Jump to content

The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread


TopTenn

Recommended Posts

On 3/2/2017 at 2:43 PM, smeagolsfree said:

If that was the case then folks that had no children would balk at paying their taxes. Mass transit is part of the infrastructure as are schools, and those thing are and should  be subject to a property tax or other forms of taxation. If people cant get to work because the roads are jammed with cars with no Mass Transit option, they would be raising hell. Actually some are now.

I work from home and don't have any children. I'm also a minority,  so police protection is not an option for me.  So I think I should be exempt from paying taxes. 

Edited by FromParkAveToTN
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


16 hours ago, grilled_cheese said:

It's interesting that this has gotten so much press.  All indications are that the human driven car didn't stop and plowed into the autonomous driving car. Of all the autonomous miles driven, I know of one case that was deemed to be the fault of the autonomous drive tech (the tesla using first generation autonomy and not distinguishing the white semi from the sky). 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Hey_Hey said:

It's interesting that this has gotten so much press.  All indications are that the human driven car didn't stop and plowed into the autonomous driving car. Of all the autonomous miles driven, I know of one case that was deemed to be the fault of the autonomous drive tech (the tesla using first generation autonomy and not distinguishing the white semi from the sky). 

Hopefully, if I rear end someone, they'll be a robot.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, markhollin said:

I support this, but wish they'd drop the payment in-lue option. Often the payment doesn't cover the actual cost of installing sidewalks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This seems backwards to me. They should encourage the payment in lieu of sidewalk creation so that there can actually be a cohesive sidewalk network created.  Having  a hodgepodge of sidewalks throughout neighborhoods is completely non-functional and looks really odd. I would rather the money go toward paying for entire stretches of sidewalk along certain roads.  For example, Knox Ave in 12South doesn't have sidewalks, and it needs them. However, having three new houses in the next 5 years build sidewalks in their front yards does absolutely NOTHING to promote walkability.  However, if the three houses on Knox Ave combined their fees with the fees from newly constructed houses on Ferfuson, Clayton, Brightwood, and Primrose, then one of those roads could have a completely built out sidewalk which WOULD be of some benefit. For sidewalks to be of benefit, the entire blockface needs to have them, not randomly placed sidewalks based on new construction.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they had done this in the Nations at the very start, they would have a lot of new sidewalks there. There is not going to be a quick and easy fix, but every foot of sidewalk is better than nothing. At the rate some of these neighborhoods are changing I do not see Metro has much of a choice now. There are a lot of lazy and shoddy homebuilders out there that are trying to cut corners and charge double or even triple what some of these homes are worth.

 

I say stick it to em.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Hey_Hey said:

This seems backwards to me. They should encourage the payment in lieu of sidewalk creation so that there can actually be a cohesive sidewalk network created.  Having  a hodgepodge of sidewalks throughout neighborhoods is completely non-functional and looks really odd.

Building the sidewalks one parcel at a time also introduces inconsistencies in the typical section. Even though Metro includes standard widths, features, etc. in both the Major and Collector Street Plan and the Strategic Plan for Sidewalks and Bikeways it's difficult to keep track of deviations from such from one parcel construction to the next. The end result is a mixture of sidewalk widths, furnishing zone widths, etc. along a given street, which is not only aesthetically confusing but also presents issues with usability and possibly ADA compliance.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As stated in the Tennessean story:

Quote

Developers could choose to instead pay an in-lieu contribution fee to the city that would toward a citywide fund to build sidewalks in Nashville. But that option wouldn't be available if there is an existing sidewalk on the property, on the block or an abutting property — therefore sharply limiting the use of the fee.

This reads to me as severely limiting the potential for anything approaching "hodge-podge". Instead, this requirement basically ensures the exact opposite by filling in the gaps. Basically, you are required to build a sidewalk if there is any chance that yours will connect to/extend the existing network either immediately or in the near future.

We all know developers will absolutely pay the fee if they have even the remotest option of doing so, so that should assuage any fears of the "random sidewalk island in the middle of nowhere".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Vrtigo said:

As stated in the Tennessean story:

This reads to me as severely limiting the potential for anything approaching "hodge-podge". Instead, this requirement basically ensures the exact opposite by filling in the gaps. Basically, you are required to build a sidewalk if there is any chance that yours will connect to/extend the existing network either immediately or in the near future.

We all know developers will absolutely pay the fee if they have even the remotest option of doing so, so that should assuage any fears of the "random sidewalk island in the middle of nowhere".

I'm sure there's an example somewhere, but off the top of my head, I can't think of a single example of there being a sidewalk on part of a block face.  However, I can think of numerous examples where an entire block face does not have any sidewalks.  To me, it makes more sense to consolidate resources and fill these sidewalk-less block faces with sidewalks along the entire length of that block instead of randomly placing sidewalks. 

A sewer line placed along a single property that doesn't connect to the larger network is entirely pointless, hence the reason we don't do that. Instead we lay sewer in a organized manor neighborhood by neighborhood. 

Charge a fee to the property owner/builder that the city can then deploy for construction of the most logical and meaningful sidewalk routes. It is also cheaper and more efficient for the city to build a mile of sidewalks under one contract than it is for individual owners to pay for construction of 100 individual sidewalk sections. 

I also wouldn't assume that developers will just pay the fee. It depends on what the fee is and how much it would cost to build their stretch of sidewalk.  It may very well be cheaper to lay 40 feet of sidewalk at the same time the foundation is being poured than to pay the fee. 

