The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread

[markhollin]

Mary Beth Ikard from the mayor's office shared at our Meet-Up yesterday that the downtown merchants/restaurants etc. were overwhelmingly NOT in favor of surface or elevated tracks through downtown.  They also felt that adding more bus routes through the heart of the city would be quite disruptive and slow traffic even further.  Hence, the tunnel.  

[Pdt2f]

For the amount of transit traffic they’re planning on sending downtown a tunnel is definitely the most desirable, IMO. It’s a permanent solution that causes the least amount of disruption. All I worry about is cost overruns. 

Forgive me if this has already been explained in press releases from the mayor’s office, but did Ms. Ikard mention where additional funding would come from if the 25% of funding they’re projecting will come from the federal government falls through? 

[hayesmw]

On 12/15/2017 at 10:15 AM, SoundScan said:

Thought experiment: If tomorrow morning suddenly 20% of all vehicles on the road were fully autonomous (Level 5 autonomy--which doesn't yet exist) what impact do you think it would have on traffic and commute times? I would argue little if any effect at all. And thinking realistically, the 20% AV fleet penetration milestone is likely 20 years away.

 

 

Check out the work of Boston Consulting Group on this topic.  3 links below.

 

https://www.bcg.com/publications/2017/reimagined-car-shared-autonomous-electric.aspx

and

[dmillsphoto]

4 hours ago, Pdt2f said:

For the amount of transit traffic they’re planning on sending downtown a tunnel is definitely the most desirable, IMO. It’s a permanent solution that causes the least amount of disruption. All I worry about is cost overruns. 

Forgive me if this has already been explained in press releases from the mayor’s office, but did Ms. Ikard mention where additional funding would come from if the 25% of funding they’re projecting will come from the federal government falls through? 

Everything configured, money wise, at least, has been given something like a 30% cushion to account for potential issues like the above and other cost overruns. 

[markhollin]

The highly organized and coordinated campaign helping Mayor Megan Barry's mass transit push was on display Tuesday during a marathon public hearing at the Metro Council that saw proponents of her controversial referendum proposal easily outnumber critics.

Backers packed the room early. It allowed them to dominate much of the hearing to urge support for the mayor's proposed referendum, which seeks to increase four taxes to pay for a $5.4 billion transit infrastructure proposal.

Speakers stretched far outside the chambers to weigh in on a plan that would be anchored by light rail along major corridors. By the time the night concluded, Nashvillians, representing both sides of the debate, had talked for nearly three and a half hours.

Proponents included representatives of Nashville's major colleges and universities, groups representing engineers, architects, environmentalists, and realtors, high school and college students, the Nashville Predators, walking and biking advocates, church leaders, union members, and a wide-range of other businesses and organizations including the Nashville Area Chamber of Commerce. 

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2018/01/09/nashville-transit-backers-muscle-display-outnumber-critics-council-hearing/1015321001/

[nashvylle]

Was Lee Beaman there? 

[markhollin]

Mayor Barry: Without Mass Transit, Nashville loses its competitive edge:

https://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2018/01/10/mayor-barrys-business-pitch-without-transit.html?ana=twt

[markhollin]

Mayor's Transit and Affordability Taskforce releases sweeping recommendations:

https://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2018/01/11/mayor-barrys-transit-and-affordabilitytask-force.html

[PruneTracy]

On ‎2018‎-‎01‎-‎05 at 10:47 PM, LA_TN said:

The Nashville Media Is Getting Played by Transit-Bashing Hired Guns

On ‎2018‎-‎01‎-‎10 at 4:32 AM, markhollin said:

Proponents included representatives of Nashville's major colleges and universities, groups representing engineers, architects, environmentalists, and realtors, high school and college students, the Nashville Predators, walking and biking advocates, church leaders, union members, and a wide-range of other businesses and organizations including the Nashville Area Chamber of Commerce.

I'm not trying to reignite the same old transit-versus-no-transit discussion, but it's interesting to me that guys like Randall O'Toole who speak out against this plan get called out for being paid shills, while the groups in favor, some of whom clearly have a financial interest in seeing it approved, seem to get a free pass.

