West End Streetscape

[Kheldane]

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

Agreed - I'll just simply point out that you in no way event attempted to address my hypothetical example about the wine bottle. Perhaps you sensed danger...?

[cheeriokid61]

Please don't set us up for another argument.

I agree that the Light Rail line would have to extend into downtown, maybe just going along Broadway where West End Avenue ends, and definately have some cross lines. I'm thinking downtown we could even have a loop about four blocks wide, but I don't know how easy it would be to make a path for that.

[jice]

Agreed - I'll just simply point out that you in no way even attempted to address my hypothetical example about the wine bottle. Perhaps you sensed danger...?

Ugh.... yes, danger of getting even more off topic! Actually, I just didn't feel like putting that much thought into it, lol. It's funny how you make one comment on here (which was for the most part in SUPPORT of your idea), and get thrown into an argument on the economics of a bottle of wine. It's stuff like this that keeps me from even wanting to post a whole lot on this forum, lol. I don't really care to get this deep on the subject of economics & politics & etc. Ok, so maybe i'm somewhat to blame, but still.

Anyway, if you must have an answer to your question... How about society as a whole determining a better use for your money? There are certain costs for living in a civilized society that i'm afraid wouldn't get taken care of if left up to the general public to band together and do so themselves.

Ok, now that i've answered that... on to more about the west end streetscape...

[Hankster]

I would love to see light rail on West End. As more and more people start living in the area, the chances for that improve. This picture from Amsterdam is my dream for West End.

[nashscan]

Okay Okay, time for a group song:

Oh where oh where is my pantograph. Oh where oh where could it beeeee

[cheeriokid61]

I'm afraid I have no idea what a pantograph is. I don't feel comfortable singing about things I don't know.

[nashscan]

I'm afraid I have no idea what a pantograph is. I don't feel comfortable singing about things I don't know.

It's the thingamabob that extends from the rail cars to the overhead wires to transfer the electricity that powers the train.

[cheeriokid61]

Oh, thanks. I still don't really want to join in though.

[frankliner]

I'LL SING!!! Although a tram system without pantographs (a la ULR) would be preferrable. But I'll take any tram system!!!!!!!!!!!

[franktown]

I know it's widely considered a failure, but have y'all ever seen Detroit's rail system? It's SO AWESOME. I rode it when I was there and it like is above the sidewalks and goes through buildings. It was really cool, and I thought something like that might be more feasable because you wouldn't have to take lanes of traffic.

[Kheldane]

Please don't set us up for another argument.

What is this fear of discussion you have? Not every thread has to be an odd collection of cheerleeding/overboosting and clever/sarcastic quips. Don't act like it is an inconvenience for everyone if other people like to delve deep into an issue. This thread was about West End, then someone mentioned light rail, then the subject of light rail economics came up. Then I posted my take on it. Then people posted some rebuttles/criticisms. Then I responded. That is the natural flow of a discussion thread - topics are discussed, differing views are presented, but everyone is more informed as a result. You're not even involved in discussing the economic aspect of it (though you are welcome to join at any time ), so please don't act like it's some kind of inconvenience for you to read a post you don't agree with. Just scroll on past.

@ Jice: I fully understand your views on public expenditures...since you've posted essentially the same thing in every one of your posts: You believe there are certain essential projects/capital expenditures that need to be done, but society will not do it themselves, so government must step in to get things done. Sorry if I gave the impression that I didn't understand your perspective. I definitely did.

What I was questioning with all my posts was how you determined what projects were essential? For example, you, Jice, may say that light rail is "essential". But if no one else in nashville is willing to pay the necessary ticket price to make light rail a reality, then it's obvious that you are the only one who thinks rail is essential. Or maybe you and 1000 other people think it is essential - but that's not enough paying customers to support the rail - so again, all your opinions are irrelevent. The steel and concrete and labor that would be used to provide you with rails is instead being employed by other businesses and projects around nashville. Your group of would-be rail riders is economically insignificant - you've been outbid for the resources by other people around nashville who are putting them to better use. So what I'm questioning is how you can say a project is "essential" if the assets that would be employed to build it have already purposefully been employed in other uses around town? Aren't the uses that private citizens put the assets to actually the real "essential" uses?

[cheeriokid61]

I don't really mind the debates. Sometimes I join in myself, but I didn't feel like debating in this one. The reason I said that was just the particular way you said that last statement. It almost sounded like you were insulting Jice, and trying to get the last word of the argument. Maybe you weren't, but it's hard to tell when all we see is words on a computer. I don't mind the discussions, it's just when they start to get personal that I can get kind of annoyed.