Edited by Hey_Hey
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, smeagolsfree said:

If they had done this in the Nations at the very start, they would have a lot of new sidewalks there. There is not going to be a quick and easy fix, but every foot of sidewalk is better than nothing. At the rate some of these neighborhoods are changing I do not see Metro has much of a choice now. There are a lot of lazy and shoddy homebuilders out there that are trying to cut corners and charge double or even triple what some of these homes are worth.

 

I say stick it to em.

It is incredibly rare for an entire neighborhood to undergo wholesale reconstruction like The Nations has seen. I would venture to guess that 90% of the neighborhoods that do not have sidewalks won't see demo/reconstruction to the same degree that The Nations did, so this project won't work for them. Of course, even in The Nations we have properties that will likely remain undeveloped for decades which will leave gaps in the sidewalk network for their neighborhood. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 4/6/2017 at 10:34 AM, Hey_Hey said:

I'm sure there's an example somewhere, but off the top of my head, I can't think of a single example of there being a sidewalk on part of a block face.  However, I can think of numerous examples where an entire block face does not have any sidewalks.  To me, it makes more sense to consolidate resources and fill these sidewalk-less block faces with sidewalks along the entire length of that block instead of randomly placing sidewalks. 

A sewer line placed along a single property that doesn't connect to the larger network is entirely pointless, hence the reason we don't do that. Instead we lay sewer in a organized manor neighborhood by neighborhood. 

Charge a fee to the property owner/builder that the city can then deploy for construction of the most logical and meaningful sidewalk routes. It is also cheaper and more efficient for the city to build a mile of sidewalks under one contract than it is for individual owners to pay for construction of 100 individual sidewalk sections. 

I also wouldn't assume that developers will just pay the fee. It depends on what the fee is and how much it would cost to build their stretch of sidewalk.  It may very well be cheaper to lay 40 feet of sidewalk at the same time the foundation is being poured than to pay the fee. 

Much more expensive for Metro to go back and re-engineer and install sidewalks after the fact, than to have the developers do it at the time they are designing and grading the lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, RonCamp said:

Much more expensive for Metro to go back and re-engineer and install sidewalks after the fact, than to have the developers do it at the time they are designing and grading the lot.

That depends. It would be possible for Metro to enforce restrictions on roadside infrastructure that developers build or replace. For example, they might require as a condition of zoning or permitting that developers:

  • Deed sufficient right-of-way to accommodate sidewalks;
  • Not locate utility mains, vaults, poles, and other common structures within a certain distance from the curb line, either inside or outside the roadway;
  • Do locate utility meters and valves serving individual parcels at the right-of-way line; and/or
  • Grade the roadside to a certain slope to the right-of-way line.

The biggest issue with sidewalk construction at the moment is utility and stormwater relocation. In more urban areas, or where curb and gutter does not currently exist, the projects are more becoming a drainage improvement and utility relocation with some ancillary sidewalk construction. This adds significant time and money to a sidewalk installation, especially as utility providers typically use their own contractors or forces to relocate their respective infrastructure and must be coordinated with the sidewalk construction.

Placing these restrictions on developers would in effect provide a clean pad for sidewalk construction that would ideally only require simple excavation, sub-grade backfill, and paving to complete. While the developer would incur some expenses associated with the restrictions, most of them simply involve the placement of lines that must be paid for in any case, and the developer is not paying up-front for sidewalk and possibly curb and gutter (the latter of which is by far the most expensive paving item on a per-foot basis). Neither Metro nor the developer would have to maintain sidewalks until they are needed, cutting down on deterioration of unused infrastructure and expenses associated with programs like ADA consent decrees.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, smeagolsfree said:

Improve Act has passed the house. Just waiting on the Senate.

I don't like getting political on here but I don't understand (but am not surprised) the Republican opposition at all. David Hawk in the House, offered an amendment to get the revenue from new and used vehicle sales. How is it fair to ask TN residents to foot a bill in a manner than disproportionately places the weight on them rather than distributing it evenly among all commuters on TN roadways. Tourists, passerbyers, and residents all buy gas (keep it quiet EV drivers:D) indiscriminately.
 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Nashtitans said:

This is an urban planning website. Politics play heavily here (if we didn't have uber conservative republicans running the state we would probably have a transit system under construction right now, but they rather use their powers on bs like that bible bill or whatever)

Can't say I disagree. What I love about Haslam (from a progressive standpoint), is how he balances his Republican principles with compromise instead of representing the party of "no". It's how you get things done.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, claya91 said:

Can't say I disagree. What I love about Haslam (from a progressive standpoint), is how he balances his Republican principles with compromise instead of representing the party of "no". It's how you get things done.

Haslam is as much a "Republican" as Pharoah Phil Bredesen was. Heads are going to roll over this vote for the so-called "Conservatives" who jack up taxes when there's $2 billion in a surplus that should've been used first.

7 hours ago, Nashtitans said:

This is an urban planning website. Politics play heavily here (if we didn't have uber conservative republicans running the state we would probably have a transit system under construction right now, but they rather use their powers on bs like that bible bill or whatever)

Yes, we could be a paradise like California if it weren't for all those bible-thumping ooobers. :rolleyes:

Edited by fieldmarshaldj
grammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • 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.