4 ms·

This seems like a puff piece that does nothing to capture the debate around this proposal that is taking place in Nashville. Yes, there are state-level politic

by jaxn 9y ago

This seems like a puff piece that does nothing to capture the debate around this proposal that is taking place in Nashville. Yes, there are state-level politics involved, but there are a LOT of Nashville residents that are strongly against this plan on the grounds that it will be outdated and under-utilized before it is ever completed. The Mayor's PR machine and the local Chamber are working hard to create support for this proposal, but it will be an uphill battle and will likely fail with the voters.

jdavis703 9y ago
How can it be outdated? Do residents think self-driving cars will take over by the time the system is ready?
- SwellJoe 9y ago
  I don't know anything about Nashville, but one of the common complaints about a recent rail proposal in Austin was that it served the areas least likely to use mass transit. And, it traveled within the wealthy and slow-growing (in terms of population) west and northwest parts of central Austin, even though the east and southeast sides use mass transit more, once you remove the university population, which is already reasonably well-served by the bus system and wouldn't have been served directly by the proposed train, anyway. One could make the argument that the proposal, in that case, was outdated because it didn't recognize that much of the growth in Austin is in the east and southeast of the city. It was based on assumptions about where people live and work that aren't current. And, many made the case that it was based on serving the wealthy, mostly white, population of Austin, especially a few real estate developers, while the poorer, mostly latinx, population would continue to be poorly served by Cap Metro buses and would likely see fare increases because of the new construction. So, even if one believes a particular transit technology, whatever it is, is technically sound and will last decades (e.g. the NY subway, which has likely paid for itself many times over since its construction and continues to serve the city, despite being very old and in need of updates and new construction), it may not be forward-looking on logistical matters. If you build a train, bus, light rail, nuclear submarine, hyperloop, whatever, that nobody rides, you haven't solved any problems for the city, you've just incurred debt. I'm in favor of mass transit, of course. The more, the better. But, I surprisingly found myself on the opposite side of the recent Austin rail measure because of the reasons mentioned among others. Again, I have no idea what's going on with Nashville. I've only visited. Just sharing how one might oppose a transit initiative without believing self-driving cars will solve everything in five years.
- jaxn 9y ago
  Partly. The train will take 10 years to build (assuming it is on-time). We also feel that ride-share will continue to expand. We don't have any pooling services (yet), but that is also inevitable. The other big complaint is that this is one 25 mile train from one side of town. But we aren't a coastal city like Seattle (where public transit is doing well). We have 3 major interstates (i24, i40, and i65), so that means there are bedroom communities in 6 directions from town. And m at least one of those (i65 south of town) has a two-way rush hour due to so many people living in Nashville and working in the south suburb (Brentwood / Franklin). Of course, that is not where the train is going b/c that is the wealthiest suburb and they don't want a train. So, shuttling in a few people from one side of town into an urban core with a lackluster hub/spoke bus system inside the city, isn't going to do much. The strongest argument for Mayor Barry's proposal seems to be "We have to do SOMETNING, so let's do this."
  - JoBrad 9y ago
    It’s not like Nashville can make Brentwood and Franklin build rail to match the rail that Nashville would supposedly build. And given that those cities have shown very little interest in building rail, it makes a lot more sense to focus on what we can impact.
  - sliverstorm 9y ago
    Is there a real reason to believe that highways can provide all the transit the city will ever need? Like, if only people would finally rideshare (which cities have been promoting since, what, the 60's) all the traffic would be gone? Is there a train layout that would be much more attractive?
    - jaxn 9y ago
      My comment about the highways is that people live/work in 6 directions (due to traditional access via interstates). A train on one of them won't do much, especially since it isn't even the busiest direction.
      - JoBrad 9y ago
specialist 9y ago
FWIW, I've changed my mind on public transit projects twice now. I've always been very pro public transit, and always vote for anything related. Maybe 5 years ago, in the after math of our monorail project being sabotaged, with the rise of ride sharing and perhaps autonomous automobiles, I decided the era of Big Bang public transit projects was coming to a close. Recently, our fledgling light rail, 20 years in the making, finally opened a station near the university, and now ridership along the whole system far exceeds all the projections. Woot! So I get the "too little, too late" sentiment. But I think I was wrong for believing that.

by jaxn 9y ago

jdavis703 9y ago

How can it be outdated? Do residents think self-driving cars will take over by the time the system is ready?

