Jump to content

rookzie

Members+
  • Posts

    1953
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    17

Everything posted by rookzie

  1. ...Probably around 2030 or so, about the same amount of elapsed time as it took for conception and approval...
  2. Just wanted to add to this, in total agreement BTW. As I recall, the Free Ride circulator Blue and Green routes were introduced during the Karl Dean administration, when Paul Ballard headed the MTA. The effort to rebrand the MTA as WeGo Transit, including the Music City Star, began back around early-mid 2018 or so. That coincided with the failed Transit Referendum, which followed soon after the exposure of then-Mayor Megan Barry’s unsurprising resignation. Without much notice, WeGo announced that it would be instituting major service cutbacks, with one of the most notable being the elimination of the Free Ride circulators. Suddenly, it was announced that the city’s financial state had been revealed as “untenable”, and that funding cuts meant undoing much of what little perceived progress that had transpired during the previous 10 years. That affected not only downtown riders, but also those drivers of the N° 29 Jefferson St. route, which had become an extension of the Free Ride Green Route in 2016. IMO that had been one of the most outreaching of transit efforts by extending the fare-free privilege to a core sector community which needed it the most — along the entire Jefferson St. Corridor, including John Merritt Blvd. It’s not to discount the potential for providing such privileges to other routes serving similar demographics. Mayor Barry also had proposed such service ailing the 12-South route (N° 17 12 th Ave S), particularly for those riders between Edgehill and downtown. Some routes were realigned and combined with others (N° 8 8th Ave S with N° 1 Vine Hill [via Bransford Ave]), while some were eliminated altogether (N° 2 Belmont). It didn’t help that the city’s liberal policy to developers to permit random and frequent closures of downtown streets, often led to unpredictable reliability of the Free Rides — never showing up for uninformed riders — and the MTA rarely ever posted sufficient (if any at all) notices of detours in clear view at the stops. At this point time, it may appear that past “progress” (as it were) never happened at all, and that long-range plans for more ambitious, high-capacity transit have all but languished.
  3. Just an aside.... McGavock Pk. had a ferry crossing until around 1965, when I was in HS. When it was shut down, the ferry itself was moved to serve Cleece's Ferry (a.k.a. "Clee's") , which connected OH Blvd. (Old Hickory) in Bell's Bend with Annex Ave. in the Charlotte Park / Croleywood area. Cleece's was shut down by the end of 1990. Coincidentally, both ferry crossings ─ the last two of all such ferries in the county ─ were "displaced" with progressively completed extensions of Briley Pkwy. The last time I would do Cleece's was around 1978 or so.
  4. I've already soap-boxed about narrowing down any portion of 8th Ave S - Franklin Rd (US-31). That's the only multi-lane corridor that allows for true arterial movement into and from the city-county in the due-south direction. Choking it off will overbear and overwhelm I-65 and its interchanges, and it definitely would exacerbate the cut-through traffic issue ─ both local and pass-through. When I still worked for the state, I recall a bus-riding buddy of mine who worked for TDOT commenting on the department's intense deliberation on that request, back around 2016-17 or so, and he indicated that the agency likely would be ruling against it ─ very likely for the same reason. The ritzy Oak Hill community at large had been one of the most vocal opponents of the idea. It does need to be tamed down for better walkability though. The same could be said for burgeoning Charlotte Ave. (US-70), and to a lesser extent, N. First St. - Dickerson Pk., where development is evolving more slowly — or with any other state-federal designated urban highway corridor. While 12th Ave. S. with Granny White Pk. extends beyond the county line where it eventually ends at Murray Ln, it never was a designated a US highway, after the federal highway numbering system was formed during the mid-1920s, and it also doesn't serve as an uninterrupted path connecting multiple counties (other than partially two). Also, the unwidened portion that forms the current branding as 12South (south of Ashwood) helps justify the case of converting the roadway into two primary lanes, with a central median and bike lanes in both directions. While at first I had been kind of against the proposal, I think it's fitting for 12th Ave. S, since it will connect the Gulch ─ which resulted early on with the reduction from 4 to 2 lanes ─ to the northern extent of the 12South retail district. In effect, it can serve as a "fortified" and more direct version of Belmont Ave, Magnolia, 16th-17 avenues, by leading straight into downtown in a single continuous path. So, there already have been measures in place to make favorable the conversion of that mile of 12th into a more complete-streets format, since 12th Ave S. really doesn't' cover much distance, compared to the highway designated routes. I just wish they had better planned for a transit lane to run in at least one direction, to render it more (nearly) "complete".
