The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread

[timmay143]

I think my favorite was from the lady from Clarksville who didn't see how it would help people from outside of Nashville... Like why even ask that lady for a quote? It's not supposed to directly help you when you live an hour away.

I was thinking the same thing.

Overall it was not a bad article for the Tennessean. This is one of their veteran writers that has been around for a while. I can think if a couple of other ways to fund some of this and not sure if Metro can impose a separate gas tax in Davidson County, but that would generate revenue and also increasing the wheel tax and also a usage fee for miles driven in a year that would be tracked trough the Wheel tax and emission stations. Just trying to get right riled up here but there has to be a way to get a mass transit off the ground. I am starting to think like a liberal. OMG Help me.

It was a good article for the most part. I'll try to post some on it when I get the chance.

[MTSUBlueraider86]

I always find it funny that words like Public, Mass Transit, and Cooperative are now "Uber-Liberal" According to the man who got his facts wrong, as most of them do, that Nashville's MSA is half of Orlando's, which according to him, was 1.3 million. This is wrong of course. Nashville's MSA is right under 1.6 million. If guys like him want to stay on the interstates and burn Saudi Arabian, Iranian, and Iraqi oil, he can be my guest and when gas is $10 a gallon, I don't want to hear him cry when I get too and from for about 90% cheaper than he pays!

[bwithers1]

Overall it was not a bad article for the Tennessean. This is one of their veteran writers that has been around for a while. I can think if a couple of other ways to fund some of this and not sure if Metro can impose a separate gas tax in Davidson County, but that would generate revenue and also increasing the wheel tax and also a usage fee for miles driven in a year that would be tracked trough the Wheel tax and emission stations. Just trying to get right riled up here but there has to be a way to get a mass transit off the ground. I am starting to think like a liberal. OMG Help me.

How about a parking tax? Gas prices are always shifting, so that's not a reliable tax base. But there is a finite number of parking spaces in the downtown/midtown area, which is the area that will be served by the BRT. That seems more fair to me - tax the folks who choose to drive downtown rather than take transit - than to tax everyone in Davidson County for something that they will never use, statistically speaking. Similarly, I would rather place a tax on properties in the zone surrounding the BRT route that include parking lots than tax everyone. It would essentially be a property tax that is specific to parking spaces (structured or not). So businesses that get all/most of their employees to take transit or walk/bike would be able to avoid the parking lot property tax assessment.

[fieldmarshaldj]

^I think a parking tax is a bad idea. That would just have the result of being an incentive for folks/businesses not to go downtown, not to use alternative transit.

[nashvylle]

agree. no to park tax

[bwithers1]

Well, as I read it the current proposal calls for the possibility of creating a taxing zone to add an additional tax to all property owners near the BRT line. So that raises rents and creates a disincentive to own property or especially to develop new property or businesses near the BRT line. That's in addition to the existing special sales tax zone covering much of the same area.

My point is that prices for parking are going up anyway due to increased demand. So people are going to pay more and more to park anyway. And it's not like they are going to stop going to the symphony or TPAC or concerts at Bridgestone Arena. The library can continue to validate parking in their garage for those who do not walk or take transit. It's just that as that price goes up, the city can collect a percentage to help improve the infrastructure that makes getting around downtown more efficient for more people.

[Guest]

Downtown also has an extra property tax levy....add the new property tax increase....and a possible additional property tax levy for the BRT = hello Will Co or Belle Meade for me.

Spread the tax to everyone, including the tourist and visitors that are planning to use the transit or scrap the plan, IMO. That meant hotel/motel tax and or higher ticketing costs.

[producer2]

Everybody always wants services, the problem is no one wants to pay for them.....

[Guest]

or...if no one wants to pay for the services then maybe the services are no necessary.....

[producer2]

how do you come to the conclusion that mass transit is not needed in a city our size? It already costs more to live in the suburbs and drive in to the city than paying to live here, so good luck with that....

[Guest]

P2

I was merely following your post (thought) to its logical conclusion. I did not I argued against mass transit...big leap in logic on your part.

My post was not on the virtues of mass transit, there are some. It was on the method of funding for the proposed BRT East-West Line.

