West End Streetscape

[smeagolsfree]

You know, I like the idea. Maybe you should run for mayor.

It is a sound idea. I would like to see something happen along those lines and its not out of the question to see something like what you propose come to reality.

[Hankster]

Over the past century Americans have come to expect more and more from government....to the point that they don't even realize that many of the things they have come to expect from government, such as schools, and transit, fire proection, jails, even police protection could be obtained from private companies. If we were to move back towards looking first to private companies for these things rather than from the government, we would find these services can be provided much better, much cheaper, and more effectively.

Your idea is something I wish the people of Nashville, or even other city would implement. Once people see that it can work, others will want to "jump onto the bandwagon."

[frankliner]

Kheldane, those "Japanese looking trains" that you see throughout Europe frequently don't need dedicated stops and are LESS expensive than the renovation of "heritage trollies". The reason is because of new systems that have been put in place including fuel cells, track installment, and track gauges, it actually makes more fiscal sense to go with a modern-looking system. So to be quite honest, a "Japanese looking train" would fit your system that you are proposing alot better than the "heritage" look that you seem to be advocating.

[NewTowner]

So that's my plan - no new taxes, no need for government involvement, other than having the government get out of the way and let the group put in the line on west end/broadway. No new ordinances. No protracted legal battles or referendums. No delinquent tax evictions (at least not due to higher taxes caused by the new project). No further debt burdens to the increasingly indebted metro government. No dependency on some pork-barrel funds comming from D.C. Just a group of people who want rail making it happen. As Kheldane, I'm not just saying the government shouldn't be involved - I'm saying the government doesn't need to be involved for us to have rail transit.

Yeah! ...and take away all the government spending on roadways, to keep the playing field even. Otherwise, you would have a privately-funded light rail system competing with a publically-funded private transportation system...kind of like you did in the middle of century, when all of our streetcar companies and passenger rail companies went out of business while trying to compete with an automotive network that did not have to construct or maintain its own roadbed, signaling system, security apparatus, or anything else. Uh-oh! Sounds like a recipe for doo-doo.

I totally think privately-funded rail would be awesome. But first, you have privatize all of our transportation, or things just wouldn't be fair. The streetcar system you propose was already built, Kheldane--and then it got eaten alive by government sponsorship of the automobile. So...we have to choose:

Government helps construct diverse transportation network including rail as well as roads and air...

or...

Government funds nothing! We'll see what "the market" provides!

That's the choice, my friends!

[smeagolsfree]

.

I totally think privately-funded rail would be awesome. But first, you have privatize all of our transportation, or things just wouldn't be fair. The streetcar system you propose was already built, Kheldane--and then it got eaten alive by government sponsorship of the automobile. So...we have to choose:

Hey NT, I think I can agree with you 100% on that one too. I would love to see a lot of the government functions privatized, especially public transportation, utilities, garbage collection and most importantly , schools. It would be great to see Nashville as a huge experiment in privatization.

[jcoop]

Then Businesses downtown, all along west end, hospitals, vanderbilt, etc., should form a consortium of groups who's purpose is to bring about the construction and operation of an effective and self-sustaining light-rail system on west end.

This could potentially be a big problem getting support from business owners along west end. In many cases, the street parking is very important to their business. I know firsthand that parking for shopping causes problems already among business owners and there aren't very many options available to fix the problem. My point being, it might be a lot harder to get as much support as you need...but hey, you might as well try because it could be a great addition to west end.

[Guest]

I agree that it would require some finesse but the case could be made that the foot traffic would INCREASE as new buyers arrived via the mass transit.

This could potentially be a big problem getting support from business owners along west end. In many cases, the street parking is very important to their business. I know firsthand that parking for shopping causes problems already among business owners and there aren't very many options available to fix the problem. My point being, it might be a lot harder to get as much support as you need...but hey, you might as well try because it could be a great addition to west end.