  5. Arguably one of the most coveted hilltop sites in the central core of the city. The two previous successive owners of those parcel plots apparently made out like bandits on their respective land sales. It's situated in a geographic position that offers an unparalleled close-in vantage with a commanding perspective and comprehensive view which most peeps ─ even old-a$$ natives like me ─ never will have experienced. I still recall as a teenager observing the some of the first evidence of anticipatory signs of changes that would evolve for the next 50+ years. During the late 1960s, heavy equipment had begun to carve out a semi-circular sector of that hill along the northeastern elevation, in preliminary preparation of what would become the completion of the final segment of the I-40 urban expressway, during the early 1970s. By 1980 further demolition would be commenced along the eastern portion to make way for the eventual I-440 RoW. All that had been drafted during the mid-1960s. That neck always has been a rather disjointed array of misaligned and fragmented streets ─ Trevor, Felicia, Delaware, and the now long-displaced 32nd Ave N. where the expressway interchange sits. In the early days of what is now the TV Fox 17 transmission tower, I used to park along the eastern portion of that hill just outside the tower property. It had been my favorite Friday-night "smoke" hangout, where I could puff in solitude. The only annoyance was a deranged barking dog outside the house on the crest of that hill. Interestingly, Delaware and Georgia avenues currently are and always have been the only "state-named" streets to extend east of 32nd Ave., with Georgia Ave ending at 28th and Delaware at 27th.
  6. Thing is though, the Mid-State eventually will heighten its focus on expanding commuter-rail in the region, and most likely that could take the form of commuter rail combined with the use of light-rail for mid-range distance to the exurbs ─ most of which were outlined in the failed long-range plan outlined by the MPO. Light-rail (LRT) is the primary mode or transport for Portland (Tri-Met MAX), the 2030 expansion concept for Charlotte (Lynx), and to an extent Dallas (DART, Trinity Metro) and Seattle (Link and Sounder), and Denver (RTD) ─ the latter three of which have full-FRA-compliant railroad equipment incorporated on at least portions of their networks. Those latter three also have interchange points for light-rail with commuter rail, although Denver's system incorporates both LRT and FRA-compliant commuter-rail EMS ─ rather unusual for a relatively new transit network. While there is not comparison between service needs of Middle Tennessee and those of the districts mentioned, indeed they all have long-range plans approved and prescribed ad-hoc for their respective regions. Portland does have a single single commuter-rail line with FRA-waiver DMUs, but it only connects the western suburb of Beaverton in outlying Washington Cnty (west of Portland in Multnomah Cnty) with Wilsonville in Clackamas Cnty. In Middle Tennessee, the Gulch very well might not end up as the preferred alternative for any future rail-bound commuting services, but it's not to say that its not possible or even not likely. A river crossing doesn't even have to utilize or run alongside the existing 1910-built L&N (CSX) swing bridge. To date, several river additional river crossings have been proposed during the last 5 years for surface roadway use ─ between the East Bank at S. 5th and Crutcher streets, and Willow Street on the opposite bank; and three separate crossings between the West Bank north of I-65 (formerly I-265) and the existing Clarksville Hywy (US-41A) to Bordeaux. An additional river crossing would be needed for any common point of any combination of FRA-compliant or FRA-waiver commuter rail with light rail, whether the light rail mode utilizes DMUs or standard LRT EMUs. There exist several options for additional river crossings and new R-o-W, even if some routing might end up rather circuitous in path to a central interchange location. One or more of these proposed river crossings could be built to also accommodate traffic and light-rail, or one or more parallel bridges could be constructed to support either light-rail or FRA-compliant or FRA-waiver commuter rail. The trick is to plan by concerted initiatives coordinated among local and regional decision-makers ─ something that perpetually seems to have run amiss. That said, it might become concluded that more than one hub be constructed for interchanging between routes, but most likely at least some of those proposed routes ─ such as the West and South and Southeast proposed corridor routes ─ would have a significant advantage in utilizing the gulch in some form or fashion for a shared interchange. All those can terminate on the west of the West Bank ─ most likely west of the CBD-downtown, that is. There absolutely needs to be a planned Southeast that connects with Rutherford Cnty, as that has been deemed the most potentially densely utilized corridor of all. These potentially all could utilize the CSX with R-o-W expansions along the entirety of the corridors, and these would be much less disruptive to the existing core structure than constructing entirely new R-o-W. Also, it likely would be the least expensive alternative to tunneling along these corridors (and utilizing light-rail), as grade-separation would be necessary to provide