I certainly do not want to subsidize BRT riders via yet another special taxing district (property tax increase). If the service has a value then let the riders who utilize the service (i.e receive the benefit) pay the cost. If Metro feels the need to subsidize the service then it should come out of the general fund and not a special taxing district. For example, due to the proposed placement of stations, I will probably choose to utilize MTA regular service as opposed to the BRT service. Thus it will be of no use to me. If Metro chooses to limit of eliminate the existing MTA routes (3,5) then I use I will just drive....not sure how that will help the goal of less cars and more mass transit riders but there you are...

Edited June 13, 2012 by Guest

[nashvylle]

I agree with P2.

I disagree with the argument "the riders need to cover ALL the costs". it's just not that simple. People that are absolutely against any form of mass transit (not saying you are NashvilleBound) say that the ridership needs to cover costs or else we shouldn't do it, yet they never seem to realize how expensive it is to build highways/roads, etc.

It just makes no sense to me for Nashville NOT to invest heavily in mass transit.

1. Atlanta proves more interstates does not equal less traffic.

2. Oil is a limited resource, it won't last forever. America is way too dependent on foreign oil.

3. Electric cars are emerging, but only if you're willing to buy a new car for 30k.

4. Corporations do not want cities in which their employees only have their cars as a form of transit

5. Raising taxes is not a must when it comes to mass transit. We can simply divert some of the money that is used for MORE interstates and use it for mass transit (i.e. Portland)

6. Utilizing mass transit and living close to work saves individuals thousands each year

7. Investing in mass transit reduces the carbon footprint, does not destroy our beautiful Tennessee natural environment, and reduces urban sprawl

8. People that use mass transit will not be on the road and will eleviate traffic for those that HAVE to drive

Right now Nashville is saying to its residents and potential residents, "If you want to live here, you need to have a car. If you don't already have one, buy one. If gas prices go up, too bad"

Is that the message we want to be sending? We need to divert the ridiculous amounts of money for more roads and direct the money to mass transit. The smartest cities have live/work/play environments amongst the residents/corporations/entertainment. Nashville is seeing more people move back to the urban core, so now Nashville needs to invest in mass transit to bring even more people living in the city and saving money by not driving.

Edited June 13, 2012 by nashvylle

[producer2]

P2

I was merely following your post (thought) to its logical conclusion. I did not I argued against mass transit...big leap in logic on your part.

My post was not on the virtues of mass transit, there are some. It was on the method of funding for the proposed BRT East-West Line.

I certainly do not want to subsidize BRT riders via yet another special taxing district (property tax increase). If the service has a value then let the riders who utilize the service (i.e receive the benefit) pay the cost. If Metro feels the need to subsidize the service then it should come out of the general fund and not a special taxing district. For example, due to the proposed placement of stations, I will probably choose to utilize MTA regular service as opposed to the BRT service. Thus it will be of no use to me. If Metro chooses to limit of eliminate the existing MTA routes (3,5) that I use I will just drive....not sure how that will help the goal of less cars and more mass transit riders but there you are...

IF there are not enough riders willing to pay the fare necessary to cover the operating costs required

I think that is the problem with our thinking in this country. If it doesn't suit me then I don't want to contribute. As a society we are also missing the point of mass transit. It should be part of the mix just as schools, garbage collection, and police are supported by all citizens. We (nashvillians) are paying for the sins of previous thinking. It's got to give sometime.

[Guest]

Okay if it needs to be supported by all citizens a special taxing district is moot ... right? Tax all of Davidson County. Do you agree? And hell if it is such a great deal have the hotels and conventions chip in.... are you still on board? Let's speed the pain as far and wide and deep as possible.... for our own good and all...

Edited June 13, 2012 by Guest

[nashvylle]

A simple increase to the gas tax would work, or diverting money set for more interstates to mass transit.

[Guest]

I agree with P2.

I disagree with the argument "the riders need to cover ALL the costs". it's just not that simple. People that are absolutely against any form of mass transit (not saying you are NashvilleBound) say that the ridership needs to cover costs or else we shouldn't do it, yet they never seem to realize how expensive it is to build highways/roads, etc.

It just makes no sense to me for Nashville NOT to invest heavily in mass transit.

