» The city’s mayor has announced a multi-billion-dollar plan that would bring new light rail and bus rapid transit routes to the city’s core, but critics are suggesting it won’t work. It depends on the design.
Nashville is booming. The region that encompasses it is growing by an average of 100 people a day, and the rhythm has held up for several years now. The combined city-county Nashville-Davidson has added more than 60,000 residents since 2010 alone.
Developers are catching up, constructing thousands of new residential units, office buildings, and other projects; much of the development is happening downtown.
Yet the city’s transportation system isn’t made for the growth. The highway system is bottleneck-after-bottleneck, and the transit system is underfunded and underused.
Nashville Mayor Megan Barry’s hope is to offer an alternative through a massive new transit program that she announced in October. It would rely on voter-supported tax increases.
But the proposal could face the same problems previous Nashville transit efforts have—namely inadequate public support and vocal opposition. These opponents, as I describe below, are relying on inadequate and deceptive claims to critique investment in transit, but they’re right that the system won’t automatically be effective in attracting riders. Nashville needs better transit, but it’s got to design its system appropriately if it’s going to work.
Fixed-guideway transit for Nashville
Mayor Barry’s plan is to have the city’s voters approve a significant increase in four local taxes in a May 1 referendum. The proposal would increase the sales tax incrementally and add surcharges on existing hotel, rental car, and business taxes. Funds would raise enough to fund $5.4 billion in capital investments, plus a billion more in operations costs over the next 14 years, when construction will be completed. That’s not as large as Los Angeles’ or Seattle’s 2016 referenda, but it’s a big investment in a much smaller metropolitan area.
Indeed, Nashville’s plan would be enough to provide the city’s almost 700,000 inhabitants a large new transit network, encompassing 26 miles of light rail, 25 miles of bus rapid transit (BRT), and significant improvements to the existing bus service and Music City Star commuter rail line.
Lines would largely extend out from downtown, where a $936-million, 1.8-mile transit tunnel would separate trains and BRT services from street traffic. It would make Nashville the fifth U.S. city to invest in a modern light-rail downtown tunnel, after Buffalo, Seattle, Los Angeles, and Dallas* (like Seattle, it will include both trains and buses).
As the map below indicates, light rail lines would extend northeast along Gallatin Pike, west along Charlotte Avenue, northwest along a former rail line, and southeast along Murfreesboro and Nolensville Pikes, all major arterial routes. Four BRT corridors would fill in the gaps. The result would be an urban core generally well served by fixed-guideway transit services.
As currently described, the network would feature relatively high-performance light rail corridors, “traveling in their own lanes,” with transit signal priority and frequent weekday service. The trains would begin running 2026, with full completion by 2032.
The rapid bus corridors, which would be implemented more rapidly, would be electric, have limited stops, also feature transit signal priority, and, “where feasible and supported by the community,” include dedicated lanes and off-board payment.
In sum, the network is projected to attract significantly more riders than the existing regional network, which carries about 33,000 daily bus riders and 1,200 commuter rail users. The city estimates that the rapid bus corridors would see between 9,600 and 11,600 boardings a day and the rail corridors between 61,100 and 71,400. If these projections are realized, the city’s system will carry more riders per mile than those in Charlotte, Dallas, and Denver, and it would more than double existing use of the system.
Over the 2018 to 2032 construction period, about $900 million, or about 10 percent of the total, would go to operations and maintenance costs, with the rest paying for the massive expenditures related to the new rail and bus lines.
That’s a very capital-heavy allocation of resources, and it has its limitations. Light rail service on weekends, for example, would only be scheduled for every 30 minutes. And some local buses would continue to provide service only every 30 minutes, at best. But a new Frequent Transit Network would offer service every 15 minutes or faster on the 10 busiest bus routes, which would have significantly longer hours and an expanded fleet.
Assuming these outcomes play out as planned, should the voters endorse Nashville’s proposal? Would the city be getting its money’s worth?
For critics of the project, massive investment in transit simply doesn’t make much sense. Vanderbilt University Associate Professor of Economic Malcolm Getz epitomizes the opposition, and he has produced a lengthy critique that’s been used by local media as evidence for the proposal’s failings. A few years ago, Getz was a key opponent of Nashville’s proposed Amp BRT line, which ultimately failed in the face of state legislative and local business opposition.
Getz’s arguments are similar to those used by most opponents of transit investment in cities across the U.S.: For one, he argues, transit does not reduce congestion and in fact may make matters worse if trains or buses take space away from cars on the street. Two, transit is slow because it requires transfers and thus will not increase ridership. Three, the benefits would go to just few people (since most people don’t use transit), and transit would accelerate gentrification. And four, the availability of new types of car services, combined with tolled express lanes, actually would be more beneficial.
These claims—like many of the popular criticisms of transit—mislead, simplify, and contradict.
It is true, as Getz notes, that the fundamental law of road congestion means roads will fill up to their capacity, so more transit is unlikely to reduce congestion in itself. But evidence does, in fact, show that transit plays an important role in reducing overall automobile traffic, even in places like Nashville where it accounts for a small share of commuters. As such, improving transit service can be an essential mechanism to move more people around a city without having to build more highways.
