Jump to content

The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread


TopTenn

Recommended Posts

Their plan for Nashville over the past two decades is no better. Every time I drive into Nashville, the I-24/I-40 "connector" where the two come together just east of downtown is the worst traffic I ever encounter.  That stretch of highway looks the exact same as it was when I started at Vandy in fall of 1988. What a friggin' joke! 

That stretch of freeway looks like it was built for six lanes (three per side) and painted an additional lane per side.  I don't even know where to begin with the Fesslers interchange.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Look around the I-40/65 west-loop leg.and I-40 south leg, just to as a starter.  What could you do to truly widen those old paths?  good luck trying to condemn more property than what hadn't been done 40-something years ago.  You just can't up and widen the downtown loop, nor can you do the same with the not-so-inner partial loop a.k.a I-440.  With the stakeholders at hand, that just won't be happening, without perhaps some real civil-war bloodshed at best.  The only option would be to do what the railroads do with containers: double-stack, as several other municipalities have/had done many years ago (e.g. the West Oakland Ca. Cypress Street viaduct of the Nimitz Freeway, ill-fated byt the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake).  While it's always possible, I don't see that as a foreseeable option on any horizon, before many other infrastructure changes have been underway with other forms of transportation and with utilities.

-==-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.  While it's always possible, I don't see that as a foreseeable option on any horizon, before many other infrastructure changes have been underway with other forms of transportation and with utilities.

-==-

I believe that may be one place you're wrong. Propose a $175m transit system and it's a citywide debate. Budget $1 billion for road "improvements" and not a soul asks any questions. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

.  While it's always possible, I don't see that as a foreseeable option on any horizon, before many other infrastructure changes have been underway with other forms of transportation and with utilities.

-==-

I believe that may be one place you're wrong. Propose a $175m transit system and it's a citywide debate. Budget $1 billion for road "improvements" and not a soul asks any questions. 

Not as dead wrong as you might imagine.  You're going to have way-way more opposition from way-more respondent stakeholders than ever before for any such land acquisition needed for widening in downtown.  I almost can guarantee that that could become political suicide to push for such expansion by widening at that location.  Cities generally have chosen to de-emphasize the focus on such solutions as that, at such locations.  Tell me, then, how are you going to widen at the gulch for example.

As far as a foreseeable option for double-stacking is concerned, it's going to be an uphill climb, steeper than you might imagine, for any funding to be sought for such, ahead of others.  I think that many souls will ask questions in this here day and age, for that particular kind of road improvement.

-==-

Edited by rookzie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may have misunderstood you. I agree, there would be great resistance to land acquisition for widening downtown. 

 

I was simply speaking on TDOT's ability to acquire funds for a two level structure. But, I'm sure you're right, that would also be a battle. I guess I'm just still bitter about the AMP. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am glad that it was brought up.  In particular, the DT loop is made worse as a necessary evil IMO, in part because of its age and design geared toward two generations ago, the fact that it cannot be readily expanded by direct widening, and the interaction with the surface roads which currently tie into it.  There actually had been some radical talk of removal of the DT loop altogether, back around 2001 or so, but I don't feel that most people would give credence to that evolving predictably (although they say "never say never").

In a way, I wish Nashville could do a Chicago-style double-decked underground and surface set-up on a few roads (Upper/Lower Wacker, parts of Water and Randolph Streets, Columbus and Lakeshore Drives, and Michigan Ave), in conjunction with reworking parts of the DT loop, particularly the south and West portions.  Since that expressway probably is here to stay (until perhaps a New Madrid "Cassandra" occurs), they might as well sketch in some 2-tiered roadway mods with the loop.  Unlike Chicago, though, the topography and geology of the DT Nashville probably would not make this feasible for some existing surface roads, but I would love to see that happen to, say, Jas. Rob. and where it ties into Rosa Parks headed up to Church and south beyond past MCC.  I also don't like how Nashville has prioritized Union Street to maximize the flow between Woodland St. bridge and Church St past 9th Ave. (a lot of empty light cycles), and stacked tier could be desired there as well.  But Chicago started its few uppers and lowers some 100 years ago, after raising building ground levels and access well above nearby river level, our of necessity to allow for improved drainage and sewers, nearly 150 years ago.