1. Atlanta proves more interstates does not equal less traffic.

2. Oil is a limited resource, it won't last forever. America is way too dependent on foreign oil.

3. Electric cars are emerging, but only if you're willing to buy a new car for 30k.

4. Corporations do not want cities in which their employees only have their cars as a form of transit

5. Raising taxes is not a must when it comes to mass transit. We can simply divert some of the money that is used for MORE interstates and use it for mass transit (i.e. Portland)

6. Utilizing mass transit and living close to work saves individuals thousands each year

7. Investing in mass transit reduces the carbon footprint, does not destroy our beautiful Tennessee natural environment, and reduces urban sprawl

8. People that use mass transit will not be on the road and will eleviate traffic for those that HAVE to drive

Right now Nashville is saying to its residents and potential residents, "If you want to live here, you need to have a car. If you don't already have one, buy one. If gas prices go up, too bad"

Is that the message we want to be sending? We need to divert the ridiculous amounts of money for more roads and direct the money to mass transit. The smartest cities have live/work/play environments amongst the residents/corporations/entertainment. Nashville is seeing more people move back to the urban core, so now Nashville needs to invest in mass transit to bring even more people living in the city and saving money by not driving.

1. Atlanta already has light rail (for decades) and it is still a mess..... so the getting the cars off the road theory does not pan-out.

2. Political question not relevant to an argument over local taxing policy. Plus Metro has already started to purchase hybrid busses and a huge premium...

3. Again not relevant to the thread

4. And yet many cities that are called-out as lacking mass-transportation (Dallas, Austin, Atlanta, .... Nashville, Raleigh, Charlotte) are doing well by every measure versus many cities that have had Mass transit (Chicago, Baltimore, Philadelphia...). In fact Nashville was just selected as #1 in job growth hero for the next 2 years.....

5. Ahem... Portland instituted a huge payroll tax to pay for and is still struggling to pay for operational and expansion costs http://www.governing.com/topics/transportation-infrastructure/gov-portland-oregon-struggles-to-remain-leader-in-public-transit.html

6. Okay then they should snot mind paying higher ticket prices from their savings...

7. Truly not on point....

8. Talk to Atlanta

I have lived in downtown Nashville (family of 4) with 1 car, no problem ... everything is a choice in life.

As to your point to divert road building and maintenance funds to mass transit ..... find the political will (support) and have at it....

If you plan to live an the vast majority of mid-sized cities without an auto you will have to live downtown and ... work from home a close-by service company and and have no children, or be some weird computer hacker/WoW nut job...

I absolutely LOVE the last part of your last sentence......

...so now Nashville needs to invest in mass transit to bring even more people living in the city and saving money by not driving.

So repurpose the riders money (they are the ones saving after all) not my family's money. They should be more than willing....

[MTSUBlueraider86]

One reason the wife and I moved to the city is we HATE cars with a passion! They are an endless money pit. So far since I have moved to the city on June 1st, I have purchased 1/2 tank of gas. In that time I have used 8 gallons of fuel! My Kroger is approximately 1.5 miles away. 5 points is .9 of a mile. Downtown is within a 1/4 mile walk. If my employer would move downtown from Kenilwood off Sidco, I would not even own a car!

I cannot wait for the BRT and I will GLADLY PAY MORE TAXES FOR IT. You see, I am someone that does not mind paying taxes for the good of the city. Heck, my taxes go to numerous things I don't agree with, but they generally help the common good. That is something this country has lost. People are so selfish, greedy, pompous , and self centered they don't want anything that does not effect them. Well, it's time Nashville grew up and got out of this narcissistic, juvenile selfishness and do something for the common good!

If people want to stay with cars and pay $5 a gallon, they are free to do so, but as soon as I can, I am selling the car and saving several thousands of dollars a year on gas, maintenance, oil changes, tags, and insurance.

I have no problem paying taxes for schools, firefighters, police, military, civic projects, bridges, roads, and public transportation. Private corporations are NOT going to fund these projects because they are not profitable. Maybe it's time to do something without profit as a motive.

Seeking profit is the greatest threat to societal morality. Let's fund the BRT without. I like the idea of less carbon emissions. I think enough people in America have died from lung cancer due to carbon emissions.

[nashvylle]

1. Atlanta built light rail, yes, but they invested MUCH more into interstates. I want Nashville to invest heavily in mass transit and STOP adding more lanes like Atlanta so we don't become Atlanta....