[frankliner]

well, having studied this issue some, I guess it's about time for me to jump into this argument. Kheldane, although you make very well-reasoned remarks on the need for the market and privitization of services, looking at how this applies practically is troubling to me. Permit me a case study...

In Brazil, many of the best highways have been privitized and are in good condition and are considered very safe. However, the government takes the position that because of the presence of private businesses in part of that market, they can significantly diminish their investment in infrastructure. This creates a system where interconnectability is sacrificed. Private roads do not connect (you have to go over state roads where the shoulder is safer than the pavement) together and travel times are increased almost two-fold. In fact, the Economist recently reported in a study that the lack of infrastructure investment by both the Brazilian government and the private sector is what is impeding true economic growth along the lines many of the Asian "Tiger" countries have seen. The moral of this story is, that although incentive does drive the market to a point, this approach frequently sacrifices overall standards of service. The American and European highway systems are considered to be among the finest in the world for their ability to provide COMPREHENSIVE top-notch infrastructure yet are almost totally government funded.

Applying this idea to rail, why should we have a higher standard for rail (which I yield to you that you were consistent and advocated a wholly privatized approach)? I personally feel that we need to invest in taht infrastructure at least a a 10% rate of highway funding to start bringing up an alternative form of infrastructure in case highways or the "car" culture becomes untenable. Our system of government funding for roads is not going to change, so we must use this system for providing an alternative method of travel that is perhaps not so reliant on gasoline (like air and car).

[jice]

What I was questioning with all my posts was how you determined what projects were essential? For example, you, Jice, may say that light rail is "essential". But if no one else in nashville is willing to pay the necessary ticket price to make light rail a reality, then it's obvious that you are the only one who thinks rail is essential. Or maybe you and 1000 other people think it is essential - but that's not enough paying customers to support the rail - so again, all your opinions are irrelevent. The steel and concrete and labor that would be used to provide you with rails is instead being employed by other businesses and projects around nashville. Your group of would-be rail riders is economically insignificant - you've been outbid for the resources by other people around nashville who are putting them to better use. So what I'm questioning is how you can say a project is "essential" if the assets that would be employed to build it have already purposefully been employed in other uses around town? Aren't the uses that private citizens put the assets to actually the real "essential" uses?

Some projects are pretty much no-brainers when it comes to whether or not they are essential.... such as healthcare for those who need it. But as for light rail... that's a tough one. You're right that it may only be a small group who feel like it is needed at the moment. I think it is just as essential as fixing/expanding highways... which I know you have objections with. But as frankliner said, and as I said previously, I think part of the funding for highway improvements should go into a rail budget, or some type of mass transit. It may not be essential for now... but in 10 years, when driving is unaffordable... people may think differently, and may require such a system just for everyday living. But we can't afford to wait that long to build it... in my opinion, it needs to be at least planned right now.

As for how to determine what is essential.... the best way, living in a democratic society, is to vote on it. We could have the public vote to determine which would be better to spend their tax dollars on... highway improvements, or future transportation systems. If there was a campaign to promote it, and with the right amount of public awareness... we might just get something done besides fixing potholes.

[Kheldane]

As for how to determine what is essential.... the best way, living in a democratic society, is to vote on it. We could have the public vote to determine which would be better to spend their tax dollars on... highway improvements, or future transportation systems. If there was a campaign to promote it, and with the right amount of public awareness... we might just get something done besides fixing potholes.

That's cool, that's what I wanted to know. I definitely agree with you that democracy could be one way to determine how to spend the money. A referendum would be ideal, IMO.

There is one thing I just want to submit for your consideration - no need to respond if you don't want. Have you ever considered the market to be kind of like a huge referendum? Consider how, when there is huge public demand for product X, the producers of product X get rich and expand to provide as much of product X as people want. Or consider how if nobody want's product X, the producer is soon out of business.

In the market people "cast their vote" concerning what should and should not be produced with every purchase they make (or don't make). For example, no one had to hold an election and pass a law commanding Apple to make computers. However the consumers did have to keep them in business with each purchase (vote). The investors did have to vote (invest) to start the company. If you like my analogy, check out this next step:

Consumer's demands are fickle and highly diverse. Each person has an idea in his mind about what products will improve his quality of life the most. Each consumer is constantly weighing his options about what and how much to purchase. Each investor weighs his options. The way they ultimately decide what to buy (or invest in) is by considering everything they know about the market and deciding what helps them meet their goals in life the best. When you think about just who all is involved in the market, you realize that it's close to 100% of the population.

