My Analysis of the Nashville Transit Plan--David Condra
Nashville is in the final days of a referendum campaign to fund
a massive mass transit system. I spent a
substantial part of my first two weeks of retirement studying this plan and
talking with folks to inform my vote and support.
Please take this vote seriously. It
is a major, long-term commitment for our city and it's likely that it will be
decided by a very small number of voters. You should be one.
Analysis Summary
This is a major decision for Nashville. It either commits us to
a large, long-term transit investment or risks missing a chance to act on a
critical need for Nashville.
Before my research I was truly undecided. On one hand I am very
pro-economic development, pro-improved transit, and pro-business in Nashville.
I took comfort in the fact that trusted organizations like the Chamber and CVB,
as well as numerous corporations and Vanderbilt are supporting the plan, so
that alone would have probably pushed me to vote Yes, not to mention my own
traffic pains and the sense that gridlock is in our future. On the other hand,
my technology bias makes me skeptical of a massive rail project, which is
expensive, inflexible and…so last century.
So, I dug in. I reviewed the Nashville
Transit Improvement Plan, the MTA plan,
the nMotion HCT
briefing book, the Malcolm Goetz (VU Econ prof)
Critique, 25 websites, newspaper coverage, attended debates, and more. I’ve concluded our transportation needs are
too important to foreclose other options by committing to this massive, 14 to
50 year plan as it stands now.
I think we can do better. I plan to vote no in the hope we can
improve the ROI of the taxpayer dollars with a revised plan.
Why are so many of our business and government leaders for this
plan?
I know there are many different motivations but based on my
research, I believe:
• Some
feel mass transit is critical for Nashville’s economy and that traffic
congestion will limit our growth
•
Development-oriented
people believe transit investment will create high-density development areas in
rail corridors
•
Supporters
of transit are on board with a plan that can get passed and funded…something is
better than nothing
•
They
think the plan will be improved after it passes
My decision became clear when I focused on the numbers:
· At $8.9
billion total cost, this is ten times the cost of the next largest
city project ever, the Nashville Convention Center and Omni hotel. It cannot be
compared with other economic projects in the city.
· 80% of
the $8.9 billion ($6.9 billion) will create and operate 28 miles of light rail
(LRT) on five corridors that only run a few miles each, not even reaching the
county lines.
·
During 2018-2032, the period the system would be built:
o Total cost to carry each projected
rider per trip = $105
o After construction, total cost per rider per
trip = $21
o Anticipated rider payment per trip = $2.21
o This is a big subsidy financed primarily
by a sales tax increase, which will incent residents of surrounding counties to
not spend their money in Davidson County. Even considering possible economic
development benefits, I think this money can be spent better.
· Both
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and Light Rail Transit (LRT) primarily use existing
roads and will often take the existing turning lane, even when widened.
o The capital cost to build 27 miles of
Rapid Bus Service is $260 million or $10 million per mile
BRT is projected to carry 11,000 riders/day
o The capital cost to build 28 mi of LRT
(plus tunnel) is $5.5 billion or $196 million per mile
LRT is projected to carry 44,000/day
o The plan does not adequately explain why
we wouldn’t just do it all with Bus Rapid Transit? There may be a good reason,
but it hasn’t been conveyed in the plan.
o Depending on the actual number of riders,
lost lane capacity could offset any transit capacity gains.
Other concerns:
·
Urban rail transit has been around for over a hundred years.
Nationally, It is still only carrying 3-5% of urban commuters in cities that
have it and is declining as a percentage of commuters. Urban density is a major factor in urban rail
transit and Nashville is much less dense than New York, Seattle and Washington
DC.