2. Oil being a limited resource is not a political issue... it's just a plain fact. Don't ignore the realizationt that is very dumb not to have alternative forms of mass transit when oil is finite. Just saying "political issue" doesn't make the problem go away...

3. Two people can't have a discussion if someone says "not relevant" whenever an issue is brought up they don't want to tackle. I brought up the point that oil is finite, American inovators have started to counteract the gas issue with electric cars, which will lead to some people asking why then should we invest in mass transit if there are electric cars? THE COST. that's why.

4. Dallas, Austin, Atlanta, Raleigh, Charlotte... ALL of them have light rail. Nashville does not. I am proud that we have strong job growth, but it will be stronger in the long run if we have mass transit options.

5. Fair, but ask Portland residents what they love most about their city? A majority would say the mass transit options. Ask them if they think they payroll tax increase was worth it? I think a majority of them would say Hell yes. A bunch of people like yourself raised hell when Charlotte was voting for their light rail system. It passed, and 5 years later the citizens again voted in favor of adding MORE mass transit options. Seems to me people in Charlotte saw first hand the advantages of mass transit despite the tax increase.

6. Fair, to an extent.

7. Seriously, why not? Again, deciding not to address the issue doesn't make the problem go away. The more cities/citizens/corporations do to be more centralized, the better for our environment. Growing up in Nashville, having lived in Dallas and DC, and currently living in New York, I know the benefits of centralized cities and the consequences of urban sprawl.

8. Again, Atlanta invested much more into interstate construction that mass transit, which is why they have the traffic problems they have today. We are on the way to becoming Atlanta, and I pray that we become much more like Portland than Atlanta when it comes to mass transit.

you know what I absolutely "LOVE"

you saying some of my points are not "relevant" to this discussion. Who are you to decide? Taxes are a topic of mass transit, but they aren't the only issue.

And my sentence you absolutely "LOVE"... the costs of everyone in Davidson County to fund mass transit for ANYONE to use would be minimal compared to the billions of dollars that Tennesseans pay for road construction, plus buying cars, plus upkeep on the cars, plus gas...

[producer2]

Okay if it needs to be supported by all citizens a special taxing district is moot ... right? Tax all of Davidson County. Do you agree? And hell if it is such a great deal have the hotels and conventions chip in.... are you still on board? Let's speed the pain as far and wide and deep as possible.... for our own good and all...

Yes, I am against a special taxing district. As I stated mass transit should be provided as a service as it is in most industrialized nations. Many of which are thriving like Germany, Scandinavia, etc. does it cost more...yes. I'm not not sure why you are so hellbent on tourism paying. I am not sure I pay an extra tax when I visit other cities and countries specifically for transit. The government already collects taxes from these businesses to support the services they provide.

[MLBrumby]

I think certain "corridors" would be ripe for LRT, but Dean's administration has decided to go with the BRT option. Personally, I think BRT just adds to the horrible congestion on existing routes, as opposed to opening up alternate routes along parallel streets (e.g. Church, Demonbreun, 21st, etc.)... which no doubt would spur tremendous Transit Oriented Development. Instead, the temporary nature of BRT "LITE" will be less an incentive to invest along routes that could (and probably will) change in 5-10 years. I just see the BRT as a half-step for Metro... like they're too afraid to take the full plunge.

Another word about other cities... it doesn't get mentioned much, but Nashville's representation at the federal level is pathetic. "Led" by Jim Cooper, he wields absolutely no power in his party, much less in all of Congress. One of the few "Blue Dogs" left, even his own party despises him, and takes his votes for granted. Good leadership in those other cities mentioned, from city hall to Congress, planned way ahead and was ready when pilot funding programs became available. Contrast to Nashville, and it's quite clear that Nashville lost a decade with Purcell... and Dean has fought his big money battle with the convention center. He knows another huge project like LRT would be a tough, tough sell.

[timmay143]

I think certain "corridors" would be ripe for LRT, but Dean's administration has decided to go with the BRT option. Personally, I think BRT just adds to the horrible congestion on existing routes, as opposed to opening up alternate routes along parallel streets (e.g. Church, Demonbreun, 21st, etc.)... which no doubt would spur tremendous Transit Oriented Development. Instead, the temporary nature of BRT "LITE" will be less an incentive to invest along routes that could (and probably will) change in 5-10 years. I just see the BRT as a half-step for Metro... like they're too afraid to take the full plunge.

