opinion

Editorial | Nashville transit plan a bold step forward

Nashville will be fundamentally transformed after May 1.

And, in the end, it is about the future of this city: How it looks and whom it serves moving into the future.

After weighing multiple arguments, sponsoring a debate, reading the 55-page plan, holding eight meetings with diverse stakeholders and attending multiple forums, The Tennessean Editorial Board recommends that Metro Nashville voters approve the plan.

This presents a bold vision that looks generations ahead and will solidify Nashville’s place as a leader, trend-setter and destination.

We have followed the progress of this proposal for the last several years, from the time the community said transit was a top priority during the NashvilleNext community planning process, which was approved in 2015, to when it was presented to the public last fall.

► Read More: How much would Nashville transit plan really improve travel times?

► Read More: Where every Nashville council member stands on the transit referendum

Yes, it is expensive – at $5.4 billion in capital costs and a total $9 billion.

However, to build a city that is positioned to grow and thrive while addressing a widening and accelerating gap between rich and poor, the transit plan provides the tools for prosperity.

The costs will only get greater the longer we wait.

This is not just about transportation. This is about creating opportunity for all, and making a massive investment in the future of the city for an incredible public good.

This plan is a thoughtful road map toward an ambitious network that will spur other counties to follow suit. They are waiting for Nashville to say “yes.”

Let us say yes and build a system that will radically transform Middle Tennessee forever for the better.

Assessing 16 pros and cons

Correction: Nashville can finance $3 billion in bonds as an investment for infrastructure

These are the points and counterpoints the editorial board considered during the process of examining the issue:

1. So, what about the cost of the plan?

PRO: The plan will create a dedicated source of funding for transit that will not be possible without approval – 80 percent local/20 percent federal (through grants).

The plan will create a dedicated source of funding for transit that will not be possible without approval – 80 percent local/20 percent federal (through grants). CON: It's too costly, makes sales tax highest in the land (tied with Chicago) and assumes growth will continue steadily.

It's too costly, makes sales tax highest in the land (tied with Chicago) and assumes growth will continue steadily. Our response: Nashville will still be well under the national average in terms of tax burden for its citizens, and remember, there is no state earned income tax (unlike, say, Illinois). The half-penny will grow in five years to a full penny. The sales tax is the major source of revenue and it will be paid for by residents and visitors. An offset is that the state legislature-approved IMPROVE ACT in 2017, which authorized the transit referendum, lowered the sales tax on food by a penny.

2. Examining concerns about borrowing

PRO: Nashville can finance $3 billion in bonds as an investment for infrastructure, which is needed in a region growing by 94 people a day. This is the start toward a regional system, which all the region's mayors have endorsed.

Nashville can finance $3 billion in bonds as an investment for infrastructure, which is needed in a region growing by 94 people a day. This is the start toward a regional system, which all the region's mayors have endorsed. CON: Nashville has below a perfect AAA bond rating, and if the city cannot handle the debt load, it could position itself toward bankruptcy or put taxpayers on the hook if it defaults on its debt.

Nashville has below a perfect AAA bond rating, and if the city cannot handle the debt load, it could position itself toward bankruptcy or put taxpayers on the hook if it defaults on its debt. Our response: Economic cycles happen and this is a risk, yet presently, Nashville is in position to continue growing and taking in the revenue to support this plan. Moreover, the growing skyline in downtown and other investments – like Ikea in Antioch – is a clear indication that investors are confident in the future of Nashville.

3. Why isn't this a regional plan?

PRO: Nashville is taking advantage of the tools it has through the IMPROVE Act. That includes raising four taxes – on sales, hotel/motel, business and rental car.

Nashville is taking advantage of the tools it has through the IMPROVE Act. That includes raising four taxes – on sales, hotel/motel, business and rental car. CON: The state law should be amended to allow for regional plans. Until then, it's incomplete and unfeasible.

The state law should be amended to allow for regional plans. Until then, it's incomplete and unfeasible. Our response: The Tennessee General Assembly gave an imperfect solution by not allowing regional transit referendums. Only counties that are 112,000 in population or more and cities that have more than 165,000 people can hold transit referendums. That is not ideal, but it is the reality and Nashville, as Tennessee’s capital and largest city, is leading the way for Middle Tennessee.

4. On traffic congestion and that downtown tunnel

PRO: This is a growth management tool to allow Nashville to control congestion and create frequent, reliable options. It immediately expands bus service, builds more sidewalks and eventually adds 26 miles of light rail lines and creates a 1.8-mile tunnel under downtown to move employees and tourists.

This is a growth management tool to allow Nashville to control congestion and create frequent, reliable options. It immediately expands bus service, builds more sidewalks and eventually adds 26 miles of light rail lines and creates a 1.8-mile tunnel under downtown to move employees and tourists. CON: The plan does not fix traffic congestion – even though it was marketed as such – and it is untested in a city like Nashville (in terms of scope, size and cost). Downtown merchants worry about their businesses – cash cows of tourism – would be disrupted.