[Kheldane]

Yeah! ...and take away all the government spending on roadways, to keep the playing field even. Otherwise, you would have a privately-funded light rail system competing with a publically-funded private transportation system...kind of like you did in the middle of century, when all of our streetcar companies and passenger rail companies went out of business while trying to compete with an automotive network that did not have to construct or maintain its own roadbed, signaling system, security apparatus, or anything else. Uh-oh! Sounds like a recipe for doo-doo.

I totally think privately-funded rail would be awesome. But first, you have privatize all of our transportation, or things just wouldn't be fair. The streetcar system you propose was already built, Kheldane--and then it got eaten alive by government sponsorship of the automobile.

I Agree 100% Nashville used to have a pretty respectable streetcar system from what I've read - and it was driven out of business (at least to some extent) by government maintained roads. I am totally in favor of privatizing almost all roads in nashville, and addinG tolls to the interstates. Goodbye gridlock, hello mass transit!

[Kheldane]

This could potentially be a big problem getting support from business owners along west end. In many cases, the street parking is very important to their business. I know firsthand that parking for shopping causes problems already among business owners and there aren't very many options available to fix the problem.

That's a good point that removal of the parking could meet some resistence from business owners. I would make the argument to those business owners that it's in their interest to give up the 4 or 5 parking spots in front of their lot and gain the 100's of new foot-traffic customers that are more likely to walk past their store front on the way to the train. Those people would normally speed past at 45 MPH with their attention firmly focused on the West End traffic nightmare. The number of spots on WE is actually pretty small when you look at it - hopefully getting those removed wouldn't be too large of a hurdle.

I agree that it would require some finesse but the case could be made that the foot traffic would INCREASE as new buyers arrived via the mass transit.

Oops, I posted a response before I saw you had already said the same thing!

[jcoop]

That's a good point that removal of the parking could meet some resistence from business owners. I would make the argument to those business owners that it's in their interest to give up the 4 or 5 parking spots in front of their lot and gain the 100's of new foot-traffic customers that are more likely to walk past their store front on the way to the train. Those people would normally speed past at $45 MPH with their attention firmly focused on the West End traffic nightmare. The number of spots on WE is actually pretty small when you look at it - hopefully getting those removed wouldn't be too large of a hurdle

if you are wondering, I bring this perspective because my parents own scarlett begonia (the import store right next to cumberland transit)...we have some parking behind the store, which is a luxury compared to some retailers parking situations. I would say that your argument about foot traffic is a very good one. We definitely depend on foot traffic from people who are not coming down there with the intent to go shopping at our store, but they find their way in anyways. However, it is amazing how many people say, "I was driving by and decided to stop because I always drive by and see the window..." and those are the people who use the street parking for a quick stop. Like I said before, I would not be opposed but I am trying to give the perspective that might be encountered from some business owners.

[jice]

As Kheldane, I'm not just saying the government shouldn't be involved - I'm saying the government doesn't need to be involved for us to have rail transit.

I am wondering how true this really is, though. It all sounds good... but is it really feasible? Are there any examples of privately funded light rail? I'm not up on the subject. It just seems to me that economically, it might be hard to do. You would have to have an intense, steady ridership... along with possibly a higher than usual ticket fee. I don't think private investors are going to put up with a negative bank balance, the way a governmenet tends to, just to have "mass transit." But, maybe I am wrong? Maybe it really would work... who knows?

[Kheldane]

I am wondering how true this really is, though. It all sounds good... but is it really feasible? Are there any examples of privately funded light rail? I'm not up on the subject. It just seems to me that economically, it might be hard to do. You would have to have an intense, steady ridership... along with possibly a higher than usual ticket fee. ...

I think NewTowners post about the roads was really the key on this issue. You would need to privatize the roads as well to truely make this work. I can invision a scenario in which the same business/community consortium actually purchased West End Avenue itself and then made it a toll road, using the tolls to fund the rails to some extent. The main goal of the consortium would be to attract the maximum number of travelers in the corridor, and they would seek to do that by making the experience of moving up and down West End painless and pleasant. You can't do that with gridlock, so I have to think they would turn to rail. But realistically speaking, none of this would happen without some kind of supernatural libertarian rennaisance in Nashville...