unimpeded travel along these corridors. Even with current tunnel boring machines and technology, the cost of constructing grade-separated infrastructure via tunneling along extended segments radiating from downtown likely would significantly exceed that of greasing the palms of CSX. There is no freaking way that local districts that include the West End, Belle Meade, Berry Hill, Oak Hill, and Brentwood are going to allow light rail along the surface arterial ─ far too many NIMBYs ─ and they would have to vote as NIMBYs did in some other regions to finance subterranean infrastructure, whether for light-rail or heavy-rail transit (metro-style subway). If not utilizing the Gulch, then an entirely new set-up, utilizing only a light-rail mode, would require some implementation of tunneling downtown and most likely beyond. There’s no way the city can construct a dedicated FRA “railroad-quality” commuter-rail downtown presence that does not utilize the gulch, while providing at least some connectivity among different corridors, unless it goes primarily to tunneling for light rail only. A separate terminal located on the east side of down could serve the proposed Northeast Corridor route and possibly the Northwest Corridor, if the latter is revised from its previous LPA (locally preferred alternative) through Bordeaux and North Nashville, and instead to follow a path concurrent or parallel with I-24 into East Nashville. Even the current Riverfront station and station lead could be abandoned, and the current MCStar East service could be rerouted to a terminal in East Nashville, via a new bridge. Either the current MCS FRA-compliant equipment would have to be replaced with FRA-waiver equipment, or the current FRA-compliant infrastructure would have to be rerouted to utilize an East Nashville (East Bank) terminal. Just saying, the Gulch still remains a viable option for rail transit use, whether a terminal is built in the Gulch or away from it, as the Gulch would provide the only direct land-use connection for those particular corridors which could benefit from its use.
  7. No, I don't foresee any of that happening, because in part it requires a collaborative exchange and resolution proposals among members of the administration. As yet, none of that even shows a sign of having been a concept, much less a subject of forum discussion. Almost every trace of that prospect petered out in late spring 2018, with no momentum regained since then. Then the pandemic came, and for all practical purposes that sealed the coffin.
  8. EDIT ─ 2022-10-22, 00:05 I just realized that I mistakenly had selected Mark Hollin's "The Best 8 Hotels in Nashville according to Forbes:" post, instead of the one intended ─ Baronakim's reference to the Gulch pedestrian bridge. Blame on on age and dementia. (Sorry for the confusion, Mark...) I think TWO ped bridges would be best ("give me an inch and I want a mile") ─ one in both North- and South Gulch. That's likely surprising coming from me, of all peeps. But my main reservation against any ped bridges right now is that, as proposed, the engineering of the one bridge last discussed needs to account for a presence for future commuter and/or light rail in the gulch track area. If the city gets approval for air-rights from CSX, it's no doubt going to require the vertical clearance over a set number of tracks to allow passage of double-stack container flats, as well as AAR (Assn of Amer. RRs) "excessive-height" designated cars such as Hi-Cubes and auto racks. That in itself isn't the issue. Rather, once that bridge becomes constructed, it cannot be raised or relocated to accommodate any facilities for commuter or light rail that has yet to be conceived. Options already have been reduced to slim pickin's for rail transit, primarily because the administration never has been proactive in procuring and securing prospective industrial real properties before it has become too late. In some engineering plans, it might be desirable to have grade separation among existing tracks and any additional tracks which might be needed in the case of light-rail, which by design can negotiate steeper grades than railroad trains. That might be desired in the case of a needed Fly-over above an existing CSX track, in order to eliminate even minimally imposed interference with CSX operations at any time of a given day. So, I'm all for the bridge thing(s), but an existing ped bridge ─ especially the fixed position of its piers as well as its approaches ─ could significantly limit remaining options for advanced-capacity rail transit. Therefore any ped bridges discussion really should include the possibility of light rail, commuter rail, and even the proposed return of intercity passenger rail to the gulch, as well as include alternatives for a common station or terminal and related infrastructure.
  9. Good concern. I wouldn't in the least be surprised if it (the realignment) has yet to become prioritized for funding, much less as next in line. Wishing and hoping I'm wrong, but we've all "been there, done seen that" ─ how projects of that nature and proposed some 8 years ago seem to evolve toward the back of the line. I concede that I've become too much of a pessimist with lost confidence in Metro, as I've aged, and that's just me. One thing we probably can be safely assured of is that no new structure will be built at the old CVS, which many years ago had been SuperX Drugs.