The plan does not fix traffic congestion – even though it was marketed as such – and it is untested in a city like Nashville (in terms of scope, size and cost). Downtown merchants worry about their businesses – cash cows of tourism – would be disrupted. Our response: The immediate gains will improve the transit system and provide options. The downtown tunnel is in response to the fact that downtown streets cannot be widened and allows tourists and employees to avoid the ever-more congested roadways in downtown. Also, this is not a traffic congestion plan and never was one. This is a transit plan, which provides alternatives to congestion, which is growing because more people are moving to Nashville every day. That will not abate.

5. Addressing poverty and affordable housing

PRO: This is an anti-poverty program with free or reduced-price fares for lower-income people and allows people to spend more money on savings, housing, etc.

This is an anti-poverty program with free or reduced-price fares for lower-income people and allows people to spend more money on savings, housing, etc. CON: Nashville has not made much headway in addressing the affordable housing crisis in the city despite record investments in the Barnes Affordable Housing Trust Fund.

Nashville has not made much headway in addressing the affordable housing crisis in the city despite record investments in the Barnes Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Our response: Yes, Nashville must do better on addressing the affordable housing crisis. The transit plan allows people to keep more of their money in their pockets through reduced or free fares and by being able to avoid the costs of operating and maintaining a vehicle, if they choose.

6. Serving those who need it and building a culture of ridership

PRO: Disabled people, senior and students stand to benefit from frequent, low-cost, reliable options.

Disabled people, senior and students stand to benefit from frequent, low-cost, reliable options. CON: If they don't have a habit of riding in buses – which, in the South, are associated with poverty – they will not ride.

If they don't have a habit of riding in buses – which, in the South, are associated with poverty – they will not ride. Our response: The current system is not frequent or reliable enough to spur enough demand. The plan would expand hours of service and frequency, grow the fleet of buses and enable WiFi on buses.

► Read More: Plazas: Nashville is bullish about transit, but we lack a transit culture

7. Looking at the role of ride-sharing

PRO: Lyft and Uber support transit plan and will supplement the system.

Lyft and Uber support transit plan and will supplement the system. CON: People would prefer ride-shares so invest in ride-share vans.

People would prefer ride-shares so invest in ride-share vans. Our response: The reason these companies support transit is because they must compete with other vehicles on congested roadways. They can also support the system by bringing people to bus or train stations. They are not a public transit system. Investing in transit is a public good, which benefits all, regardless of income.

8. Can we compare Nashville to Seattle?

PRO: Seattle is a model for successful transit and shows what Nashville can become.

Seattle is a model for successful transit and shows what Nashville can become. CON: Seattle is bigger in population, denser, has a larger economy and is about one-sixth the size of Davidson County in geography.

Seattle is bigger in population, denser, has a larger economy and is about one-sixth the size of Davidson County in geography. Our response: Seattle has come under the microscope because of a recent Nashville Area Chamber of Commerce trip there to study the transit system, which has been successful. Another community to look at is Salt Lake County in Utah, which has successfully implemented a transit plan. Its land mass is bigger than Nashville-Davidson County and its plan received support from very conservative lawmakers who saw the generational potential of the transit system.

► Read More: In Seattle, transit success leads to new challenge: excessive demand

9. Looking at the personal cost of the plan

PRO: The plan will cost people $5-10 a month, per the Nashville Area Chamber of Commerce.

The plan will cost people $5-10 a month, per the Nashville Area Chamber of Commerce. CON: This will cost each family about $43,000 over several decades, per NoTax4Tracks.

This will cost each family about $43,000 over several decades, per NoTax4Tracks. Our response: There are mathematical formulas to prove both equations. However, from a personal perspective, the average person will likely see a sales tax increase of $5 to $10 a month. The transit rider will also reap savings from avoiding car maintenance, insurance and related costs. That said, most people will likely still choose to drive.

10. Jobs and automation

PRO: This plan will create 3,800 construction and related jobs.

This plan will create 3,800 construction and related jobs. CON: The trend in the future is automation so this is a short-term jobs plan.

The trend in the future is automation so this is a short-term jobs plan. Our response: The investments in construction and infrastructure will help buffer the city from future economic shocks. In terms of automation, that will allow for the transit system to modernize and adapt to changing technology.

11. Transit-oriented development districts

PRO: This plan allows transit-oriented development districts to be used to spur the creation of new housing options.

This plan allows transit-oriented development districts to be used to spur the creation of new housing options. CON: This plan is a giveaway to developers (i.e., corporate welfare) that doesn't guarantee affordable housing in a hot market.

This plan is a giveaway to developers (i.e., corporate welfare) that doesn't guarantee affordable housing in a hot market. Our response: The transit-oriented development districts, which were approved by the state in 2017, are a great opportunity to grow economies around major corridors (i.e., Gallatin, Murfreesboro, Charlotte and Nolensville pikes and the Northwest corridor) and build more housing options. Local leaders need to ensure that affordable and accessible housing options are incentivized.

