Will

We already have the Urban Services District tax.

Very cool - bring on the bikes! Muscle Rapid Transit doesn't get much press but it's the way to go if distance allows.

Those of you who intend to vote for the plan should consider some of the thoughtful viewpoints brought up in the town hall that NPT held this week: http://video.wnpt.org/video/3011623338/ Specifically: The role of Transit-Oriented Development zones in this plan Land acquisition issues (such as how there seems to be a rail station slated for the site of First Baptist Church of East Nashville, which is on the Natl Register) Dearth of data on environmental impact of construction and operation Carrying costs of the debt alone - roughly $240m per year, which, assuming tripled ridership, works out to $12 per RIDE. Also note how the representatives from the city tend to talk around residents' questions and shift responsibility elsewhere. For example, Steve Bland of MTA seemed unaware of the First Baptist Church conceptual station site issue and framed it as a misinformation issue.

Yeah that's a bad plan, undeserving of serious consideration. Anybody watch the debate last night? You can watch the whole thing on the Tennessean now. I thought there were some good questions posed and some reasonably cogent answers. Unfortunately Bone got touchy and took the conversation personal around the 40 minute mark, but it eventually got back on track (no pun intended).

Interesting interview with a member of the activist group PATHE, which is against the May 1 plan. https://www.nashvillescene.com/news/features/article/20999320/grassroots-organization-pathe-wants-better-transit-but-not-the-citys-9-billion-plan This person hits on what I think is the most compelling reason to oppose the plan: "We’ve been to the Metro Council meetings, and one of the things that we consistently say is: 'Let’s make our existing system better.' We could have more of the [bus rapid transit] routes — the fast bus routes. We could have better dedicated bus lanes, and we could do that for a tiny fraction of the amount of money they’re planning to spend on this transit plan."

Interim International Arrivals Building is done.

The problem with the May 1 plan is that there is no "next level" in terms of mobility. Look at the route map - there is no meaningful expansion of the existing MTA route network, and large swathes of the city are still unserved or underserved by transit: Antioch, Woodbine, parts of East and North Nashville. Functionally speaking, and that is the key here, this plan offers no advantage over an upgraded and expanded bus network in terms of moving our existing population or a future larger population around the city. For example, if you want to get from Lockeland Springs to Green Hills, you're still going to have to connect at a single point downtown. The same is true of many other route pairings. I think the single biggest failure of this plan is that it fails to address crosstown travel. Compare, for example, London's bus map. London has a hybrid hub-and-spoke and grid road system, yet its bus system is designed to facilitate crosstown travel relatively easily across multiple connection points.

Something to consider: did you know that many of the factors some of us identified as barriers to using the transit system are already being fixed this year, regardless of the outcome of the referendum vote? Specifically: New smart payment system Real time bus info signs and apps (you can actually already get this in the Google Maps app when you search for Directions via transit) Wifi at certain stations Free transfers Increased frequency and longer operating times on certain routes See: http://www.nashvillemta.org/pdf/MoveSmarterWebsite.pdf https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2017/09/26/nashville-mta-announces-several-changes-city-bus-routes/704883001/ I submit that this is good evidence that we can make meaningful improvements to our existing transit system without the plan that's on the table. We need dedicated bus right-of-way for sure, among other improvements, but we don't need this plan to do that. Just consider the idea that a No vote is not a No to transit or even light rail in Nashville for all eternity, forever and ever amen. It's just a "No thanks, this is impressive in certain ways, but not really what we need" to this specific plan. The administration can come back to the public with a new plan on a future referendum.

Anecdotal question here: Those of you who do not currently use the transit system: Which specific elements of the plan would most likely convert you to a transit system user or increase your use of the existing system? See the proposed route plan below.

No sir. It's still a misdirected, unnecessarily expensive plan, regardless of who the mayor is or who came up with it.

Good good good news for anyone who transits this intersection.

What's the latest on that AMS rumor? Anybody hear anything? I have only seen anything about that on here, not on Flyertalk or the airliners.net boards.

The key point is that the IMPROVE act (TN law enabling this kind of transit referendum) says this: "If either a transit improvement program or a public transit system project that is part of a transit improvement program becomes unfeasible, impossible, or not financially viable, the revenue from the surcharge for the transit improvement program may be directed to and utilized for a separate transit improvement program or public transit system project that: (1) Has been approved by: (A) The local government's legislative body, as required in § 67-4- 3206(e)(1); and (B) A majority of the number of registered voters of the local government voting in an election pursuant to the procedures in § 67-4- 3202; and (2) Otherwise meets the requirements of this part" So one big problem is that there is a lot of scope to quibble and litigate over whether the current plan is "unfeasible, impossible, or not financially viable." It's not clear who decides that. If in fact that is decided, then the new plan would have to be approved by the Metro Council as well as the citizens in another referendum. Essentially, as things stand now, we don't really know what a Yes vote on the referendum gets us. That's bad for all concerned. It should be clear one way or another what this vote means for Nashville going forward.