  10. In a way, I understand the rationale for that queuing loop, although at glance it seems rather tight for both teachers' parking and drop-off scrunched into such a confined space. If Metro already owns that property (I'm assuming that it acquired it a while ago), then the site's location probably precludes the use of the property for construction of an occupied structure, without some kind of aerial bridge access. The fact that Metro reopened W-B relatively recently as a school has brought along the issue of drop-off and pick-up that plagues so many other schools. Reopening Waverly-Belmont has helped to address the needs for primary education within a historically dense inner-city district, but the same issue with traffic flow would have occurred regardless of whether or not the school had been shuttered around 1974, as the city undertook accelerated efforts to reorganize its school district, to meet court-ordered integration. In retrospect, some of these measures arguably may have been misguided and short-sighted, while at the same time, the demand often could not be answered with funding to achieve goals with a reduced physical plant. This was not limited to Waverly-Belmont, and sadly some structures in other inner-core districts were razed altogether ─ Ford Greene ES and Washington JH School in the Hadley neighborhood, both schools of which were razed in the mid-1980s ─ are prime examples that come to mind. The neighborhood had experienced a cycle of generational flourishing, followed with a downturn a decay and underserving, during early post-war decades, in part as of result of "White flight". The resurgence of the community in recent decades, along with infill development and demographic evolution, has only exacerbated the congestion that returned to the school almost instantly beginning August 2015, and it only has become worse since then. The booming 12South corridor only has added to the problem, as 12th Ave no longer affords uninterrupted passage through the district, resulting in spill-over cut-through traffic along 10th. So without former Mayor Barry's ill-fated downtown transit tunnel (cough-cough) reincarnated and adapted into use as a widened parallel-lane underground tube below the surface of 10th Ave., I foresee no ready solution to that ongoing problem, other than the proposal as presented. To be clear, I for one certainly am not advocating that use of the property. The school is land-locked in part because it was allowed to close almost a half century ago, when land-acquisition was not so expensive and invasive as it is now.
  11. This is heart-warming ─ that a venture has been planned to preserved the name of that place, a well known landmark to locals within the community during the early and mid 1960s. The original Eldorado Motel opened in 1957 partly in response to local demand for lodging provisions for the three then historically Black colleges and universities located a few miles away. Lodging for minorities during that period were far and few, with several small hotels having been located within upper Jefferson St. (e.g. the Brown Hotel near 14th Ave and Jefferson). Typical of the national proliferation of motor lodges along the federal highway system during early post-WWII years, the nearby Bordeaux Motel and Restaurant located on US-41A (Built 1950 at 3230 Clarksville Pk.) had been reserved for Whites only, at least until 1964. When I moved from Urbana, IL to Nashville in the early '60s, my mom, along with a number few other parents of kids my age, used to rent a room at the Eldorado for us kids to use the swimming pool there in the summer. Unlike when I could freely use the locally popular large oval pool at Crystal Lake City Park back in Urbana, Nashville was still segregated. We either had to have family members as faculty at Tennessee "A&I" (Agricultural and Industrial State University) ─ renamed "TSU" in 1968 ─ to used the indoor and outdoor pools at that campus, or we had to use the Hadley Park pool which opened in the early 1950s. Fortunately, I had both options available. In recent years, I occasionally would drive by that weed-grown parcel with the rusty eyesore of a sign still remaining , and I always wondered why it never was simply torn down with the rest of the structure. It officially used to be located at Buchannan St. and 28th Ave., since there WAS no Ed Temple Blvd back then. Ed Temple Blvd is a late 20th century new alignment intended to remove some of the "snake" turns and the roller-coaster hill on Schrader Lane between 28th & Heiman St. and Buchannan. Ed Temple Blvd bypasses most of 28th Ave, north of the railroad, for a more seamless connection to Clarksville Pk. by eliminating the dog-leg intersection with Buchannan between the former misaligned paths of Schrader and 28th. While this development is close to the tank farm (the Exxon river terminal) on the south side of the track, it won't have the vibrancy of 51st Ave in the Nations, which has a much larger tank-farm presence. Hopefully and maybe after my time, it can spur additional mixed use development on the now-long depressed west end of Buchannan.
  12. It might even become a local tourist attraction, if they do what they did one of the old concrete elevator silos in the Nations some 6+ years ago. Hire Guido Van Helten to paint a mural of our Ron on each face of that thing and shine spotlights on it at night.