[BnaBreaker]

49 minutes ago, PruneTracy said:

I'm not trying to reignite the same old transit-versus-no-transit discussion, but it's interesting to me that guys like Randall O'Toole who speak out against this plan get called out for being paid shills, while the groups in favor, some of whom clearly have a financial interest in seeing it approved, seem to get a free pass.

Point taken, but they don't stand to gain in the same way.  A local university , for example, would stand to gain from a mass transit system, in the sense that it would be easier for students and employees to get to and from school/work, so it's understandable as to why they would support improved mass transit plan.  They might benefit financially in some way, but money is not their primary motivation, in other words. 

Randall O'Toole, on the other hand, is just a guy who lives in  Oregon, that routinely does hit pieces on various alternative transportation projects around the country, and gets paid to do so by the fossil fuel industry.

[markhollin]

Got this e-mail today.  Some good, practical moves to help with mass transit:

 

[PruneTracy]

5 hours ago, BnaBreaker said:

Point taken, but they don't stand to gain in the same way.  A local university , for example, would stand to gain from a mass transit system, in the sense that it would be easier for students and employees to get to and from school/work, so it's understandable as to why they would support improved mass transit plan.  They might benefit financially in some way, but money is not their primary motivation, in other words.

I was thinking more about, say, the architects and engineers who could stand to get tens of millions in planning and design work from this (I'm one of them), or (hypothetically, don't know which ones spoke) a public transit employees union who would secure jobs for their members, and pocket their dues in return. My firm has flown in several not-cheap colleagues to talk to public officials about the plan and engage in other fact-finding activities; they aren't paying to do it because they're just so gung-ho about making sure Nashvillians get light rail.

Or for that matter, even Streetsblog (among other sites), it's not immediately clear why a writer in Cleveland with no apparent ties to Middle Tennessee feels compelled to take the time to warn us off a writer in Portland with no apparent ties to Middle Tennessee. If O'Toole is only speaking out against transit because he's a hired gun, then why is Streetsblog only speaking out for transit?

My point is not to just flip the same fallacious argument, but nonetheless it concerns me when issues so decidedly local in scope attract the attention of those elsewhere.

[Neigeville2]

10 minutes ago, PruneTracy said:

...Or for that matter, even Streetsblog (among other sites), it's not immediately clear why a writer in Cleveland with no apparent ties to Middle Tennessee feels compelled to take the time to warn us off a writer in Portland with no apparent ties to Middle Tennessee. If O'Toole is only speaking out against transit because he's a hired gun, then why is Streetsblog only speaking out for transit?...

I think this is taking a false equivalency too far.   There is such a thing as being pro-truth, everything is not subjective or relative, and in the billionaire/oligarch economy there are endless "think tanks", astroturf groups and paid shills doing nothing but muddying the waters on every issue; I'm thankful to anyone shining a light on them to try and keep the debate honest.  It's not like "big transit" has its tentacles in everything the way the Kochs, Mercers etc. do.

I'm encouraged by the fact that local pro-transit forces seem to have done their homework and preparatory work on this and are ready to quickly (even preemptively) respond to opponents.  Dean's approach to the Amp looked kind of like, hey, well, let's build this, uh...West End is a major street...uh, BRT seems cheap... whereas Barry's plan seems pretty thoroughly thought out, in practical terms as well as politically, which makes me optimistic.   

 

[Pdt2f]

5 hours ago, markhollin said:

Got this e-mail today.  Some good, practical moves to help with mass transit:

 

The simplified payment system and real-time tracking are awesome. I would probably ride the bus more often if 1. It was easier to pay and 2. I knew I wasn’t going to have to sit for an hour waiting for a bus to arrive. 

1 hour ago, Neigeville2 said:

Dean's approach to the Amp looked kind of like, hey, well, let's build this, uh...West End is a major street...uh, BRT seems cheap... whereas Barry's plan seems pretty thoroughly thought out, in practical terms as well as politically, which makes me optimistic.   

Great point! This has been a much better run campaign for transit than the Amp. Most of my initial issues with the plan were answered by the mayor’s administration. I’m not much of a Barry fan but I admit that she’s doing a good job with selling this plan to Nashville, from someone who typically wouldn’t be very gung-ho about a project of this size (and cost!). 

