The Elusive Better Plan

This blog post was originally sent as an email by Metro Councilman Freddie O'Connell.

Early voting is underway for the county primary and transit referendum.

This election is possibly Nashville's most consequential since we consolidated our city and county. We are, as a city, weighing whether to restore a robust transit network to our public infrastructure, the likes of which we haven't had in more than a generation since streetcars used to traverse the urban core and the Nashville-Franklin Interurban was a part of our regional network.

I'm excited because I'm having daily conversations about transit. There's an interesting thread woven through a surprising number of these conversations. It's often along these lines: "I'm for transit, just not this plan."

A few thoughts follow for those insisting they're "for transit" but would like to see a "better plan".

If the :better plan" is not consistent with one of the scenarios considered during nMotion, be very skeptical that it's "better." Transit policy expertise matters in urban planning, and Nashville MTA and RTA engaged a ton of it—as well as public input—in putting together this plan.

It's absolutely appropriate to be critical/skeptical of elements of the proposed plan, but to reject it wholesale leaves us hunting unicorns.

In part, that's because the planning process that led to Let's Move Nashville engaged thousands of Nashvillians. So if a "better plan" hasn't matched or exceeded what nMotion did in terms of engagement be highly skeptical.

Furthermore, the IMPROVE Act is now state law. It stipulates that we can't vote again on a dedicated funding plan for transit for at least a year.

Having worked through nMotion personally (especially on the front end, when I was still on the MTA board of directors), a "better plan" that is a redo of nMotion with public engagement that meets, or exceeds, it will probably take a similar amount of time. I.e., on the order of 6 years.

For people who would prefer a plan with no light rail and only bus rapid transit (BRT) for high-capacity transit: consider that the General Assembly did Lee Beaman the favor, in the Amp discussion, of ensuring that BRT on state routes with dedicated lanes would require state legislative approval. That's important because the only BRT worth doing is gold standard BRT.

And that's important because it's very easy to value-engineer away from the proposed BRT implementation (especially when the paid opposition is encouraging you to do just that) to the point where you wind up with the "BRT Lite" we've had operating on Gallatin Rd for a few years now.

BRT Lite in Nashville is basically an articulated bus with fewer stops. The slightly fancier edition has traffic signal priority, but even then it stops way short of what cities like Cleveland and Eugene have done.

For tunnel skeptics: revisit the Amp conversation. Discover how hard it is to find surface routing that pleases the same people (i.e., establishments on Broadway) that are unnerved by the thought of a tunnel.

Now take business concerns out of the equation and just contend with the epicenter of Lower Broadway from a traffic perspective. You know how many times there are road closures on or adjacent to Broadway in a given year? A lot!

Moving people efficiently through and around downtown is very challenging. Be very wary of ignoring this issue in a "better plan".

For the bus-only crowd that wants buses to serve more neighborhoods with greatly improved service levels: most neighborhoods spoke up and said they wanted growth in centers and on corridors.

Trying to give the many neighborhoods that critics are saying aren't served by the proposed transit centers and cross-town service is going to induce more sprawl and density exactly where Nashvillians have said time and time again that they don't want it.

For the nearby crowd lamenting that light rail doesn't serve more areas: consider the extraordinary discomfort that many have expressed about the expense of light rail in this plan. If we can't digest this much investment in light rail, we're very unlikely to digest more. We're similarly unlikely to invest along corridors with lower ridership projections than those currently proposed.

For the automated vehicle / ride sharing crowd: both scenarios relying on these as alternatives to transit probably add more vehicles to our roads, which is a thing this plan is trying to avoid doing. There are geometric and ecological benefits to reducing the number of cars on the road.

There's also this consideration: mass transit is not the same thing as public transportation. In a model that relies on a status quo bus system and emphasizes AV/ride sharing, what's the subsidy model for the people who rely on transit fares now? That has to be a part of a "better plan".

Generally speaking, consider how a coalition will form around a "better plan". Who will lead it? Who will design and champion a "better plan"? And who will be part of the coalition?

Let's Move Nashville was drawn directly from nMotion. It was approved by the Nashville MTA and RTA boards and supported by four former and one current mayor of Nashville. Our local mobility advocates (Transit Now Nashville and Walk/Bike Nashville) support it.

We clearly haven't done enough work to satisfy people concerned about affordable housing and the related issues of gentrification and displacement. But the mayor's office and Metro Council continue to work on these issues.

A "better plan" must somehow deliver better transit and mobility success and satisfy these advocacy communities. How?

And provided someone actually produces a "better plan", consider how it will be funded. The IMPROVE Act has tightly restricted revenue opportunities for dedicated funding. Sales tax surcharges will likely still be in the picture in a "better plan".

The wheel tax was eliminated from consideration for funding in part because of its unpopularity (despite its actual relevance), but it wouldn't have made up most of the necessary revenue for Let's Move Nashville.

If you're skeptical, these are all points worth considering. If you're supportive and know people who are skeptical, they're worth thinking through as contingencies.

Don't get me wrong: there are cheaper plans. But there are other southern cities (e.g., Austin, Charlotte ... even Atlanta) I'd like for Nashville to outperform in a variety of dimensions. They've already invested heavily in transit.

And there are those I'd like to continue to outperform (e.g., Birmingham; Jackson, Miss.) that are investing, like we are, in their status quo. We can do better as a city. How does a "better plan" do that?

Even as a supporter of Let's Move Nashville, I know we need to do these things if it passes: continue working to ensure that the plan is as closely linked as possible to efforts to create more affordable housing and mitigate, to the extent possible, displacement and gentrification. We also need to return to communities that claim they want better service levels and figure out how to square that with a centers and corridors growth sensibility (that is actually smart from a land use perspective).

For anyone voting no: you're ensuring preservation of the status quo of a near lack of mobility freedom for Nashville for at least a year. I fear a no vote also discounts the incredible amount of work it will be to develop a "better plan" apart from Scenario 2 in nMotion. And you might be discounting the severity of the opposition for any plan that tries to leverage the IMPROVE Act to secure dedicated funding in order to implement it.

Many, many people have thought hard about transit and worked hard to address very specific concerns and constraints.

Let's Move Nashville wasn't just created by the Chamber or a mayoral administration to cater to developers; it has been the result of a lot of tough decisions to try to offer Nashvillians more and better ways to move around their city.

Finally, transit can change your life. It changed mine. It kept me debt-free until I decided to become a homeowner (where the debt is arguably good debt). Economic freedom and mobility freedom are powerful freedoms.

I'll conclude by encouraging a yes vote on Let's Move Nashville. I know some of my constituents will disagree, and that's the best part of a referendum is: you can! At the ballot box.

What I'm Watching

What I'm Reading

  • Nashville shows up in an examination in the surge in homeless deaths. This is tough reading. We are on the verge of considering a complete overhaul of our Metro Homelessness Commission among other things, and I'm hoping 2018 is a breakthrough year for us in our efforts to work with more focus on this issue.

What I'm Hearing

  • People are talking about transit.

What You Can Do

  • Vote! There's more than transit on the ballot. I appreciated the efforts of the Equity Alliance in putting together a voter guide.

Thank you for participating in our citywide conversation and for your confidence in my own efforts to participate via Council.

My best...

-- Freddie O'Connell

Connect With the Chamber