So just to let you know where I'm coming from, and that I'm not a total ogre who just likes to beat people over the head with the Libertarian stick, I'm trying to help people have a higher quality of living - including myself. If I hear someone say "we need to take those people's money and use it for something that we think will help them", then I do get riled. The total amount of market information known by the public is so large that there's no way for one person or group of people to even fathom it. My objection to a government funded light-rail system is thus two-fold: 1) The public has already demonstrated that they don't want to invest in and build a light rail system, so why second guess them. A referendum is held every day wherein Nashvillians choose to buy twinkies or gasoline instead of rail transport. 2) If you circumvent the market system you loose all the powerful decision-making information the public has and you're relying on a few committee members (or even the half of the population that votes for the rail) to make the correct economic decision, even when (considering point # 1) you already know that 100% of consumers in Nashville have voted against (with their pocket book) purchasing rail transport.

Now, I give a lot of credit to people on this forum. You guys are smart - some of the smartest I know. But would I place more reliance on your collective knowledge (or even my own) than all of the collective knowledge of everyone in Nashville? I'm afraid the answer is no. That's why I'm so skeptical whenever someone asserts that they know of a better use for someone else's money.

Anyway, sorry if my earlier arguments were too forceful. I do think it's an important issue, but I'll try to keep my approach more mellow. I fully admit that not everyone places as much importance on this issue as I do.

[jice]

My objection to a government funded light-rail system is thus two-fold: 1) The public has already demonstrated that they don't want to invest in and build a light rail system, so why second guess them. A referendum is held every day wherein Nashvillians choose to buy twinkies or gasoline instead of rail transport. 2) If you circumvent the market system you loose all the powerful decision-making information the public has and you're relying on a few committee members (or even the half of the population that votes for the rail) to make the correct economic decision, even when (considering point # 1) you already know that 100% of consumers in Nashville have voted against (with their pocket book) purchasing rail transport.

I guess the problem is... there's no real way for the public to "cast their vote" (using their pocket books) for something like light-rail. I mean, you can't just go to the store and buy a train or a piece of track. The same is the case for the highway system. Therefore.... we rely on government entities to take the taxes we pay, pile them together, and put them to the uses that we vote for. As i've said... it's not a perfect system... but it's the best we can do right now, IMO. The market can be useful for many things... I just don't think something like light-rail is one of them.

[NewTowner]

All this discussion about the privatization of transportation has raised some interesting questions. I want to pose them, using West End as our theoretical model:

1) Is fulfilling transportation needs the only purpose of a street? This seems to be the underlying assumption when Kheldane and others suggest that West End could be "bought" by a private entity and turned into a toll road.

3) Are sidewalks part of the street?

2) When we have privatized everything we can, our public realm will be dramatically smaller if not gone altogether. Will we be missing something? Do consumers have the same rights as citizens?

I think these are crucial questions. What do ya'll think?

[Kheldane]

I guess the problem is... there's no real way for the public to "cast their vote" (using their pocket books) for something like light-rail. I mean, you can't just go to the store and buy a train or a piece of track. The same is the case for the highway system. Therefore.... we rely on government entities to take the taxes we pay, pile them together, and put them to the uses that we vote for.

It's true that probably no one person in nashville is rich enough to build and operate a rail system by themselves. Actually ordering a train from a train-builder would be easy enough if you had the money. There is no law, for example, that says light rail systems can only be purchased and operated by cities or states.

I think you may be forgetting about investors. If the public truely demanded rail transport, but they ran into the problem you bring up above (not being able to fund it themselves) then I honestly believe a group of investors would recognize this. I believe the investing community would see wide-spread frustration on the part of nashville commuters, and if their demand for rail were made known, I believe investors could start a company, sell stock, use the proceeds to buy & operate a rail system. The only thing needed from government would be the right-of-way to use West End. Now that issue is something that should definitely be put to a vote.

So long-story short, I disagree with you that government is the only entity capable of creating rail transport based on the alternative investment model I've described above. Actually, looking at your earlier posts, I think you've already said you agree that it could work in theory. Will it happen though? That is a big question that I don't know the answer to.

Is there enough demand in Nashville to support the costs of operating a private light rail? Honestly, my guess is no. Maybe if we had another million in population.