This is a mere pipe-dream of mine, and those of us around Nashville during the week following May Day 2010, can attest to the storm-water ground flooding that had remained for a good while along the area near Jas. Rob, Rosa Parks, Harrison and Jo Johnston (as well as along the eastbank and Lwr Broad).  I wouldn't want those roads to be raised, but instead double-decked for local traffic to be on the existing surface, with through traffic on a new lower tier. to tie in with Woodland St. and Victory bridges.  I know it won't happen though.

-==-

Edited by rookzie
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am disheartened by talk of widening freeways.  They are the problem, not the solution.

I am hopeful that in my lifetime, as the freeways crumble and become more and more expensive to patch, we will see more elevated freeways come down so we can begin to stitch back together the neighborhoods they destroyed.

SF did it with the Embarcadero.  Seattle is currently tearing down the Alaskan Viaduct.

http://www.preservenet.com/freeways/FreewaysEmbarcadero.html

http://www.citylab.com/cityfixer/2015/06/how-seattle-is-reclaiming-its-waterfront-from-an-elevated-urban-highway/397325/

 

They probably won't be successful, but the political movement in Dallas to tear down the  345 has some steam.

http://www.anewdallas.com/

 

Interstates are barriers to communities, at the very least we should move aggressively towards capping them with livable space, but ultimately they need to come down.  Sprawl has been devastating.  We need to focus on smarter development to begin to reverse that damage.

I "unofficially" agree.  I just am loath to get entangled in a debate on widenings, but I think you probably can infer my intent from my sentiment concerning the above, with as objectively has I could manage.  I basically went for pragmatism over (perceived) practicality and theory.

-==-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am disheartened by talk of widening freeways.  They are the problem, not the solution.

I am hopeful that in my lifetime, as the freeways crumble and become more and more expensive to patch, we will see more elevated freeways come down so we can begin to stitch back together the neighborhoods they destroyed.

SF did it with the Embarcadero.  Seattle is currently tearing down the Alaskan Viaduct.

http://www.preservenet.com/freeways/FreewaysEmbarcadero.html

http://www.citylab.com/cityfixer/2015/06/how-seattle-is-reclaiming-its-waterfront-from-an-elevated-urban-highway/397325/

 

They probably won't be successful, but the political movement in Dallas to tear down the  345 has some steam.

http://www.anewdallas.com/

 

Interstates are barriers to communities, at the very least we should move aggressively towards capping them with livable space, but ultimately they need to come down.  Sprawl has been devastating.  We need to focus on smarter development to begin to reverse that damage.

Freeways are great for getting from city to city, but within the city, you're right, they are nothing but destructive.  I couldn't agree more with you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Traffic in Nashville is getting worse and worse. It has a HUGE impact on the citizens' quality of life, as well as affecting the local economy. We need to start investing more in infrastructure for our city's future or we won't grow to our potential and the quality of life in our city won't be able to compete with other cities that took more proactive steps. If we can't get big projects passed (think mass transit) at this exact moment, we can still improve our streets to enhance traffic flow and open up new areas for development and growth. Connect Wedgewood to Fesslers to East Nashville. Improve the street grid downtown so there aren't streets that don't connect/flow (Lea Ave, Lindsley to Lafayette). Simple things that need to be done while we still can, and will impact our city for the long term.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have mentioned this before but not sure if I did here. My solution would be to take the HOV lane away and replacing that lane with LTR. No land to purchase, very little work laying the tracks. The stations would be built over the interstates.

The parking facilities would again be built on top the interstates as the land is already controlled by the State. The real cost would be construction and the right of ways and building the lines coming into the core.

 

By using the HOV lane, it would force more folks to take rail for their commute. You would then take one of the three remaking lanes for HOV, to further force the single occupant cars off the road.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have mentioned this before but not sure if I did here. My solution would be to take the HOV lane away and replacing that lane with LTR. No land to purchase, very little work laying the tracks. The stations would be built over the interstates.

The parking facilities would again be built on top the interstates as the land is already controlled by the State. The real cost would be construction and the right of ways and building the lines coming into the core.

 

By using the HOV lane, it would force more folks to take rail for their commute. You would then take one of the three remaking lanes for HOV, to further force the single occupant cars off the road.

As I understand it the HOV lanes were paid for (in part) by federal $'s which came with the requirement that the lanes remain HOV. If we wanted to convert HOV lanes to LRT we'd not only have to pay for the LRT, but also pay back the Feds for the $ spent to build the HOV lanes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have mentioned this before but not sure if I did here. My solution would be to take the HOV lane away and replacing that lane with LTR. No land to purchase, very little work laying the tracks. The stations would be built over the interstates.