  13. That really threw a "Say what" moment upside the head.. I get the drift though. I was just trying to give Paul assurance that he's not alone. My experience with roadways that connect to airports in general can be expressed with one simple analogy ─ more as an OVERsimplified one. Major airports are like institutions or incorporations in their own rights. Unlike with intercity bus stations, where a street or two can be expected to serve somewhat static needs over extended periods of time, airports, including all related facilities, tend to undergo a need to expand at rather predictable rates several times through the generations. In a manner of speaking, it might seem ironic that airports expansions usually mean more parking for more cars associated with the use of air travel, just as if it were a large suburban park and ride commuter-rail station. It seems that no matter how many multilevel parking garages an airport authority builds on its grounds, that never seems to be enough. The commercial airway network seems infinitely greater than that of passenger rail and intercity bus routes, and to a vast majority of travelers the choice and decision to fly, say, from BNA to Casper-Natrona County becomes a no-brainer in this day and age. It wasn't that way when I was a teen, although it was well headed there even before then. The roads that connect to these airport authority "hamlets", which morph into "boroughs" and then into "towns" so to speak, then turn into death traps, with congestion exacerbated by sprawl and indefinitely deferred infrastructure upgrades. During my lifetime, the first direct access to Berry Field (BNA) was via either McGavock Pk. or from the Vultee Blvd. flyover from Murfreesboro Pk., the eastbound access to which began near what is now Thompson Ln. Then a 2nd and "new" terminal was opened in 1961 with access from perhaps the now-oldest segment of Briley Pkwy. The 3rd and current terminal was opened in 1987 with access from Donelson Pk. and an entirely new interchange from and to downtown Nashville. BTW the Vultee Blvd. flyover bridge was dismantled beginning late 2017. Only a short portion of that now blocked off east approach road remains. Most Nashvillians (or Nashvillains ) of today don't' even know that Vultee Blvd. ever existed. But then more roadway access to airports has been the American way, since early post-WWII days. Very little has been undertaken to provide local-level alternative airport access, which by nature is increasingly difficult for those with more than a single carry-on parcel for air travel. Travel for U.S. passenger-miles by automobile for all rubber-tired types of vehicles, including motorcycles, bus (intercity and transit) and light-duty trucks, amounted to over 7 times that of air travel, including domestic and otherwise (originating or terminating in the U.S.), in 2019. Total passenger (intercity) rail passenger-miles totaled to less than 1-tenth of 1% of automobile miles for that year. Overall, this helps to illustrate the ongoing interrelationship of the highways and surface roadways with airport access, since the vast majority of airport access entails some form of automotive travel and in most cases exclusively ─ as with BNA.
  14. Oh believe you me ─ you really do. You just don't know that you know, because its still in a state of fragmented abstraction to you. In a way, I consider you lucky, because much of what you don't think you know about the roads around the airport probably stems from you're not having to deal with it ─ at least not on a periodic basis ─ and all the other roadways associated with that area in general. That makes it a separation of concern for the most part. But you DO know that you know about Chestnut, Humphreys, Hart, and Houston streets, as well as 4th, 3rd, and 2nd Ave S. IMO that's probably one of the most disjointed, misaligned, diagonalized, and convoluted sub-districts in the core of the city. It's as if those streets were "broke-off" from the branches of a hackberry tree and just strewn around the tracks where they could fit. I'm sure you know more about WeHo than I, simply because you have had to deal with it as routine.
  15. downtownresident is right ─ a larger perimeter. It's part of a long-planned upgrade the Terminal Access roadway loop. That happens to be the northeast corner of that loop, corresponding to the lower right of the expanded illustration. Essentially that portion of new roadway "Fattens" up the existing loop to encompass an expanded Lot A and economy Lot B, the latter lot of which has been somewhat of a sequestered annex, east of the existing Donelson Pk. alignment. There also appears to be a revamped portal into and from the main (east) entry of Economy Lot C, to eliminate that "just in time" pull-off from Donelson Pk. at that hairpin interchange ramp from eastbound I-40 onto southbound Donelson Pk. That should help conserve tire rubber from burnouts, while trying to exit from that lot. I'm just a bit concerned with what appears to be a new ramp that taps off the existing main Terminal Dr. to I-40 E. As the rendering shows, it doesn't appear to have adequate lead in approaching I-40 E, so I'm hoping that it's at least partially barrier-separated to channelize terminal traffic entering I-40 E, as I-40 E approaches the new Donelson Pk. interchange. That's what was done for the SR-155 westbound ramp to I-65 N in Madison.
