up your claim.  Why was Obama's mandate worse?  Because he's a community organizing thug?  Or is it because Obama seemed so unpolished relative to what we got used to with the ever 'calm' and 'methodical' George W. Bush?  This would also be a good time to talk about the unprecedented levels of obstructionism that Obama has faced relative to presidents past if we were having a serious discussion.  If you disagree with that assessment, I'll be happy to provide plenty of evidence about filibuster abuse and unprecedented federal appointee gridlock.  Also, the line was "I won" not "I won, get over it" (that sounds suspiciously like deliberate disinformation!) and he was specifically referring to the stimulus package on which he had campaigned, and yes 'won.'  Now was that really so awful?

 

 

For the last 6 months, Rookzie has written the most thorough, informative, fact-based, transit-related posts on the board and he's bee nothing but friendly and considerate to everyone else here.  He even gave Tim a highlight reel when he was moving away.  Also, UTgrad is clearly on the short list if not the heir apparent to the Moderator position here.  Both of these extremely reasonable gentlemen felt the need to speak up directly to you about the tone of your posts.  Do you really think everyone is out to get you?

 

It's disingenuous to play the victim card considering I think you'll have a lot harder time coming up with examples of occasions on which you've been personally attacked than you appear to think.  For example, I can't remember anyone ever saying anything even close to 'all you Cons are inhuman, life hating, amoral, ready-made death cult following, etc....'  As much as I appreciate your vitriolic poetic license (which I sincerely do for creativity points if nothing else) you dish out way more than you take.  Likewise, despite the fact that you often lament the long run Democrats have been in power in Nashville, I can't remember anyone ever telling you to move somewhere else if you don't like it.  When you then went on to suggest that people who disagree with you and the current State Legislature should move to a place with more like minded leaders, I don't remember anyone ever mentioning the word hypocrite.  How many times do you think you've called other people hypocrites on this board?

 

I wasn't blaming you for turning the AMP debate into a political issue, that's unavoidable.  What can be avoided is letting the conversation degrade into Red vs. Blue, Con vs. Prog, D vs. R.  Local and National politics aren't the same thing--or at least they don't have to be unless we let the discourse devolve to that level.

Since the above doesn't strictly relate to AMP, and since I'm trying my hardest to keep to the subject of the thread, feel free to repost your points under Coffee House (unless the mods think this is too hot to touch). The question you might want to ask yourself, however, is whether you want to waste your time, since I'm going to disagree on virtually everything you write.

[fieldmarshaldj]

I personally don't mind the political discussions, but IF the moderators' ultimate goal is to squash any and all political debate in the main forum, I think it's worth pointing out that, entirely justified or not, the people who were taking shots of frustration specifically at the extreme minority who happen to be anti-transit conservatives on our state legislature, do so because they, almost exclusively, are who is responsible for derailing The Amp, which is the topic of conversation.  In other words, at least they are more or less on topic.

 

As is often the case, there is really only one person who, without any equivalent provocation, decided to introduce the completely unrelated and unadulterated, purely political mud-slinging to the discussion.  Now, perhaps it is true that the targets of his mud-slinging should have refrained from responding.  But if you are looking for who is to blame for putting arsenic in the soup, time and time again, I think it is obvious who your focus should be on. 

 

Now, my buddy FMDJ will probably just say that myself and others that share my political stripes are being 'too sensitive,' as he likes to do.  But it's not that I personally take offense to anything he says, or that I'm bothered by it at all. It's just that, and maybe this just means I've been in Chicago for too long, but it is pretty bizarre to me that he can throw a statement like 'progressivism is a cult of death' (and that's just the tip of the iceberg) into a discussion about public transit, and people just shrug it off as if he's saying 'the sky is blue.'  I mean, if you're looking for purely anti-social behavior, there you go. 

 

I don't intend to throw any one person under the bus, because most of us have made political statements from time to time, and I'm probably one of the worse offenders and will gladly accept appropriate blame.  However, as much as I like and respect Davy as a person (and I do), if you moderators are looking to end at least the political discourse that is truly negative and hate-based, then I think it's clear what direction you should be looking in.  I'm not, AT ALL saying that I think any action should be taken against Davy.  Let me say right now that I do not support that.  I'm JUST SAYING, if you truly want to mend this perceived problem, I think it's obvious that it would help much more if the moderators took it up with FMDJ himself instead of pretending that the blame can be spread equally amongst everyone.  It is fairly unavoidable, with a topic such as this, to keep politics out of it entirely.  But it is very possible to have this discussion without any of the black and white, us vs. them blood lust.  There are other conservatives taking part in this conversation too, and I don't think any of them are the least bit out of bounds.  Just my two cents.

You're serving to make my point here.

[Guest]

and this is how government works...... well done Mayor.. you may yet get your BRT.

http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/blog/2014/04/dean-proposal-would-nix-dedicated-bus-lanes-in.html?ana=e_nsh_bn
 

 

Notably, Dean said he's instructed planners working on the $174 million project to look at abandoning plans for dedicated center bus lanes between Interstate 440 and Saint Thomas West Hospital, the westernmost portion of the route. This portion of the route also goes by several of the residential neighborhoods that are home to some of the project's most vocal — and organized — critics.