·
The typical transit commute projected in Nashville is a
multi-step process which few people will prefer to using a car:
o Walk, drive, or Uber to a transit station
o Ride for an average of fifteen minutes
o Maybe use the tunnel or an in-town bus
o Then walk or Uber to a final destination
o Out of town visitors traveling from the
airport will take baggage on and off the train, in and out of an Uber and into a
hotel
· Planned
LRT and BRT lines stop 5-7 miles short of the county lines. Full regional use
of the transit system will require extension of the lines. Assuming an average of six additional miles
for five routes at $196 million per mile, this is an additional $5.88 billion.
· The
LRT and BRT are primarily for commuting. They will not do much to reduce
congestion in the rest of the city in the middle of the day.
· The construction
period of thirteen years will inflict major traffic pain.
Risks:
·
The opportunity cost of committing to this plan and limiting funds
for other projects is a major issue. The State IMPROVE act does not allow significant
changes without going back to the electorate.
·
Transit projects are notoriously late and over budget. If this
goes over, it will require reducing scope or finding other capital.
·
The projected $144 million of annual federal funds are not
committed and are at risk under the new federal tax plan. The plan is silent on
what would happen if they were not approved.
·
If the project doesn’t succeed, future tax increases for
anything will be difficult to pass.
What’s the alternative?
There is great value in much of the proposed transit plan. I’m in
favor of taxes to invest in transit in the right way, but can’t see the ROI for
the rail portion of this plan. The improvements in our bus system, sidewalks
and bike lanes make Nashville a more livable city in important ways. We can’t waste
the momentum for transit. People are engaged now.
So what are alternatives if this vote dies?
In my opinion an option with no trains, probably replacing the LRT routes with more BRT, should be presented. The work has mostly been done to design
and estimate that since both use roadways and dedicated lanes. An honest
comparison of the plans should be presented.
Several people have proposed specific alternatives that don’t
appear to have been fully considered or discussed in the plan.
Two people with innovative thinking produced this
Plan B option to the transit plan. The basics of that plan are:
Plan B: 8-passenger rideshare vans (pickup at home, deliver to
work) doing 8 passengers per hour
|
|||||
Up front capital
|
$11,384,900
|
||||
Daily pass
|
8,500
|
||||
Annual pass
|
25,002,500
|
||||
Operating cost
|
$62,111,472
|
||||
Cost per ride
|
$2.48
|
||||
While I believe the costs might exceed this significantly, this
approach costs a fraction of light rail and actually takes people from their
home to their destination. It would
reduce traffic throughout the city and all day. Arlington, TX (pop. 400,000)
gave up its buses and started this type plan last year.
Links to sites of interest
Proponents
Opposition
Thank you for digging in so deep! I totally agree with your perspective, and agree that we can do better! Best to you and Estelle.
ReplyDeleteDavid,
ReplyDeleteThanks for this thorough analysis. Wish you had been involved when the plan was being developed. And if it fails, I hope you will volunteer to help develop a new one!!
From what I hear, the vote will be very close. I think for many people, like me, doing nothing just seems like a step in the wrong direction. In addition, it seems very hard to get something back on the docket after it fails. Look how long it took once the last plan was defeated.
I am so glad you have chosen to get involved in these kinds of issues. Just what the people of Nashville need. Your options make sense. Ever thought of running for mayor?
Thanks Sara, you're right, the big risk is that this failing kills all transit initiative for a long time. It would not have to. Under the IMPROVE act the city can re-submit for a referendum for the tax increase in 12 mo. Just about the right time to get a revised plan, using the bulk of this one, back together. I believe many of the "For" votes would vote for a smaller plan if only to get something started, and I think many No's would change to yes for a smaller, no-rails, plan. If it fails I think the city should immediately invest in an independent survey of the voters to fully understand why they voted the way they did, and what would move them to vote differently next time. And to your last question...not ever.
DeleteThough no engineer, my research has led to a similar conclusion. I have been a fan of the van concept for years. This is catching on in other cities such as London.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the great overview-reading this after my vote this morning.