[PruneTracy]

13 hours ago, Neigeville2 said:

I think this is taking a false equivalency too far.   There is such a thing as being pro-truth, everything is not subjective or relative, and in the billionaire/oligarch economy there are endless "think tanks", astroturf groups and paid shills doing nothing but muddying the waters on every issue; I'm thankful to anyone shining a light on them to try and keep the debate honest.  It's not like "big transit" has its tentacles in everything the way the Kochs, Mercers etc. do.

I said I didn't want to restart the transit argument, and here I am doing it, so I'll stop here.

Streetsblog, to keep picking on them, is run by OpenPlans, which is a non-profit in NYC. Two large donors to OpenPlans are NACTO (National Association of City Transportation Officials) and ITDP (Institute for Transportation and Development Policy).

Why NACTO wants more transit funding is pretty obvious. ITDP seems a little more tangential, but some of their large donors include the architects and engineers I was referring to earlier. If you like tentacles, it seems Google and the World Bank (I guess for the international programs) lend a lot of help as well.

[For better or worse, there is a lot of money in transit; I don't remember the exact number but public transportation agencies in the US spend something like $60 billion per year on transit (operation, maintenance, and capital improvement). It's not Koch Industries but it's nothing to sneeze at.]

Now maybe the motivations of a bunch of non-profits are more pure than those of industrial conglomerates, I don't know, but again there's still a lot of money flying around either way. I read a fair amount of Streetsblog and, just like Randall O'Toole hasn't met a transit plan he likes, Streetsblog hasn't met one they don't like. I have a hard time believing that either party is simply pro-truth when the truth just so happens to always be the same position, or that one is just trying to bring some transparency and honesty to the debate when doing so happens to fit their position on it. Surely there exist both good and bad transit plans?

Anyway, again my point is that there seem to be a lot of external actors who know what's best for Nashville, one way or the other.

[markhollin]

Nashville Metro Council members gave their overwhelming endorsement Thursday night to hold a public referendum on Mayor Megan Barry's transit proposal, setting up likely council approval in the coming weeks to add the measure to the May ballot.

A special council committee composed of the entire body voted 29 to 1, with one abstention, to recommend that the transit referendum be added to the May ballot. Barry wants voters to approve raising four taxes, including sales tax, to pay for a $5.4 billion transit infrastructure plan.

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2018/01/11/nashville-council-overwhelmingly-endorses-holding-vote-barrys-transit-plan-tax-increases/1025154001/

[dmillsphoto]

https://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2018/01/16/new-opponents-including-lee-beaman-take-aim-at.html?ana=twt

 

Lee Beaman.

[Guest]

I support the Beaman Group's attempt to ask hard questions and hold the Barry admin.'s feet to the proverbial fire. If anyone on this board believer the 9billion budget figure will be the landed costs I have some lakefront real estate on Lake Palmer to sell you. ha

Edited January 16, 2018 by Guest

[BnaBreaker]

2 hours ago, nashville_bound said:

I support the Beaman Group's attempt to ask hard questions and hold the Barry admin.'s feet to the proverbial fire. If anyone on this board believer the 9billion budget figure will be the landed costs I have some lakefront real estate on Lake Palmer to sell you. ha

Asking hard questions is great.  There are certainly issues, both financial and otherwise, that need to be addressed.  We need people to ask questions, because it will result in an overall better product.  Lee Beaman, though, was probably against this transit plan before even the faintest of details ever existed.  In my view, he's not really asking questions in  search of answers so much as he is (as he has in the past) attempting to derail any and all transit legislation due to the perceived negative effect it might have on his automobile business.  Don't get me wrong,.  He is well within his rights to do as much.  I'm just saying, I'm not sure his is necessarily the type of opinion we should be hanging our collective hats on, as his interests don't lie in building a better transit model, but rather, the well-being of his own pocketbook.  