...but I think the theory is sound...it could potentially happen if some kind of crucial event or economic catastropy caused a massive social re-awakending or some scandal caused enormous mis-trust of government. Would $100 per barrel oil make it happen? Would state or city bankruptcy make it happen? Hard to say. Maybe a combination of converging maladies would somehow steer the public in that direction even if they weren't libertarian philosophically?

[jice]

Hmmm... purchase West End and turn it into a toll road? lol... yeah...

The private rail thing is a good idea, I agree. It would be nice to see it happen... but I have my doubts it would work.

Probably the best thing we can do right now... is get a big group of supporters together, those who want to see this happen soon... and start a commission of some sort to lobby and press the government and make it happen. Raise awareness, research it and bring things to the table... like ideas on pollution and the actual cost of implementation, etc.

[Kheldane]

The private rail thing is a good idea, I agree. It would be nice to see it happen... but I have my doubts it would work.

Probably the best thing we can do right now... is get a big group of supporters together, those who want to see this happen soon... and start a commission of some sort to lobby and press the government and make it happen. Raise awareness, research it and bring things to the table... like ideas on pollution and the actual cost of implementation, etc.

What exactly do you have doubts about: Whether or not it will happen, or whether or not a private rail system could actually exist and function? As I've said, I think the chances are remote given current conditions and societal attitudes. But I stand by the general concept.

If you go running to government for money then you loose the moral high-ground. Why do I say that? Because it means you want to steal money from tax payers all over the city/state/country to pay for your rail project. That makes you a greedy parasite that is a drain on the whole economy. In my private system, only the people using the rail and the businesses benefiting from the rail are paying for the rail. That is an equitable and just solution to the problem - though admittedly, not the most expedient.

I do agree with you that the first step in the process needs to be organizing the various public interest groups into a cohesive and purposeful commission or consortium.

[FrijolMalo]

Money collected through taxes is not stolen. Taxes are the price you pay for living in a civilized society. If you don't like paying taxes, go live on your own island where you don't have to pay taxes and can't mooch off of everyone else's infrastructure.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Money collected through taxes is not stolen. Taxes are the price you pay for living in a civilized society. If you don't like paying taxes, go live on your own island where you don't have to pay taxes and can't mooch off of everyone else's infrastructure.

No, it's just a form of legalized stealing. Virtually every tax increase should have to be approved by the public through referendum, period. Anything else is tyranny.

[Kheldane]

Money collected through taxes is not stolen. Taxes are the price you pay for living in a civilized society.

Just taxes are exactly that - the price you pay for maintaining the peaceful structure of society: Police, Courts, Military, a few miscellaneous record-keeping departments.

Unjust taxes are those that actually erode the civilized character by artifically injecting violence into social transactions. Lets use rail as a perfect example. In a private system, only the people who pay to ride the system and the people who own/operate the system are involved in the transaction. Both parties come to the table voluntarily. If government money is used though, that money is tax money taken by force from the public. It is not the hallmark of a civilized society that people's hard earned money will be confiscated and re-directed to make someone elses' life easier - that is corrupt and immoral. Especially when the same outcome could have been accomplished through private means: letting people work together voluntarily to achieve a mutually beneficial solution.

Or think about it a different way. If nobody has enough money to build a rail system that people would use, or if the per-ride price of a privately owned system would prohibit adequate ridership, then the would-be rail riders are too far down the demand curve to be able to afford a rail system. It's obvious the rail-riders would like to receive a rail system even though they can't afford it - but does that give them the right to hold-up a convenience store to pay their fare? Or look at the supply side: It's obvious that would-be rail owners would love an infusion of outside capital from the government because in a free-market system their business model is a money looser. But that money doesn't appear out of thin air - the government takes it from tax payers and gives it to the rail operator - and the rail operator gives nothing to the tax payers in return.

At this point you might object: "what do you mean gives nothing in return? They provide rail transport!" And my response is this: "It's a foregone conclusion that the public would have rather spent that tax money on something else besides rail transport - otherwhise government involvement would be unnecessary. The public would buy rail transport in sufficient quantities to support private rail transport. It is only because demand is insufficient or costs are prohibitive that government gets involved - to force capital in a direction than it otherwise would have gone - to force the public to pay for rail transport when they don't want it".

