Nashville vs Austin: live music, food, etc. (40-something single guy) (Memphis: vs., moving)

[505ChurchStreet]

JMT,

Please provide links to your numbers so we can all have the correct numbers. From the UT website:

"Like the state it calls home, The University of Texas at Austin is a bold, ambitious leader. Ranked among the biggest and best research universities in the country, UT Austin is home to more than 51,000 students and 3,000 teaching faculty. Together we are working to change the world through groundbreaking research and cutting-edge teaching and learning techniques. Here, tradition and innovation blend seamlessly to provide students with a robust collegiate experience. Amid the backdrop of Austin, Texas, a city recognized for its creative and entrepreneurial spirit, the university provides a place to explore countless opportunities for tomorrow’s artists, scientists, athletes, doctors, entrepreneurs and engineers."

With 60,000 estimate, I was not far off. They claim 51,000 students, and I said 60K. So not way off, but a little. They do not indicate if that 51,000 figure includes graduate students or not.

[JMT]

Originally Posted by 505ChurchStreet

JMT,

Please provide links to your numbers so we can all have the correct numbers. From the UT website:

"Like the state it calls home, The University of Texas at Austin is a bold, ambitious leader. Ranked among the biggest and best research universities in the country, UT Austin is home to more than 51,000 students and 3,000 teaching faculty. Together we are working to change the world through groundbreaking research and cutting-edge teaching and learning techniques. Here, tradition and innovation blend seamlessly to provide students with a robust collegiate experience. Amid the backdrop of Austin, Texas, a city recognized for its creative and entrepreneurial spirit, the university provides a place to explore countless opportunities for tomorrow’s artists, scientists, athletes, doctors, entrepreneurs and engineers."

With 60,000 estimate, I was not far off. They claim 51,000 students, and I said 60K. So not way off, but a little. They do not indicate if that 51,000 figure includes graduate students or not.

Yeah my wording was awkward. I was referring to your figures for Davidson County, not Austin. And I provided a link.

[groovamos]

Originally Posted by 505ChurchStreet

The one thing Austin has that Nashville does not is light rail, and a more comprehensive mass transit system.

Not true. Their commuter rail system runs on a legacy road and so it is heavy rail, and Nashville has one. You hear people sometimes refer to it as light rail but it is not. They got all new cars and engines for the system unlike in Nashville where you got the equipment essentially for free from Chicago's Metra not sure if that included engines.


And trust me, when I lived in Austin I voted in 1985 against their brand spanking new transit authority, with special powers, called Capital Metro, for a very good reason - you can do the internet research on this and see my skepticism played out and written down for history. It is a tax sucking boondoggle enterprise as all of these organizations are, and it is one of the most wasteful in the country. Not surprising given the political leanings of the Austin population.

When they voted in rail in the 2000's I was not there. But you can read in Forbes that the cost of each trip on the rail in Austin costs the taxpayer about $25.00. It is definitely more economical to get in your Subaru and drive to your destination and back instead of the taxpayers paying $50.00 so you can ride and feel good about yourself being for not destroying the planet.

Nashville made the right decision recently on this ridiculous waste.

Link:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottbe.../#72dd4f431f18

[505ChurchStreet]

Originally Posted by JMT

Yeah my wording was awkward. I was referring to your figures for Davidson County, not Austin. And I provided a link.

Just noticed the link. My bad, but I found that link via Google search. In any case, with the price of education I don't see how anyone could afford college! Either that, or they will get student loans and then call Dave Ramsey to get help on how to pay them off.

[JMT]

Originally Posted by 505ChurchStreet

Just noticed the link. My bad, but I found that link via Google search. In any case, with the price of education I don't see how anyone could afford college! Either that, or they will get student loans and then call Dave Ramsey to get help on how to pay them off.

No worries, and I'm sorry for not wording my thoughts better. I don't know how kids afford college, either, although now that community colleges are almost free for Tennessee residents, that should help cut the costs for some families.

[groovamos]

Originally Posted by groovamos

But you can read in Forbes that the cost of each trip on the rail in Austin costs the taxpayer about $25.00. It is definitely more economical to get in your Subaru and drive to your destination and back instead of the taxpayers paying $50.00 so you can ride and feel good about yourself being for not destroying the planet.

Nashville made the right decision recently on this ridiculous waste.