Edited January 16, 2018 by BnaBreaker

[Pdt2f]

^ Of course Lee Beaman doesn’t support policies that are directly opposed to his financial well-being, why should he be? If I own a butchers shop, wouldn’t I be expected, without being treated like the devil, to be opposed to policies that reward and spread veganism? Like @PruneTracy elaborated earlier in this thread, there are financial pulls on both sides of the debate that color the way advocacy groups lobby the public. 

[titanhog]

The question is whether or not what Barry and her administration proposes for $9 Billion is  a "fix" that is a 20th century fix instead of a 21st century fix.  Transportation is evolving (like so many other technologies out there)...and I'm not sure if this is the appropriate move or not.  I'm glad she and the city are trying to figure out a plan...but is this the right one?  

[BnaBreaker]

21 minutes ago, titanhog said:

The question is whether or not what Barry and her administration proposes for $9 Billion is  a "fix" that is a 20th century fix instead of a 21st century fix.  Transportation is evolving (like so many other technologies out there)...and I'm not sure if this is the appropriate move or not.  I'm glad she and the city are trying to figure out a plan...but is this the right one?  

Well, as far as I can see it, either we get on the transit train with this plan , or we stay with the status quo and wait who knows how long for self-driving cars to become a widespread thing, I guess, which in many ways is in no way a replacement for mass transit.  If we can't get it done now, it won't get done at all.  I completely understand the financial concerns some folks have, but let's be honest, many of them wouldn't support a transit plan if it was half the cost or a quarter of the cost, either.   They'd probably find a way to argue that it was too expensive if the total cost was a million dollars.  Some people have simply been conditioned to oppose  transit. 

[henburg]

Mayor Berry is in a really tough position here. Nashville procrastinated on developing a legitimate transit system for years and we're now feeling the ramifications of that. I love the idea of looking into cutting edge technologies just as much as the next guy, but there are a lot of issues with that being overlooked. I'm fine with questioning the plan being pushed but its odd to me that some are skeptical about rail, a very tried and true form of urban transit, while also being willing to go all in on a totally unproven technology. To play devil's advocate, technology like autonomous vehicles could be a total failure and not relieve any of our issues. It would be unfortunate to learn this fact after investing many years and many billions of dollars into an idea like that.  On top of that, Nashvillians are tired of waiting for solutions. The most extensive plan was the one chosen by citizens. As great as it would be to be able to wait to be first to get in on a new technology, I think that many people feel it is far too late for that. 

This isn't to crap all over the idea of innovation, but I do feel that it may be a more idealized solution than a realistic one. If I am wrong here, please let me know. 

As far as people like Lee Beaman advocating against the plan, they absolutely have the right to do so.  I also have the right to be angry with him if I feel that he is protecting his business interests at the expense of a service that would help a lot of people as I am naturally skeptical of his motivations and Scarlett's vague description of a potential "Plan B". If he really feels that there is a better plan, than where was he after he helped derail the AMP plan? 

[BnaBreaker]

1 hour ago, Pdt2f said:

^ Of course Lee Beaman doesn’t support policies that are directly opposed to his financial well-being, why should he be? If I own a butchers shop, wouldn’t I be expected, without being treated like the devil, to be opposed to policies that reward and spread veganism? Like @PruneTracy elaborated earlier in this thread, there are financial pulls on both sides of the debate that color the way advocacy groups lobby the public. 

I didn't say he necessarily should support the plan.  I get why he wouldn't.  And I think your 'devil' line is just a wee bit hyperbolic.   All I meant is that in a debate in which the rest of us are discussing how best to alleviate traffic, increase mobility etc. and motivated by a concern for what is best for the city as a whole, I'm not sure  how much the opinions of a guy who's primary motivation is his own bank account really add to the overall debate as far as the general public is concerned.  In other words, the meat guy is well within his rights to oppose the veganism policy, but I'm not exactly inviting him into the board room to shape policy due to the obvious conflict of interest.  

Edited January 17, 2018 by BnaBreaker

[nashwatcher]

What disappoints me is the people who are against transit don't give any viable alternative that could help address this very real, growing issue for our city. I agree we should be prudent and wise, but we also have to move forward with the best solutions we can currently come up with. If you've got a better idea, propose it!