What do you call it when someone takes your property at gunpoint and gives you nothing in return? - Stealing.

[jice]

What exactly do you have doubts about: Whether or not it will happen, or whether or not a private rail system could actually exist and function? As I've said, I think the chances are remote given current conditions and societal attitudes. But I stand by the general concept.

If you go running to government for money then you loose the moral high-ground. Why do I say that? Because it means you want to steal money from tax payers all over the city/state/country to pay for your rail project. That makes you a greedy parasite that is a drain on the whole economy. In my private system, only the people using the rail and the businesses benefiting from the rail are paying for the rail. That is an equitable and just solution to the problem - though admittedly, not the most expedient.

I do agree with you that the first step in the process needs to be organizing the various public interest groups into a cohesive and purposeful commission or consortium.

I agree in theory that it could work... just doubt that it would happen. Because for it to work... the owners would have to at least break even on costs, which seems unlikely.

I'm not sure I see taxes as stealing money. More like.... putting it to better use. We all pay Medicare taxes... but will we all use it in our lives? Not necessarily. Just like we may not all use the rail line. But if we had the extra money in our pockets.... what would most use it on? A bigger tv? Fancier car? Besides... we already spend plenty of money on roadways.... why not redirect some of that $$ into a rail system? The taxes may not even need to be increased to see something happen.

[Kheldane]

I'm not sure I see taxes as stealing money. More like.... putting it to better use. We all pay Medicare taxes... but will we all use it in our lives? Not necessarily. Just like we may not all use the rail line. But if we had the extra money in our pockets.... what would most use it on? A bigger tv? Fancier car? Besides... we already spend plenty of money on roadways.... why not redirect some of that $$ into a rail system? The taxes may not even need to be increased to see something happen.

Wow....WOW! I don't want to get too far off subject - but ...WOW!

First of all, I ask you who determines what is the "better use" for my money? You? The government? Value is completely subjective. I may value a bottle of wine at $50, you may value the same bottle at $25. Which of us is right? Neither - they're just opinions. If, however, I purchase the bottle for $50, then we can correctly state that the market price of the bottle was $50 at the exact instant I purchased it. Did I pay too much (make an economic mistake)? We'll never know. Only I know how much the wine is worth to me. Similarly, if the public chooses not to purchase rail transport and purchase a TV instead - no one can say they made a mistake. But again - I'm curious to know who you think is qualified to say they made a mistake...

[edit]

I'm actually blown away by the views you put forward, but I'm not saying you're bad or stupid. I'm just curious about what/who influenced your outlook on economics and freedom. You seem to be indicating that the public is incapable of making purchasing decisions that benefit them. You also seem to be indicating that it's the government's perogative (maybe even responsibility??) to take the public's money before they waste it and spend it on something worthwhile. Again - I'm not trying to do any name calling - I'm more just curious. During your schooling, did you ever study the economic system of communist russia? Do you know that that kind of thinking is exactly in line with communism? I'm not saying that you're evil or communist for holding those views - just curious if you are aware that they are communist views. Maybe you have already stated you communist beliefs elsewhere in the forum and I'm just slow to pick up. If so, sorry for re-hashing old news!

Two more quick things:

You mentioned Medicare: That system is immoral.

You mentioned Public Roads: Those are immoral.

Both rely on taking money from the public by force and giving it to others to use for their own purposes. Both systems circumvent the private market (which could provide healthcare and roadways through voluntary exchange) and implement an inefficent system of asset-reallocation that ignores the pricing system - thus resulting in economic waste and the violation of tax payers property rights.

[Guest]

Kheldane

When I read Jice's post I laughed my a** off because I knew you were going to blow a gasket...good thing you work close to health care facilities!!!!

[jice]

Wow....WOW! I don't want to get too far off subject - but ...WOW!