Thank you for putting my thoughts so eloquently. I can see uber-type vans being used by commuters and thus reducing the number of cars on the road but cannot see drivers giving up the convenience of their cars to walk and wait for the train. I have already voted NO. Lynne
ReplyDeleteDavid, you're a highly credible source for me, and your assessment will be heavily considered. Look forward to talking, soon (assuming you're back in the ConUS?)! Milt
ReplyDeleteDavid you might not remember me but I sold you your Startac phone in 97 at your office and we talked about our Palm Pilots... well done post... Selling Nashville Light Rail with all this emerging technology is like asking you to buy another Startac.
ReplyDeleteChronologically more like selling an early Alexander Graham Bell phone, before there was anyone else to talk to!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThanks, David. You've done good work. I've been working on analyzing the transit referendum proposal since September. I agree with your take on the cost, modes, routes and schedules that are proposed and I come to the same conclusion of voting AGAINST and bringing the whole city together to work on a better plan if this one fails. I've focused on a couple of issues you haven't mentioned. Transit will benefit Nashville businesses and the plan was prepared almost exclusively by major players in the business community, but when it came to funding it, they decided to pass the cost to ordinary citizens with a sales tax instead of stepping up to the bar and paying the cost with a property tax that would affect the business community more. Also, I am very concerned that the transit development will cause more gentrification and displacement of working families by increasing real estate prices. See my blog at: https://wwhowell.wordpress.com/ especially my December 15, 2017 letter to Mayor Barry
ReplyDeleteThanks Bill, I did look at your blog. You also have worked hard on this and for much longer than I. Thanks for your effort here. I agree, changing the funding mechanism would help in a number of ways, mostly give the city more flexibility, rather than being tied to the IMPROVE act restrictions. One thought I have been pondering is why we can't supplement the funding with electronic toll charges so that the vehicles using our corridors actually pay for the use. That would also help provide more incentive for people to move from the one-person-one-car model.
DeleteAlso, one of the reasons I strongly support transit in general is that we must figure out how to make affordable housing available on a reasonable commute route if we are going to have access to a full workforce to support the growth of the city. I agree with your concern that the high density housing along the proposed rail routes would quickly become the most desirable and more expensive housing in Nashville. We've already seen in the Gulch that efforts to set aside units for affordable housing only last through one owner flip and then the prices start rising.
Thank you, David, for digging deep on this issue. I was an Urban Studies major at Vanderbilt in the 70s, and Malcolm Getz was my professor even then! As an urban advocate, I actually attended the Transit Academy, funded by the proponents. The course was held at the Center for Nonprofit Management over several weeks, and we were educated about the plan being proposed. We split up into groups and worked on strategies. The problem was, this was not a forum to evaluate a variety of options, it was a sales pitch to gain popular support for the plan being proposed. My biggest issue at the time (I worked in Cool Springs), was the realization that this plan did nothing for cross-county commuters, many of which come from Rutherford County to Williamson County, or Sumner County to Williamson County. There was no discussion about how to address this need. We are a multi-county MSA and need to develop strategies like one. The only rail line I would propose is from town to the airport, to ease congestion of tourists coming in and out of downtown - that would solve a significant downtown traffic pain, and make life much better for our tourists, which is a big part of our growth. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense to use last century, inflexible technology to fix our issues today, not when the proposed infrastructure doesn't address first and last mile travel. You can build it, but if it makes a commute more unpleasant than sitting in your car, people won't take it. Kansas City is one place that is using the uber-style vans to pick up riders where they are and take them where they are going.
ReplyDeleteI voted no, and thanks to you, I have a better understanding why it doesn't make sense for Nashville.
Thanks for your comments Susan. I wish I had known about your involvement, I was looking for info sources. Yes, it is a bit scary to think of spending $9Bil over 14 yrs only to find out at the end if it will be used. There are both success and failure stories in other cities to look at, but very difficult to compare to Nashville. I know the planners feel the key is to have an entire functional system and that we just have to have faith that experts feel this is the way to go. The only problem is, the experts don't/won't live here.