SwellJoe 9y ago
I don't know anything about Nashville, but one of the common complaints about a recent rail proposal in Austin was that it served the areas least likely to use mass transit. And, it traveled within the wealthy and slow-growing (in terms of population) west and northwest parts of central Austin, even though the east and southeast sides use mass transit more, once you remove the university population, which is already reasonably well-served by the bus system and wouldn't have been served directly by the proposed train, anyway. One could make the argument that the proposal, in that case, was outdated because it didn't recognize that much of the growth in Austin is in the east and southeast of the city. It was based on assumptions about where people live and work that aren't current. And, many made the case that it was based on serving the wealthy, mostly white, population of Austin, especially a few real estate developers, while the poorer, mostly latinx, population would continue to be poorly served by Cap Metro buses and would likely see fare increases because of the new construction. So, even if one believes a particular transit technology, whatever it is, is technically sound and will last decades (e.g. the NY subway, which has likely paid for itself many times over since its construction and continues to serve the city, despite being very old and in need of updates and new construction), it may not be forward-looking on logistical matters. If you build a train, bus, light rail, nuclear submarine, hyperloop, whatever, that nobody rides, you haven't solved any problems for the city, you've just incurred debt. I'm in favor of mass transit, of course. The more, the better. But, I surprisingly found myself on the opposite side of the recent Austin rail measure because of the reasons mentioned among others. Again, I have no idea what's going on with Nashville. I've only visited. Just sharing how one might oppose a transit initiative without believing self-driving cars will solve everything in five years.
jaxn 9y ago
Partly. The train will take 10 years to build (assuming it is on-time). We also feel that ride-share will continue to expand. We don't have any pooling services (yet), but that is also inevitable. The other big complaint is that this is one 25 mile train from one side of town. But we aren't a coastal city like Seattle (where public transit is doing well). We have 3 major interstates (i24, i40, and i65), so that means there are bedroom communities in 6 directions from town. And m at least one of those (i65 south of town) has a two-way rush hour due to so many people living in Nashville and working in the south suburb (Brentwood / Franklin). Of course, that is not where the train is going b/c that is the wealthiest suburb and they don't want a train. So, shuttling in a few people from one side of town into an urban core with a lackluster hub/spoke bus system inside the city, isn't going to do much. The strongest argument for Mayor Barry's proposal seems to be "We have to do SOMETNING, so let's do this."
- JoBrad 9y ago
  It’s not like Nashville can make Brentwood and Franklin build rail to match the rail that Nashville would supposedly build. And given that those cities have shown very little interest in building rail, it makes a lot more sense to focus on what we can impact.
- sliverstorm 9y ago
  Is there a real reason to believe that highways can provide all the transit the city will ever need? Like, if only people would finally rideshare (which cities have been promoting since, what, the 60's) all the traffic would be gone? Is there a train layout that would be much more attractive?
  - jaxn 9y ago
    My comment about the highways is that people live/work in 6 directions (due to traditional access via interstates). A train on one of them won't do much, especially since it isn't even the busiest direction.
    - JoBrad 9y ago

specialist 9y ago

FWIW, I've changed my mind on public transit projects twice now. I've always been very pro public transit, and always vote for anything related. Maybe 5 years ago, in the after math of our monorail project being sabotaged, with the rise of ride sharing and perhaps autonomous automobiles, I decided the era of Big Bang public transit projects was coming to a close. Recently, our fledgling light rail, 20 years in the making, finally opened a station near the university, and now ridership along the whole system far exceeds all the projections. Woot! So I get the "too little, too late" sentiment. But I think I was wrong for believing that.