► Read More: What are transit oriented development districts and how can they help Nashville

12. What if changes are needed?

PRO: This plan can be amended by voter referendum: A good thing.

This plan can be amended by voter referendum: A good thing. CON: This plan can be amended by voter referendum: A flaw of the plan.

This plan can be amended by voter referendum: A flaw of the plan. Our response: If local leaders need to return to voters for changes, that is a good check on Metro government.

13. Support for future economic development aims

PRO: Economic development will be a great stimulus for the city and position it for growth and economic opportunities in the future.

Economic development will be a great stimulus for the city and position it for growth and economic opportunities in the future. CON: This will benefit big businesses mainly and harm small businesses, especially through construction.

This will benefit big businesses mainly and harm small businesses, especially through construction. Our response: Construction will be potentially disruptive, but, despite some yearning for nostalgia, Nashville is now one of the 25 largest cities in America and needs to position itself for the future opportunities that come with that status and expected growth.

14. Healthcare and current investments

PRO: There are health benefits, including walking and no drive-time commute stress

There are health benefits, including walking and no drive-time commute stress CON: The city could already invest in better bus service and sidewalks.

The city could already invest in better bus service and sidewalks. Our response: The city’s tight budget this year may not allow it to invest more in transit and sidewalks if the referendum fails. The plan provides a dedicated funding source that would provide the money, if it passes, and not compete against other priorities, like public education, Nashville General Hospital and public safety.

15. This plan has been in the works for years

PRO: This plan reflects the community's will during more than six years of planning (NashvilleNext and nMotion).

This plan reflects the community's will during more than six years of planning (NashvilleNext and nMotion). CON: This may reflect a wish list, but rail is not feasible or affordable for Nashville to execute and it won't be completed until 2032.

This may reflect a wish list, but rail is not feasible or affordable for Nashville to execute and it won't be completed until 2032. Our response: The elements in the plan are not a surprise for people who have been following its progress.

16. This is the community's plan

PRO: This plan reflects thinking over three mayoral administrations: Karl Dean, Megan Barry and David Briley.

This plan reflects thinking over three mayoral administrations: Karl Dean, Megan Barry and David Briley. CON: This plan came out under Mayor Megan Barry's administration and her scandal taints this plan.

This plan came out under Mayor Megan Barry's administration and her scandal taints this plan. Our response: Barry’s scandal is certainly unfortunate and it paralyzed the pro-group’s efforts for a time. However, this is not one person’s plan. The community owns it and should own it.

Whom we met with

During the past two weeks, The Tennessean Editorial Board held eight separate meetings, representing people of different opinions:

On the pro side:

Mayor David Briley; Erin Hafkenschiel, director of the Mayor’s Office of Transportation and Sustainability; and Michael Cass, the mayor's spokesman;

A group of students, bus drivers (including Patrick Green, president of Amalgated Transit Union 1235) and caregivers organized by Transit for Nashville, the lead plan proponent; and

business leaders organized by the Nashville Area Chamber of Commerce and Moving Forward, including Chamber President and CEO Ralph Shulz and Moving Forward leaders Gary Garfield and Bert Mathews

On the con side:

NoTax4Tracks, the lead opposition group, with consultant jeff obafemi carr, spokesman Jeff Eller and downtown developer and supporter Mark Bloom;

Mark Cunningham and Ron Shultis of the Beacon Center of Tennessee, the free-market think tank;

John Maddox from Plan B; and

Better Transit for Nashville, which sent Rev. Enoch Fuzz and neighborhoods leader John Stern as its representatives.

The People’s Alliance for Transit, Housing, and Employment representatives told the editorial board while they do not necessarily oppose the plan, they are concerned that there are no guarantees for affordable housing and to stem the tide of displacement of lower-income people in Nashville.

► Read More: Plazas: Why can't we be more civil on the Nashville transit debate?

► Read More: Hunt: It's time to choose on transit

Voting

Early voting:

Friday, April 20, 8 a.m.-5:30 p.m.

Saturday, April 21, 8 a.m.-4:30 p.m.

Monday, April 23, 8 a.m.-5:30 p.m.

Tuesday, April 24, 8 a.m.-7 p.m.

Wednesday, April 25, 8 a.m.-4:30 p.m.

Thursday, April 26, 8 a.m.-7 p.m.

Locations: Belle Meade City Hall, Bellevue Library, Bordeaux Library, Caza Azafrán Community Center, Goodlettsville Community Center, Green Hills Library, Hermitage Library, Madison Station Fifty Forward, Howard Office Building (downtown), Southeast Library

Election Day: Tuesday, May 1, at your assigned precinct. Check your voter registration card or contact the Davidson County Election Commission at 615-862-8800 or vote.questions@nashville.com.

Opinion and Engagement Editor David Plazas wrote this editorial on behalf of and in collaboration with The Tennessean Editorial Board members Michael A. Anastasi and Maria De Varenne. Call him at (615) 259-8063, email him at dplazas@tennessean.com or tweet to him at @davidplazas.