  16. ... ... GregH is correct, and DonNdonelson2 is dead-on. When the current BNA terminal was opened in the mid-1980s, the connectors with I-40 were built only to the advantage of vehicular traffic toward and from the west ─ the direction of Briley Pkwy, I-24, and downtown. Nothing ever had been undertaken to accommodate the ever-increasing demands of traffic approaching BNA from the east on I-40, as only northbound Donelson Pk traffic headed east onto I-40 had an unimpeded advantage. The existing I-40 / Donelson Pk interchange had never been updated beyond perhaps slight improvements to ramps. That interchange was constructed in the early 1960s, as I recall when I was a kid. Since 1961, the area north of the interchange toward Royal Pkwy, Elm Hill Pike, McCampbell Ave., and Lebanon Pk has mushroomed with commercial business and of course multifold traffic surge in a 60-year period. Unless one has had to negotiate and navigate through that snake-pit interchange, then she or he might never be made aware of the congestion issue at Donelson Pk in general ─ much less that of the interchange, particularly if one is a transplant from another region and has had no occasion to have traversed that interchange. That interchange remains as one of the few along I-40 east of downtown, and which has remained never updated for decades to meet increasing demands. Spence Ln, Fesslers Ln, Hermitage Ave, and Fairfield Ave ─ the latter two being in the old central urban core ─ arguably are among the most outdated I-40 interchanges between downtown and Old Hickory Blvd in Hermitage. This improvement is L-O-N-G overdue for both BNA and the Donelson Pk arterial itself.
  17. That Abbott-Martin-to-Richard-Jones re-alignment was approved as a major component of a proposed Green Hills Plan of Transportation of 2011. But it was deferred and basically eliminated with the adopted plan of 2014 ─ the same plan that I alluded to, when I complained in late August about the failure of Metro to take baby steps in efforts to acquire property for realignment of Shackleford Rd with Warfield Ave. As with Crestmoor Road with Glen Echo Road, the realignment of the intersections of Abbott Martin and Richard Jones roads was considered but only in the 2011 Plan. Instead, the 2014 adopted plan "settled" for turning-lane "improvements" as "concessions by Southern Land Co. for constructing its tower at the SE corner of that "Debacle Quadrant". Due to the discussion and debate on whether or not Hillsboro High School would resolve to move into new tower or to expand on its existing campus, followed with the eventual and now nearly complete reconstruction of the campus layout, reportedly it was deemed at the time that the high school was located too close to the proposed realignment area for the realignment to have been implemented during that period of uncertainty of the high school's expansion plan. As an alternative in lieu of the realignment with Richard Jones, Abbott-Martin would have been shifted slightly north near its current east end, cutting into the property of the existing 7-Eleven Exxon station at the NW corner with Hillsboro Rd, and a new Abbott-Martin Extension would have passed north of Fox's Doughnut Den and then along a path bordering the southern extent of the school campus proper, all the way to the campus' eastern boundary at Hillmont Dr. In turn, Hillmont Dr. would have intersected with a then-to-be realigned Lone Oak Dr. at Richard Jones, transforming the current "dog-leg" offset signalized intersection into a standard 4-way set-up. That would have eliminated the current separate signal timing allocation for each of 4 legs in the cycle sequence. Also, Benham Ave. would have been extended past its T-intersection with Glen Echo to intersect with the new Abbott-Martin Extension and then terminate at Richard Jones. The intent of all this would have been to provide a parallel bypass of Richard Jones and to add some grid structure to northeastern Green Hills commercial district. But not even that ever materialized and it probably never will at this point. The upgraded high school football field stands in the way of the Benham Rd extension, since the high school decided not to build a new tower complex and to move its extracurricular activities to an off-campus site. It took 'til Kingdom Come before the new CVS began construction in preparation for the eventual Glen Echo Rd realignment component of the greater plan. Then too in all fairness, CVS might have been under some lease-term agreement such that Metro determined it best to defer the project. That said though, there just no longer seems to be a "Greater" plan, as it were ─ at most just a few chunks of upgrades at best.
  18. ... ... Totally agree, 137%, ad infinitum...... That blue metal cladding always was an atrocity to me — just downright [email protected], especially for this day and age. Even if it does happen to be nothing but structural block behind that cladding, ANYthing other than the current material could be an improvement, except for maybe off-the-wall stuff like cedar shake or clapboard siding. It might not be so bad, if the weren't corrugated cladding as it is now, and at the VERY least it should have been plain, smooth in finish and texture. For many decades that front has stuck out like a thumb to the hammer.