Dean said he also instructed planners to look at a similar change between the Interstate 40 overpass near downtown and the West End Avenue-Broadway split.

Edited April 1, 2014 by Guest

[12Mouth]

Interesting...this isn't an April Fool's gag, is it? 

[Guest]

well...... there is the part about including Lee Beaman on the advisory committee !!

 

Interesting...this isn't an April Fool's gag, is it? 

Edited April 1, 2014 by Guest

[UTgrad09]

What about how one-sided things are in city government ? And now, under Karl Dean, Metro's credit rating has just been downgraded.

I have gone on the record numerous times displaying my disdain for how controlling the Dean admin is. I do think it is important that we exercise some fiscal caution after Dean's spending spree.

And for the record, I would very much have a problem if George Soros was bankrolling the pro Amp campaign.

[Paramount747]

Lee Beaman has one agenda....sell cars. Anything that remotely affects his ability to do so, he will be against. I am surprised he has not moved out of the city to the suburbs where most car dealers are now anyway. There are a lot more customers in Cool Springs than he will ever have on 14th and  Broadway.

Edited April 1, 2014 by Urban Architecture

[Hey_Hey]

Lee Beaman has one agenda....sell cars. Anything that remotely affects his ability to do so, he will be against. I am surprised he has not moved out of the city to the suburbs where most car dealers are now anyway. There are a lot more customers in Cool Springs than he will ever have on 14th and  Broadway.

There's already a Toyota dealership out there. I looked at cars from his dealership in the past and theytoldme he was the largest volume dealer in his region that encompasses several states. He's got a successful business with plenty of customers.

[Hey_Hey]

I'm fine with this. A couple stretches of shared roadway aren't going to do away with the benefits of the AMP, and it very well may save the AMP from a doomed future. Also, I would think there will be some cost savings if there are areas without dedicated lanes. If so, maybe they could discuss extending the AMP past 5 Points up to Eastland.

[dmillsphoto]

If George Soros were advocating for AMP, would you have a problem with it ?

Heavy sarcasm aside, this actually isn't a bad idea. It may not be "sexy", but it would cost a helluva lot less to the taxpayers (unlike that monorail nonsense).

 

Hell yes I'd have a problem with it. You forget, FMDJ, I don't subscribe to your side or "the other."

 

But anybody oudside of Davidson county or the MSA needs to keep their trap shut and wallets closed. It doesn't affect them, so who are they to have a decision in the future of mass transit here?

Hopefully I have some time tonight to come through and clean up the last few pages and ship some comments off to the coffee house.

[Paramount747]

DMills has a point. The rest of the state really has no business in Nashville business. Memphis has no love for Nashville. Do you think they want Nashville getting federal dollars?

 

I remember when we had to get state approval for the Titans to move here, and one of the concessions was calling them the Tennessee Titans as opposed to the Nashville Titans, and that was pure political BS. Do you really think a Vols fan from Knoxville is watching the Titans? Memphis tried for 40 years to get an NFL team and could not, then Bud Adams approaches Nashville instead of Memphis. Do you think people in Memphis watch the Titans?

[Guest]

$34,000,000 state dollars says they do have a say....
 

[Hey_Hey]

I agree with nashville_bound. As soon as the city asked for state funds it became their business. That doesn't mean they shouldn't fund it, but it is their business. It is a gross overreach of the state to prevent the concept of a development on a "state highway".

[fieldmarshaldj]

Hell yes I'd have a problem with it. You forget, FMDJ, I don't subscribe to your side or "the other."

 

But anybody oudside of Davidson county or the MSA needs to keep their trap shut and wallets closed. It doesn't affect them, so who are they to have a decision in the future of mass transit here?

Hopefully I have some time tonight to come through and clean up the last few pages and ship some comments off to the coffee house.

Meh, don't waste your time with the latter. I think we've gotten the subject back on track.

[producer2]

And ideology is fine, but let's try to keep it in perspective. When debating the merits of public transit, and any political involvement, bringing up other political ideologies that a poster might or might not support (especially in the spectrum of social politics) is not helpful, and eventually, as we have seen, leads to some pretty nasty e-confrontations and debases the overall argument.

I'm trying to do exactly that. The merits of civic policy are not  party affiliated. In fact over 50% of the voting public consider themselves somewhere in the middle of that equation. Both parties are responsible for the messes and successes enjoyed in the Country. Change is the hard thing for many to accept but it is coming, it just takes time.

[Guest]

I am not attempting to open up a new back and forth, but in response to your post -

political parties are old news.... they just do not know it. (Here I agree with you) 

ideology on the other hand is steadfast...  (most recent poll I could find) (Here I disagree with you)

http://www.gallup.com/poll/152021/conservatives-remain-largest-ideological-group.aspx

[grilled_cheese]

$34,000,000 state dollars says they do have a say....

 

 

And I'm sure Shelbyville, Jamestown, and Hohenwald put an equal share into that pot, right?

[producer2]

everyone has a poll. this one is slightly newer.

http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/meet-the-moderates