May 1 is the referendum. Here's what was proposed for the ballot late last year, although I couldn't find the updated version with the $9b price tag that the Metro Council approved last week: “Passage of this measure will allow the Metropolitan Government to improve and expand its transit services to include: expanded bus service countywide; new transit lines; new light rail and/or rapid bus service along Nashville’s major corridors, including the Northwest Corridor and a connection through downtown Nashville; new neighborhood transit centers; improvements to the Music City Star train service; safety improvements, including sidewalks and pedestrian connections; and system modernization. The Metropolitan Transit Authority and the Metropolitan Department of Public Works will undertake the projects and implement the program. The transit improvements and expansion will be funded by tax surcharges that will end once all debt issued for the program has been paid and the Metropolitan Council determines upon the adoption of a resolution that the revenues from the surcharges are no longer needed for operation of the program. The surcharges will consist of: (1) a sales tax surcharge of 0.5% for the first five years, increasing to 1% in 2023; (2) a hotel/motel tax surcharge of 0.25% for the first five years, increasing to 0.375% in 2023; (3) a 20% surcharge on the business/excise tax; and (4) a 20% surcharge on the rental car tax. The capital cost of the program is estimated to have a present day value of $5,354,000,000, with recurring operations and maintenance costs having a present day value at the year the improvements are completed of approximately $99,500,000.” So the vote is really on whether we the people approve the 4 new surcharges to create a dedicated revenue stream for transit. As for the plan details, I think those are still left to Metro's discretion (though to what degree isn't exactly clear); the language above is meant to illustrate what the surcharges will be used for generally.

"A touch of pine"

Some kind of a consumption tax on driving in congested areas would be an excellent way to raise revenue for transit. I wish something in that line would have replaced the sales tax component of the current proposal.

Oh just you wait. A property tax rate hike will come soon enough, just not as part of this referendum.

Sure, no one would be expected to use a transportation method that increases commute time by ~8x, but you chose to make your home many miles from where you need to be during working hours most days of the week. That's a big decision, and it necessarily colors many other transportation decisions downstream that affect you and many other people. Point is that we are all adults here, not victims of Soros or the Kochs or Exxon or GM or the Nashville MTA, etc. etc.

Outside influences aside, we are all responsible for the transportation and logistical decisions we make. Daily car commuting, even in a place like Nashville, is optional for most people. The people stuck in traffic on 24, 65, 40, and 440 every day are there because they made a series of choices that led them there. No one entity or factor is forcing them to be there.

This will be a truly transformative project. Seems like Elmington has done its homework on laying the PR and political groundwork re:affordable housing.

Yes. I will take tall skinnies and tree stumps over the Perpetual Outrage Machine any day.

Circle Flats? Is there pizza involved?

My friends, this line of reasoning might be a good way to sell used cars, living room suites, or fidget spinners, but it's not a compelling reason to hike four major local tax rates and commit to billions of dollars worth of improvements that don't really address the shortcomings of the current system. Vote for or against the proposal on its merits, but please don't vote for it because it'll never be cheaper, it's the last one on the lot, and I guarantee you it will be gone tomorrow, etc. etc. Also note the article in the TN today tracking the lack of progress on sidewalks, which are a key element of any transit plan. We have allocated $60 million since Barry took office and gotten 3.5 miles of new sidewalk. That works out to about $3,250 allocated per FOOT of new sidewalk, which is more than 3x what it costs to put in a sidewalk on a small residential job. I realize there are repairs and planning costs baked into these figures but there is a parallel to be seen here in how inefficiently Metro is managing infrastructure costs. Do we really want to put billions in Metro's hands when we see what it's done with the $60 million budgeted for sidewalks?

The foundation has undergone an artisanal dry-aging process designed to assimilate the local microclimate to the maximum degree. Very cutting-edge.

Quite true. This plain fails to address the four biggest issues I see as an occasional user of our existing transit system: 1. Lack of frequency: The plan claims frequency will be increased to 15 mins on key routes. This will not move the needle. It needs to be at least every 5 mins to compete with other transportation options and offer a choice that doesn't have to be planned around. 2. Hub-and-spoke model: The undefined "more crosstown routes" aside, this plan seems to dig further into our hub-and-spoke rut. It is not clear what the neighborhood transportation centers contribute other than continuing to expedite people downtown. As long as I have to route through downtown to get almost anywhere other than on a limited axis from where I am, our system will continue to be supbar. 3. Too many stops on key routes: I don't see any mention of this problem at all. There are literally stops every 100 feet or so on some stretches of West End. When traffic is heavy, you might as well walk. 4. Antiquated fare collection: On the buses I ride, there is no contactless payment option. Buses should stop accepting paper and coin currency; it slows service down tremendously when 5 people are digging for change after getting on. I see no mention of this issue in the plan. Just fixing those issues, without even talking about BRT, would give us a transit system that works for the majority of Nashvillians. I cannot see how a tunnel and light rail should even enter the conversation until we've fixed these things. Vote no in May.