  19. I hope you don't do what I still do for entertainment now and then ─ drive around those things 2 or 3 times nonstop. At my age it sometimes takes the simplest or even "simpleton" things to get my fix of levity. The smaller ones are the "funnest", since they're like 360 hairpins, kind of like how the Tilt-O-Whirl used to get me in stitches (or donuts on a snowy plaza).
  20. The Smeags posted this, this past Tuesday in the "Inner Loop - CBD, Downtown, East Bank, Germantown, Gulch, Rutledge" thread. ─ pp. 766-767 Since it's relevance overlaps two separate topics, we (starting with me) digressed and discussed its significance in relation to transit (or not). The jury is still out ─ way out.....
  21. Not to say that buses are a curse. During the mid'60s I rode the bus daily to high school in DC, and as a punk back then, I felt privileged to do so because it gave me some time alone between school and home. That was important to me back then, since my aunt as a school teacher also had been one of my own at that school (Woodrow Wilson High in Tenleytown). Sure, I had to transfer twice during the route, until I mapped out a longer route with just a single transfer, but either way that peak time of travel also was my peak of asylum, because that way I didn't have to ride to or from with my aunt. And during my last ten years of employment here for the state, I preferred it because it was a one-seat ride with far less walk to the office and the house combined. I actually got lazy about driving for that 10 years. Thing is, buses are great for local surface travel, if they're accessible and frequent and don't require going to or waiting 'til kingdom come to get from point A to B and from B to C & D before returning to A. Buses are foundational and fundamental for mobility and access, but they pale as an attractive regional mass-transport option ─ even more so if they don't offer reverse-commutes and only run during peak hours. Fact is, the administration seems to have buried its head in the sand, when it comes to taking a leadership role in pro-active pursuit of advanced-capacity regional transport, even with participation in a consortium of counties and sub-regions. And in reference to the recent CSXT activity in the South Gulch, it just might be premature to speculate, since at the moment there only are presumptions, presuppositions, and theory. Railroads often remove from service tracks that are underused or no longer used, since the owners are required to maintain them as long as they are officially declared as active. The least that would be done is to disconnect entry to these tracks, to allow restoring to service at a later date; otherwise the company will rip them up to save on the cost of maintenance. That said, the remaining property at Kayne Ave. Yard isn't the most optimal for a commuter-rail facility other than perhaps for passenger loading. It might even be a stretch for use as urban light rail, if the property could be formatted as two opposed stub-track arrays on such a narrow tract, especially if an easement would be required.
  22. No doubt Freddie (O'C) would and likely even vocally agree with you....
  23. Looks as if the city is yet again about to miss another big opportunity to pre-empt what could be a potentially huge asset for regional/commuter rail. My apology for this digression being in the wrong thread and perhaps not the most germane to the topic. True, it would take much-much more outlay to work with CSX for access into and out of this as a facility, which is central to all the proposed corridors. But that's how other regions built their start-ups and and expansions for the late 20th and early 21 centuries ─ acquisitions chunk by chunk. That's how it has worked in Florida; that's how it worked in Colorado, and that's' how it's been in the process of working in Virginia. While regional rail would bring more activity into the gulch, and therefore more noise, it also would give strength to the argument of electrification over diesel-electric, whether as EMUs or loco-hauled push-pulls. Track noise is far less annoying to a dense residential community than noise from large internal-combustion engines under load ─ even more noise from the same diesels throttled up for starting movements. Nonetheless, this might be the final mass-opportunity in all our lifetimes to reserve central-core property for transit purposes. As an aside, Chicago's Millennium Station and Union Station have demonstrated all too well the use of air-rights for high-rise structures over busy commuter tracks. But the tracks ─ in some form and fashion optimized for commuter-rail ops ─ have had to remain in place for the new pilings built to accommodate them. Another appropriate and potentially favorable chance to work with big-corporate redev for future commuter-rail was forgone with the Lifeway property deal, when the corporate chess board still contained a few active pawns and rooks. Even with no funding source earmarked for such acquisitions, at the very least some resolution should have been proposed and made visible with an open forum of discussion. No one seems to be thinking out of the box, and willing to toss up such a concept, even if it ultimately becomes a clay pigeon for trapshooting.