Another word about other cities... it doesn't get mentioned much, but Nashville's representation at the federal level is pathetic. "Led" by Jim Cooper, he wields absolutely no power in his party, much less in all of Congress. One of the few "Blue Dogs" left, even his own party despises him, and takes his votes for granted. Good leadership in those other cities mentioned, from city hall to Congress, planned way ahead and was ready when pilot funding programs became available. Contrast to Nashville, and it's quite clear that Nashville lost a decade with Purcell... and Dean has fought his big money battle with the convention center. He knows another huge project like LRT would be a tough, tough sell.

If BRT is so bad then why are the "golden" cities, like Austin, looking at BRT and not LRT?

[Shuzilla]

The old Nashville inter-urban railway once went to Franklin and it or something similar went to Gallatin and I suppose other cities as well. These were private companies in a day without cars. Given how much the satelite cities have grown and how interdependent they are to Nashville, should people cast off their automobiles due to prohibitive operating costs, these railways would pop up seemingly overnight with private money with tens of thousands of daily riders.

Automobiles do pay taxes on the gasoline they consume for use in road repair and construction, whether that money is spent properly or not. The automobile is an asset, and the owner takes care of its maintenance, fuel and the initial purchase cost. Government only provides the roads and the policing.

With public transportation the cost of the rolling stock, associated infrastructure, maintenance and operation falls onto the public if the ridership won't pay the actual cost of a trip. So consider this. Lets say everyone added to the population of Nashville's MSA (currently 1.8 million or so) from here on out is a new user of public transportation exclusively. Cool, right? Let's assume for a moment that in 25 years we have 900,000 more souls in the MSA and 900,000 MORE users of public transportation. That would be awesome, would it not?

The problem is that even under so rosey a senario, there will be as many cars on the road in 25 years as there are now; 1.7 million people would be dependent on the automobile, even if an incredible 900,000 flipped over to mass transit. That means whatever expansion and maintenance needs we face today with our road system we will be facing in 25 years if not acted upon in the interim. Further, there will be continued deterioration giving way to a continued need for maintenance. And, traffic would be as bad as now without any new road projects - worse if lanes of already-congested arteries are given over to BRT or similar.

So if 900,000 people see the light and use mass transit, BUT their ticket only pays part of the actual cost of running the transit system (in order to keep it affordable) then the rest would be subsidized with tax money. If that money actually came out of the road construction and maintenance pot ( say there's a $500 annual subsidy per rider totalling $450 Million each year) thinking we could cut back on roads given the huge public ridership, then we would be known as the Pothole City for the horrid condition of our roads and bridges. That's not something a city wants to be known for, either.

I don't think we'll ever see 900,000 riders, but what do I know? 100,000 riders would be a number to boast about. But with an additional ridership of "just" 100,000 in 25 years there would still be a substantial expansion of automotive traffic and we will still need expansion of roadways for future automobile traffic and the maintenance that goes with it, setting up an epic battle for funding.

Eventually, mass transit must pay for itself or other programs already on shoestring budgets will be expected to suffer. Politically, I don't think mass transit funding will ever be a higher priority than the highway projects already planned to ease current and immediate traffic problems.

Edited June 14, 2012 by Shuzilla

[Guest]

deleted by NB ..sorry for getting off topic

Edited June 14, 2012 by Guest

[producer2]

Actually only a small portion of the taxes collected on hotel rooms goes toward the MCC. I think it is around 2%. There is also a $2 per room night tax that 100% goes to the MCC. The buildings or land owners also pay property taxes.

[producer2]

Talking to my wife last night about our thread, she shared this email with me ( edited) about a young professionals move to Nashville. This is important in that this City is on a major push to recruit young professionals to move here and fill am oid we have for skilled labor. Yes, we have jobs available, we just need to be a player for recruitment of people to fill those roles.

"Hi xxxx

 

How are you? I hope that all is well in Chicago--I really miss it! I've been in Nashville now for about 10 weeks and love it, but there are some differences (such as having to rely on a car versus taking public transportation) that make me want to come back and visit."

On another note I have. confirmed that Ed Cole from the MTA will speak at the next URA business meeting on August 20th. The meetings are held at the Nashville Downtown Partnership offices beginning at 6:30 pm. All are welcome.