DeleteI also thought maybe the rail to the airport would be a good use and good way to try out rail. However, I have ridden trains in other countries where I had to lug luggage onto the train, stow it, find a seat, then at the station, retrieve the bags, unload, and lug it to the hotel, sometimes even needing to get in a cab at the station to get to the hotel. At my stage of life, I'd probably just let Uber take me and my bags door to door even if it took longer and cost more.
Thanks for pulling together so much information, David. There was a lot to unpack and think about.
ReplyDeleteMuch like you before your research, I have been following the transit bill from an arm's length and have been reading different opinions and analyses. I also am leaning towards voting yes on the bill. I've had to pause and give my vote a rethink over lunch today after reading this.
I am a large supporter of public transportation and use it almost exclusively when traveling. I would use it here in Nashville if there was a convenient enough route between my destinations. As you pointed out, Nashville is not as compact as other urban cities whose mass transit infrastructure is commonly used. This is one of the biggest obstacles, that as you mentioned, isn't truly resolved with the proposal.
As someone who lived for 2 years commuting from Murfreesboro to Nashville, I can relate to the traffic woes that so many people experience. It was a definite reason I eventually moved to Nashville, but even living in Nashville, you have significant traffic congestion to deal with every day. The importance for a solution and the fact that it's 10 years too late, really puts pressure on Nashville to find a solution. I think that is why we have such a lackluster solution.
I think of Guy Kawasaki's quote, "If you wait until you have the perfect product or person, it may be too late." Nashville has been waiting for that perfect solution for quite some time. This is not the first transportation solution to be pitched. I also don't think it's the worst solution pitched. There's a lot here to not be excited for, but it is also moving us away from the current static state of our transportation. I really liked your idea of moving away from the "all-or-nothing" approach and to approve improving our BRT lines. But as a my thought-process, I fall into your category that something is better than nothing.
I can't say that I'm entirely confident in my upcoming vote. I am still weighing out the pros and cons. My fear is that we stay in this paralyzed state because we are too concerned with increasing taxes and wanting a perfect solution.
Side note: I think that there's a lot of benefit in properly enforcing HOV lanes. During my two years commuting from Murfreesboro to Nashville, I never once witnessed any enforcement and saw constant disregard for the intended use. When I lived in the Minneapolis area, the HOV lanes were often much less congested because there was strict enforcement.
Good thoughts Jonathan. I actually do enjoy using mass transit, even buses, in other cities when I'm there long enough to learn my way around, and always thought it would be great to have that option in Nashville.
DeleteAs I think about your current commute from East Nashville, the proposed system probably wouldn't make any sense vs driving or uber. You'd have to wait for a bus near your home to get to the proposed transit center at 5th and Lafayette, then catch a train out nolensville rd to melrose, then walk the mile or so from nolensville rd to the office.
On the HOV lanes, I don't see why we can't deploy toll lanes with beacons in the cars to use them. Then we would have revenue to help support other forms of transit. That would also provide incentive for people to share rides and share the toll costs as well. On enforcement, seems like cameras on the HOV/Toll lanes would allow getting your violation ticket in the mail. Again, some of the transit budget could pay for that.
It is unfortunate that a city with no real mass transit experience is presented with an all or none choice. I believe their choice of using the sales tax option allowed by the IMPROVE act drove the approach they are taking. Maybe that was their best option but it feels like putting all our chips on 00 on the roulette wheel and hoping the ball lands there.
I do believe this would not be the end of options if it fails. Hopefully they will do some surveying of the voters, now that people are engaged, and find out what caused them to vote it down and try again with a modified, acceptable, plan that allows some pilot type trials of different transit modalities and see how they are received and used.
A van share pilot could be in place very quickly, there are private companies already offering those to cities, and would give immediate feedback on that, which would probably be complementary to any other transit in place.