But where does that leave us? If the private option is a non-starter (as determined by investors who see only red-ink at the prospect of building a rail), does that meen Nashville will just have to do without?

Sadly, yes. The very fact that private rail has not occured proves that up to this point, the people of nashville have had better uses for their scarce resources than spending it on rail transport. Now if some company announces tomorrow that they're building a private rail, then Kheldane will have been proven wrong in a big, big way. Well, at least wrong about whether it would happen soon. One thing I am 100% right about at this moment is that so-far, nashvillians have sought to purchase other products and services besides rail transport.

The fact that private investment hasn't lead to the development of rail signals that it's a bad investment - - all the more reason for tax money not to be arbitrarily re-directed into another bottomless money-pit of a government project.

[Kheldane]

All this discussion about the privatization of transportation has raised some interesting questions. I want to pose them, using West End as our theoretical model:

1) Is fulfilling transportation needs the only purpose of a street? This seems to be the underlying assumption when Kheldane and others suggest that West End could be "bought" by a private entity and turned into a toll road.

2) Are sidewalks part of the street?

3) When we have privatized everything we can, our public realm will be dramatically smaller if not gone altogether. Will we be missing something? Do consumers have the same rights as citizens?

I think these are crucial questions. What do ya'll think?

Good Questions: I'll throw in my 2 cents worth:

1) I would say it's the primary purpose most of the time. The libertarian answer is that the owner decides the purpose. If the owner decides to use it as a pig sty - then the primary purpose of the street is a pig sty.

2) I would say it's more of a property law question. If I were personally buying property fronting West End, then I would want to own the side walk in front of "Kheldane Music & Video" so I could tell bums to stay off of it and go pan-handle somewhere else.

3) Really good question! I would say the realm of publicly owned land will be reduced, but not necessarily the "public realm" in the larger sense. Where would things like protests and parades take place if all streets were private? Good question - I guess they would be dependant on permission from the owners. Ultimately, I think this country is geogaphically large enough for everyone to find a place to do the things that make them happy. Consumers (on private property) are subject to the guidelines set out by the property owner. For example (you already know this NewTowner), I am not exercising my free-speech rights if I yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre. The ower can rightfully kick me out.

[NewTowner]

3) Really good question! I would say the realm of publicly owned land will be reduced, but not necessarily the "public realm" in the larger sense. Where would things like protests and parades take place if all streets were private? Good question - I guess they would be dependant on permission from the owners. Ultimately, I think this country is geogaphically large enough for everyone to find a place to do the things that make them happy. Consumers (on private property) are subject to the guidelines set out by the property owner. For example (you already know this NewTowner), I am not exercising my free-speech rights if I yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre. The ower can rightfully kick me out.

I feel the implications of the above true and right statement have not been totally worked out or investigated throughout the course of this conversation. I would love to know what other forumers think--is the only purpose of a street transportation?

Is there anything we need to be honest about when advocating the breaking up of publically held land and giving as much of it as possible to private uses? Is there anything about the following little quip from Kheldane's post that bears serious contemplation?

Where would things like protests and parades take place if all streets were private? Good question - I guess they would be dependant on permission from the owners.

[Kheldane]

Is there anything about the following little quip from Kheldane's post that bears serious contemplation

One thing I will add: I think it would be hard to speculate as to the social outcome of making the land privately owned. For example: It would be hard to predict if West End would be purchased by the Christian Coalition and host a praise-be-to-Jesus parade each sunday, or if it would be purchased by George Soros and hold an anti-bush rally each sunday. Or it could be simply owned by a business group and used for transport 24/7.

From an economic standpoint, I feel confident for the most part that roadways will be used for transport. Since resources are scarce, each asset must be employed to maximum utilization - and roadways are exceedingly good at facilitating transport (when managed correctly).

Actually one more comment: Consider the liability implications of privately owned roads. If there is currently a dangerous intersection in Nashville - then the city may patrol it a little more, but for the most part people just take their chances. Victiims of car accidents rarely (if ever) successfully sue the city for maintaining an un-safe intersection.