  24. I share your frustration with the N-S (North-South lack of a connection between Boston's North Station and South Station. I was even irritated with that scenario, when I lived in the area and used to ride the old Buddliners of the New Haven (South Sta) and the Boston &Main railroads, before the 'T' (MBTA) assumed operations of all regional commuter rail. When I lived there, the 'T' was just the trolleys, the subways and the 'L' (or 'EL") ─ Washington St Elevated. There had been very little build-out expansion back then, the newest when I left the area having been the Red Line heavy-rail subway to Quincy (or "QUIN-zee", as opposed to the pronunciation of the one in Illinois). I rarely ever needed to cross-commute via both stations at the time, since ─ unlike now ─ service back then was still rather limited in both daily frequencies and range. In fact, back then, with private transit, intercity, and commuter-rail systems still the norm, there still were instances in which some commuter-rail runs were simply discontinued and abandoned, before such ops were taken on by public agencies. The equipment was usually well worn if not worn-out beyond its useful life. At any rate, I'm a strong proponent of electrified rail for airport connections, as I feel that the use of even modern "Tier-4" (EPA) rated locomotives for push-pull service simply isn't an efficient way to run such service in the long term, especially with an airport being the physical endpoint. Several commuter-rail set-ups elsewhere, such as at Fort Lauderdale, Providence, Miami have diesel-electric push-pulls, a mode that does seem to work for those set-ups, either as point-to-point or intermediate airport connections. If airport service is done with LRT (light-rail), then electrification is a non-issue. DFW has both LRT and sleek DMU (diesel multiple units - built by the Swiss vendor Stadler), which I'm not a dyed-in-the-wool fan of, but it's far better than nothing. The MBTA actually has published an executive summary and proposal for electrification of its regional rail, but that's all to this point. Philly's Septa got a break and huge advantage, when it built a connection to PHL, because it already had something to work with like a silver platter ─ an underutilized ex-Conrail (Pennsylvania RR and Reading RR) industrial branch reconstructed and extended in a semi-circular "hook" to serve 4 separate airport terminal stations. Around that same period (1984), Center City Commuter Connection tunnel in downtown Philly was completed. This tunnel then provided a connection between Philly's then-two main commuter-rail stations ─ Reading Terminal and 30th Street Station. In so doing, the then-new airport line could travel to and beyond downtown Philly Center City, in a manner similar to what the Boston N-S connection would have been like. Arguably speaking, the N-S provision should have been included with the Big Dig, but now it might be too late to muster support in concert. South Bend International Airport (SBN) helps balance air traffic among ORD and MDW. The electrified line that has served it since 1992, also is the result of having a nearby electrified main-line commuter rr. The line's historic terminus in the heart of South Bend was forgone in favor of rerouting via an expansion to serve the airport. This was a decision of the agency which took over the commuter operations of that rr, which shares a portion of the rail line with freight. At one time even the freight ops were electrified (now dieselized). Sadly, the rerouting does no good for downtown South Bend, which has begun an economic rebound as a Rust Belt city. Finally, Caltrain has had a funding advantage, whether we like it or not. At least 7 state, regional, and local agencies comprise the overwhelming majority of the aggregated funding source for the Caltrain electrification, and that doesn't include the 32+percent tacked on by the FTA. The primary reason I say that electrification of the pre-existing WeGo commuter-rail line would be a hard sell is that it usually has to have the volume of ridership for agencies to garner a sizeable chunk of federal funding for such upgrades, and in some cases, federal funding has been as high as 80%. Otherwise, the vast majority of such funding must come from the local and possibly the state. That just won't be foreseeably happening here, as far as I can perceive, as it's already taken at least 2 human generations for the mid-state to even effectively prepare for regional rail with commitment to investment. Metro Nashville and the surrounding counties just don't have the political will do commuter rail for even an additional diesel-electric push-pull or DMU line, much less to go all electric for the one lone line shared by two counties. We don't have that political ecosystem and mentality as the decision-makers do in Denver, which made that quantum leap decision from no rail to electrified in one swoop, even though construction has had and still has funding shortcomings to complete build-out of its lengthiest line ─ the Northwest Line (over 40 miles). For Nashville in the end, some kind of tunneling likely will need to be approved and implemented ─ whether it be for LRT or commuter-rail in some form or fashion ─ since existing bridges cannot economically be modified to accommodate rail passage needed for connectivity or access, even if 1 or 2 might be capable of structurally handling the dynamic loads of LRT, but IDK.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.