Getz suggests that eliminating automobile lanes for dedicated lanes for transit will exacerbate congestion by forcing the same number of drivers into fewer lanes. But such reductions in vehicle traffic have been shown either to have minimal impact on roadway capacity or actually reduce the number of people driving. Just as importantly, transit can carry a lot more people in a lot less space than automobiles on roadways.
Of course, transit can only be effective if it’s carrying people, and that’s a shortcoming that Getz relies upon throughout his criticism. He suggests, to summarize, that there’s virtually nothing that can be done to attract people onto the region’s trains and buses because they are slow and require transfers, and thus that those vehicles will be empty no matter what.
But there are ways to make transit effective—it’s just that Getz isn’t much interested in them. As noted above, he’s opposed to dedicated lanes, but those are essential for speeding up transit and actually making them competitive with cars. Nashville’s transit system is quite low-ridership today, but one reason for that is that the service it provides is slow and infrequent, exactly the deficiencies this transit plan is designed to address.
Getz’s claim that Nashville’s transit system simply won’t be well used, and thus does not deserve significant investment, is simply a reflection of existing conditions and an unwillingness to believe that cities have the capacity to change.
Moreover, he is willing to use an argument that contradicts his other claims—that transit will induce gentrification by increasing property values near transit stations. Why, though, would transit improvements increase values if no one is using the system? There is significant evidence that transit investments increase surrounding property values, and the reason for that is that transit improves accessibility. In other words, you can’t both argue that transit won’t be used and that it will increase gentrification.
Getz’s proposed solutions include increasingly relying on ride-hailing services and putting buses in tolled express lanes on Nashville’s highways. Yet encouraging people to take Uber or Lyft into downtown wouldn’t do much at all to solve congestion—in fact, it might make it worse if people are subsidized to take those vehicles instead of the bus. Moreover, given that such services are hardly self-supporting today, and far from inexpensive, it’s hard to see this approach as effective in the long term.
While tolling expressways might be effective in cutting down on traffic, putting the buses there instead of on arterial surface streets would essentially remove transit from the places where it can actually thrive: In walkable, relatively dense neighborhoods, and relegate it to an automobile-dominated corridor.
Plus, Nashville’s massive growth requires new transportation capacity. Simply tolling some highway lanes won’t actually increase the ability of the region to handle more people. That’s why it’s so important that transit investments be offered as an alternative.
What future for the city?
Despite the limitations of Getz’s arguments, they are getting play in the local press. One reason for that is that there are reasons to be skeptical of the potential for Nashville transit improvements.
The city is incredibly sprawling, with a population density of just about 1,300 people per square mile—far less than what is typically needed to make fixed-guideway transit effective, which is something in the range of 10,000 people per square mile. I’ve written critically of the previous transit proposals in Nashville precisely for this reason. Along the proposed lines, densities are higher—3,000 to 4,000 people per square mile, but still pretty low.
As such the city should be focusing intensely to construct larger projects along the routes and downtown to ensure that the transit investment is worth it. The existing land use code also has high parking requirements—at least one space per unit for residential uses, and one space per every 200 to 300 square feet for office uses—that should be eliminated to support a transit-focused city.
This plan is better than the previous one, focusing more on improving transit in the center, where it is likely to work best. Whereas the previous proposal would have extended light rail 30 miles from downtown, this one goes, at most, about seven miles from there. While the city extends roughly 15 miles from downtown, the underdeveloped, exurban parts are not to be served by this plan. That means that it’s designed to encourage development in the core by capitalizing redevelopment of existing built-up areas. That’s the right approach.
The inclusion of a transit tunnel downtown is a radical, expensive approach, but it’s ultimately a good idea from the perspective of making the system as effective as possible. By separating trains and BRT services from traffic, the system will avoid the pitfalls of places like Portland, where light rail vehicles crawl through downtown, and make it far more feasible for people to travel from one side of the city to another.
Moreover, the plan’s opponents are missing the larger issue: This transit plan isn’t really about responding to Nashville’s current travel patterns, for better or worse. It’s about creating a framework for the future development of the city around a reliable transit system.
If the proposal is successfully implemented, it will make it possible to have a transit-oriented life in a city where living without a car is now virtually impossible. It will create the groundwork for an alternative mode of development than the parking-heavy construction that currently dominates.
Despite the vocal opposition, Nashville’s citizenry may, in fact, be willing to go along with Mayor Barry’s transit proposal. It’s a big ask, and it will hit people in their pocketbooks, but the city’s residents are hardly arch-conservative; they voted 60 percent for Hillary Clinton in 2016 despite her winning only 35 percent of the statewide vote.
Even if they vote for the referendum, though, the way the transit projects that are funded by it are ultimately designed will play an essential role in determining their effectiveness. The fact that the city is proposing to include dedicated lanes only where “supported by the community” suggests that the city’s leaders are already anticipating opposition from neighbors in places such as along the West End corridor, which connects downtown to Vanderbilt University, and where the Amp project met its demise a few years back. But the transit services will only be useful for people in the city if they’re designed to be as rapid as possible.