The parking facilities would again be built on top the interstates as the land is already controlled by the State. The real cost would be construction and the right of ways and building the lines coming into the core.

 

By using the HOV lane, it would force more folks to take rail for their commute. You would then take one of the three remaking lanes for HOV, to further force the single occupant cars off the road.

Even the most "transit-oriented" regions like Portland OR have not reduced any congestion on their freeways (like US-26), but LRT and HRT each are suited for freeway-median utilization.  Chicago's Dan Ryan Expressway (I-94) pioneered it for the U.S. back in the mid-'50s, and it was eventually expanded to the Kennedy (I-94) and the Eisenhower (I-290).  Bay Area's BART did it on its SR-24 in the early '70s and as recently as the late '90s on parts of I-580.  WMATA's MetroRail uses part of the I-66 median on western portion of its Orange line (New Carrollton to Vienna) in Northern Va.  And since the land is govt. owned and maintained, then at least there's always potential for the city/county/state/fed to work in concert to re-purpose some of these medians.

-==-

Edited by rookzie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

nMotion published their State of the MTA report. It's pretty much what you'd expect, maybe a little worse than expected...

http://nmotion2015.com/state-of-the-mta-system-full-report/ 

I've been receiving e-mail from MTA/RTA nMotion2015 on that set of reports.  I've been meaning to take the time to examine, but I considered it like opening up the commode lid to see what "didn't go down". so to speak (to put it gently).  I'll take a block of time to check it out, for the sake of hoping for published consensus (and closure on my part).

I just hope that I can be alive long enough to just actually witness some construction, if nothing else.  Something will change, though ─ I think we all can agree on that.

 

-==-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm guessing this has been debated in the past, and I probably missed it, but has there been discussion by TDOT to rework the interchange at I-40/I-65 and Broadway downtown? Lack of signage appears to be one obvious problem that leads to drivers (i.e. tourists) making last-minute lane changes and adding to already-clogged traffic. A cloverleaf design might not be logistically possible there, but it seems like this interchange would be on TDOT's radar. Yes? No?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm guessing this has been debated in the past, and I probably missed it, but has there been discussion by TDOT to rework the interchange at I-40/I-65 and Broadway downtown? Lack of signage appears to be one obvious problem that leads to drivers (i.e. tourists) making last-minute lane changes and adding to already-clogged traffic. A cloverleaf design might not be logistically possible there, but it seems like this interchange would be on TDOT's radar. Yes? No?

I would think that jurisdictionally, Davidson Co, has a shared accountability to fund some changes and maintenance of interchanges between the interstate and surface roadways.  Not defending TDOT, and I'm the last person to be in position to pass any conviction on how it is done. but my thoughts are that the state alone cannot afford to implement even what it has piled up heap-high on its roster of earmarked projects, let alone for major urban thoroughfares, even with these roadways being state routes and/or part of the Federal Highway system (31x, 41x, 70x, 431,...).  With this being the case, it would seem that Metro itself would have to step up to the plate and at least bat a few hits, if not runs, on arranging a shared portion of applied-for matching funding.  Otherwise, there would seem to be no end to TDOT's responsibility as being "unlimited" but at the same time untenable, given the issue of austerity with the Federal budget and the Highway fund.  This does not however preclude the state's procedural control and management of allocating funding for such projects ─ it's just that the state alone cannot be waited for to carry all the burden, any more than it can be counted on solely for other transportation-related developments.  Other cities have had to do the same to get some positive results from time to time.

We all likely would concur that all the 40-65 downtown interchanges suck, and are grossly inadequate for handling at over-capacity.  Signage is another but somewhat subjective matter, with which the state agency frequently follows within Federal compliance, but which to human cognition frequently is ill-matched.   I do feel that as such, signage almost will have to made redundant, in terms of physical aspect and perceived noticeability in ambient conditions upon advanced approach.  Given the dire circumstances of tandem and compounded chicanery befallen that portion of the interstate and which confound the problem with locals and tourist alike, a better infusion of signage could go far to make that section more navigable, although far from being “idJit-proof”.
-==-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, ain't this cute. Apparently, the purpose of this sign is to encourage motorists to not hit pedestrians

Sign

I saw those the other day. It was like "What the...".

However, lower Broad has got to be a danger zone for driving with the mix of cars, trucks, drunk pedestrians, drunk bachelorettes, rickshaws, joy ride golf carts, pedal taverns, horse drawn carriages, and on and on...

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.