In contrast, a privately owned road would be under extreme pressue from its insurer to fix the problem immediately. That might mean the installation of speed bumps leading up to the interchange, the installation of crossing-guards (like at a railroad crossing), maybe speed cameras who catch red-light runners (leading to the ultimate expulsion from that roadway for the driver). I've often thought that those waist-high concrete barriers that you sometimes see dividing lanes in construction zones should be ubiquitous on 2-lane roads. Like Hillsboro road south of Green Hills. Would it be inconvenient for the residents to have to always turn right out of their driveway until they could make a U-turn? Yes!! But would it also be worth it to prevent a head-on collision? I say also yes - but I'm just bringing this up as an example of the kinds of safety decisions that private owners will be capable of making.

I realize that's kind of off-topic from your public policy question - but I think you may not have thought about it....

Ok - I'm on a roll with this, humor me for one more example...

If interstates were owned by some private group, they may require a much more strenuous liscensing process than the government currently does. I could easily forsee a special "interstate-class" drivers liscense that involves much more training and scrutiny of drivers.

[dfwtiger]

One thing I will add: I think it would be hard to speculate as to the social outcome of making the land privately owned. For example: It would be hard to predict if West End would be purchased by the Christian Coalition and host a praise-be-to-Jesus parade each sunday, or if it would be purchased by George Soros and hold an anti-bush rally each sunday. Or it could be simply owned by a business group and used for transport 24/7.

From an economic standpoint, I feel confident for the most part that roadways will be used for transport. Since resources are scarce, each asset must be employed to maximum utilization - and roadways are exceedingly good at facilitating transport (when managed correctly).

Actually one more comment: Consider the liability implications of privately owned roads. If there is currently a dangerous intersection in Nashville - then the city may patrol it a little more, but for the most part people just take their chances. Victiims of car accidents rarely (if ever) successfully sue the city for maintaining an un-safe intersection.

In contrast, a privately owned road would be under extreme pressue from its insurer to fix the problem immediately. That might mean the installation of speed bumps leading up to the interchange, the installation of crossing-guards (like at a railroad crossing), maybe speed cameras who catch red-light runners (leading to the ultimate expulsion from that roadway for the driver). I've often thought that those waist-high concrete barriers that you sometimes see dividing lanes in construction zones should be ubiquitous on 2-lane roads. Like Hillsboro road south of Green Hills. Would it be inconvenient for the residents to have to always turn right out of their driveway until they could make a U-turn? Yes!! But would it also be worth it to prevent a head-on collision? I say also yes - but I'm just bringing this up as an example of the kinds of safety decisions that private owners will be capable of making.

I realize that's kind of off-topic from your public policy question - but I think you may not have thought about it....

Ok - I'm on a roll with this, humor me for one more example...

If interstates were owned by some private group, they may require a much more strenuous liscensing process than the government currently does. I could easily forsee a special "interstate-class" drivers liscense that involves much more training and scrutiny of drivers.

Right now, you would think that nashville was the best city in the world with all the talk centering around the NEW TOWERS and stores. I'm very proud of Nashville...it has the potential to be a great city. However, the powers fail greatly on the most important needs for dense urban living which is good streetscapes...great public spaces....more infill vs large singular projects..and a great public transit system to get you around the core of the city.

Right now..big ole road building Dallas Texas (I like Nashville better) has the 4th largest light rail system. It is not a great city...but it is laying the foundation to be a great city. They are begining on an exapansion of over 2 billion dollars. While some people in Nashville sit a wait for the next story about a TOWER..or a perceived upscale retailer locating in the visually unattractive Green Hills Urban Village, I wish people would get together and push the light rail and streetscape issue for Broadway and West End....I think it would make all the difference.

[ATLBrain]

Amen, DFWTIGER... and I also like Dallas very much. It's made great strides in the last decade to become more pedestrian oriented.

[Guest]

dfwtiger

How is Dallas/Texas financing the mass transit expansion? The state is a conservative as any but I realize the Dallas City government to be very tax and spend. I am just curious about who (local/state/feds) is funding the system and the ratios of each contribution.

[dfwtiger]

dfwtiger

How is Dallas/Texas financing the mass transit expansion? The state is a conservative as any but I realize the Dallas City government to be very tax and spend. I am just curious about who (local/state/feds) is funding the system and the ratios of each contribution.

Most of the municipalities pay a 1 cent sales tax for mas transit. The money is used for matching fedeal dollars. This year, Dallas Area Rapid Transit received over $700 million in federal funds to match local funding to pay for a significant expansion of the system. Over 20 municipalities pay into the fund. More have been signing on as of late.

They use a carrot and stick approach here. If you do not pay into the system, you do not get a transit stop on the light rail or the regional rail. Now that people see the advantage of a new stop...they are paying the money.