Better transit for Nashville, then, means more than just passing new funding for the city’s system. It means making sure that the projects built are designed to work and to actually attract riders. That’s the really difficult part.
* Several cities, including Boston, Cleveland, Newark, Philadelphia, and Pittsburgh, built light rail tunnels many decades ago and have kept them operating. Tunnels in Dallas and Los Angeles are planned or now under construction.
Image at top: Downtown Nashville, from Flickr user Jason Mrachina (cc). Map of proposed Nashville fixed-guideway transit routes, from City of Nashville. Updated Jan. 31, 2018 to clarify changes to local bus service.
9 replies on “Nashville plans for a big boost in local transit, and is hoping its voters will step on board”
great article Yohan! Thank you for the paragraph that includes the sentence “But such reductions in vehicle traffic have been shown either to have minimal impact on roadway capacity or actually reduce the number of people driving.” I did not know that!
More tangible evidence from auto-happy Los Angeles to contradict Getz:
• LA’s BRT buses running in the middle of freeways draw far fewer Patrons Per Mile the BRT running in dedicated guideway where people live, work and play.
• Critics who said auto-loving LA would not support Heavy Rail Or Light Rail have been proven wrong by patronage ramp-up faster than projections; the key has been to make them run frequent and faster the commute-hour traffic.
• Angelenos voted to tax themselves for more Heavy Rail, Light Rail, BRT and Commuter Rail that runs slightly faster, more dependably, costs less than driving, eliminates parking costs AND costs less than Uber/Lyft for daily commutes.
This is slightly unrelated but can we please stop using that “100 people a day” growth figure and applying it to Nashville? As soon as I see that in a story I stop reading. 100/day was a figure that was applied to the 13-county Metro Statistical Area by pro-developer, pro-growth planners, and it’s not even accurate. First of all, it includes cities as far as away as Spring Hill, Murfreesboro, Clarksville, etc. The “region” is huge and most of those people will never use a transit line in the Nashville city limits. Second of all, it doesn’t factor in net migration. When a 2015 study actually DID factor that in, the number they got was 58/day moving into the Nashville region. Not 100. And FINALLY, the dirty secret that Metro Planning staffers won’t tell you is that when you factor in net migration and look just at Nasville-Davidson County, the number is actually more like 25 people a day.
The Nashville region (MSA) is 14 Counties, not 13 and does not include Clarksville.
This is an incredibly wasteful plan for a city that has and will have such a low density.
A much cheaper and more useful change would be to make all the bus routes frequent, and have proof-of-purchase payment (can be on-board), signal priority, and (where possible) separate lanes.
Wasteful, yes. And the tunnel goes the wrong way!
Nashville has a clearly defined east-west axis, with the west end anchored by Vanderbilt and hospitals and the east end anchored by the riverfront and the Titans. Which is to say, you want an east-west tunnel under Church.
Church goes to the center of the Arts District and is a 4-minute walk to the Capitol, 4-minute walk to the Predators, 4-minute walk to Vandy, 6-minute walk to the Convention Center, 6-minute walk to TriStar Centennial hospital. Then either dogleg south to meet the Music City Star or extend Music City Star north by trenching under the park steps.
If you want to serve the airport, electrify Music City Star as far east as Donelson and then build 1.5 miles of new median trackage on Donelson vs 9 miles of new LRT on Murfreesboro Pike. Ends up looking like the Budapest HEV.
I know you’ve written about this before, Yonah, but can you point me toward articles describing when, where, and why light rail is more appropriate than buses? I wonder if investing in buses alone would be more fiscally responsible and effective in Nashville.
I totally agree with this as some people would prefer to take a more fluid “mini train” instead of waiting at a bus stop till your ride gets there. Anyone who has been in a city that has this & has depended on it for commute knows this would be a good idea. Its not only a good thing for NYC. Nashville will definitely benefit from this.
The tunnel was the most interesting part of the proposal. It seems like it could do a lot of reduce congestion. Bonus would be able to ride the train through downtown without having to deal with the drunk tourists on Broadway.
In these wonky circles we tend to get caught up in the academic arguments and forget that for most folks it doesn’t matter. The issue with this transit plan is that while it made a lot of sense to focus on the core areas where mass transit would make the most difference, it didn’t appeal to the electorate as a whole.
Contrast Denver’s Fastrak’s with Nashville’s plan. RTD made sure to double up lines on it’s US36 corridor along with the down right bumblef8ckery of an idea to run heavy rail line between Boulder and Longmont. But they did it because it APPEALED to the folks ost likely to vote for their tax.
Something like 40% of the office space in metro Denver, RTDgraced the Tech Center with little more than a single line up I225. They weren’t buildling a transportation system that made logical sense, they were going for one that made political sense. And it passed.
The 2 core issues Nashville’s plan had with voters were that it didn’t serve everyone. Yes, that’s not a good use of resources but it is needed politically to gain support. The other hasn’t been touched on, ex-Mayor Barry took this project down. You can’t have the primary face advocating for something do what she did – make people not trust her, to say the least – and not loose a lot of affirmative votes.
At least that’s my two-bits worth.