First of all, I ask you who determines what is the "better use" for my money? You? The government? Value is completely subjective. I may value a bottle of wine at $50, you may value the same bottle at $25. Which of us is right? Neither - they're just opinions. If, however, I purchase the bottle for $50, then we can correctly state that the market price of the bottle was $50 at the exact instant I purchased it. Did I pay too much (make an economic mistake)? We'll never know. Only I know how much the wine is worth to me. Similarly, if the public chooses not to purchase rail transport and purchase a TV instead - no one can say they made a mistake. But again - I'm curious to know who you think is qualified to say they made a mistake...

[edit]

I'm actually blown away by the views you put forward, but I'm not saying you're bad or stupid. I'm just curious about what/who influenced your outlook on economics and freedom. You seem to be indicating that the public is incapable of making purchasing decisions that benefit them. You also seem to be indicating that it's the government's perogative (maybe even responsibility??) to take the public's money before they waste it and spend it on something worthwhile. Again - I'm not trying to do any name calling - I'm more just curious. During your schooling, did you ever study the economic system of communist russia? Do you know that that kind of thinking is exactly in line with communism? I'm not saying that you're evil or communist for holding those views - just curious if you are aware that they are communist views. Maybe you have already stated you communist beliefs elsewhere in the forum and I'm just slow to pick up. If so, sorry for re-hashing old news!

Two more quick things:

You mentioned Medicare: That system is immoral.

You mentioned Public Roads: Those are immoral.

Both rely on taking money from the public by force and giving it to others to use for their own purposes. Both systems circumvent the private market (which could provide healthcare and roadways through voluntary exchange) and implement an inefficent system of asset-reallocation that ignores the pricing system - thus resulting in economic waste and the violation of tax payers property rights.

Ouch... I don't see how anything I said sounds communist. No, I am not a communist. I am surprised at how people on this forum can blow things outta proportion sometimes. I was just trying to say that I don't have a problem with taxes, and the way things work right now. The government may not be perfect... but I think if we left it up to the general public to make ALL decisions on how to spend their money.... we would never get anything done. People are too concerned about themselves and getting what they want. Most people anyway. We need some sort of government intervention to organize and spend funds where they actually need to be spent. I'm not saying the general public should have no say in it either. That's the benefit of living in a democratic society... we all have a right to influence decisions.

Anyway... this has gotten way way off subject. I think it's about time to wrap it up.

[cheeriokid61]

Yeah, I wanna start talking about Light Rail down West End Avenue again, not more crazy politics, which it seems like all this forum is about now anyway.

[FrijolMalo]

Sure, the market works best in many situations, but not every situation. Surely if you had taken and an introductory economics class, you would have learned that there are cases where government gets involved because the market fails to provide the best outcome. If we were to privatize all transportation infrastructure, developers would simpy continue to build sprawling low density suburban type developments out as far from the city core as possible, as that is the type of development that many people desire. You'll probably say, "So what, if they own the property they should be able to develop it however they want." Well, the problem is that what you do on your property affects others directly and indirectly. Most notably by affecting the property values of your neighbors and by affecting the need for transportation and utility infrastructure. I suppose if these views make me a communist, then virtually every country in the world is communist.

Regarding medicare/medicaid, I say that it's much more immoral to let people in need go without healthcare than it is to tax healthy people to provide that care. Sure, they don't benefit directly, but that's the price you pay for living in a civilized society.

[frankliner]

HUZZAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[vinemp]

But, Europe is a diverse culture. Even in the smaller cities, they have the population densities to support such ventures. Also, mass transit is used by persons from all SES levels. That is wholly not the case in much of the United States.

If we could secure the dividends to fund such a project, think of how much more money we would spend just to market it to the public. Would the passenger numbers support the system?

I wonder if a simple transit line up and down West End would suffice. There would have to be [many] more transit lines for the streets that cross and lead to West End and the surrounding area. Assuredly, a light rail on West End would have to run through to Downtown.

I, for one, feel that our bus transit could use a bit of a tweeking (dedicated lanes, more routes, more riders, more buses) before any additional mass transit alternatives are considered.