Link:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottbe.../#72dd4f431f18

Was reviewing the above statement by yours truly and needs some clarification. If a person decides to ride the rail in Austin, the marginal cost to do so for a round trip is not $50.00 because the rail is already built. That cost of $50.00 per round trip is based on the current usage of the system which could change but why vote to build a system in which total ridership as it exists divided into the total cost of operation and financing is so expensive? You would vote for it because you trusted the promoters and advocates for the system, which in every case like this that comes up for a vote across the country is promoted by ridiculous forecasts of ridership, driven by the almost fanatic advocates of rail, who in no short measure are afflicted with rail envy of other cities.

And so in Austin your decision to vote for the system results in a cost to the taxpayers of $50.00 per ride, not your decision to ride on a particular day.

While at it let me give a recent experience here in Houston. We were going to an Astros game last week (vs Detroit) and I decided to park in one of the plethora of underground garages downtown, all of which were devastated by Harvey, and so my parking fee would help pay for the recovery already complete on this one owned by the city. It is on the east-west rail line, so I bought rail tickets, got on, and noticed a couple getting on without buying tickets, who weren't too poor to go to the ball game, getting off at the ball park too. After the game and getting on the rail to go back to the car, no ticket machine was working at the rail stop by the park so everybody rode without paying. The system could have made thousands of additional dollars that night.

So those figures for how much tax subsidies go to these systems is significantly aggravated by people riding and not paying, which is a terrible property of light rail.

[Shakeesha]

Originally Posted by groovamos

Was reviewing the above statement by yours truly and needs some clarification. If a person decides to ride the rail in Austin, the marginal cost to do so for a round trip is not $50.00 because the rail is already built. That cost of $50.00 per round trip is based on the current usage of the system which could change but why vote to build a system in which total ridership as it exists divided into the total cost of operation and financing is so expensive? You would vote for it because you trusted the promoters and advocates for the system, which in every case like this that comes up for a vote across the country is promoted by ridiculous forecasts of ridership, driven by the almost fanatic advocates of rail, who in no short measure are afflicted with rail envy of other cities.

And so in Austin your decision to vote for the system results in a cost to the taxpayers of $50.00 per ride, not your decision to ride on a particular day.

While at it let me give a recent experience here in Houston. We were going to an Astros game last week (vs Detroit) and I decided to park in one of the plethora of underground garages downtown, all of which were devastated by Harvey, and so my parking fee would help pay for the recovery already complete on this one owned by the city. It is on the east-west rail line, so I bought rail tickets, got on, and noticed a couple getting on without buying tickets, who weren't too poor to go to the ball game, getting off at the ball park too. After the game and getting on the rail to go back to the car, no ticket machine was working at the rail stop by the park so everybody rode without paying. The system could have made thousands of additional dollars that night.

So those figures for how much tax subsidies go to these systems is significantly aggravated by people riding and not paying, which is a terrible property of light rail.

Looks at foreign wording in confusion...Searches for appropriate app...Sees none...Goes back to doing Millennial things...

[walker1962]

Originally Posted by Shakeesha

Although boasting a larger population, Austin feels smaller. Nashville has more amenities and better infrastructure.

More amenities? You mean NHL and NFL. I've been to both more than once. Nashville doesn't feel bigger by any means. UT is as big a draw as either of those teams and the Spurs of the NBA are close to attend games during the week. Oracle, Apple, Indeed.com, IBM, Wholefoods, Samsung, AMD, HP, Facebook, Tito's Vodka, Yeti all call ATX home or have large facilities there. Oh and last I saw Nashville/Tennessee have lost population. Nashville is the center of the C&W world but ATX has more diverse offerings and bigger music festivals, plus the U.S. Formula One Grand Prix.

[jjbradleynyc]

Originally Posted by walker1962

Oh and last I saw Nashville/Tennessee have lost population.

This is not true at all. I'm not sure where you are seeing this data.

(from uscensus.gov)
Nashville population 2010: 601,222
Nashville population 2017 est: 667,560

Nashville metro population 2010: 1,589,934
Nashville metro population 2017 est: 1,903,027

Tennessee population 2010: 6,346,105
Tennessee population 2017 est: 6,715,984


Population growth for the Nashville area and the state of Tennessee are both very robust.

[septimus]

Originally Posted by jjbradleynyc

This is not true at all. I'm not sure where you are seeing this data.

(from uscensus.gov)
Nashville population 2010: 601,222
Nashville population 2017 est: 667,560

Nashville metro population 2010: 1,589,934
Nashville metro population 2017 est: 1,903,027

Tennessee population 2010: 6,346,105
Tennessee population 2017 est: 6,715,984


Population growth for the Nashville area and the state of Tennessee are both very robust.

it is kind of crazy that all the growth in TN is basically in middle TN.