The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread

[MLBrumby]

You da' man, with da railroad plan.... from Tennessee! 

[21jump]

The other day I was thinking about the discussions many on the board had about how uninviting the bridges at 12th ave, Division, and Demonbreun are to pedestrians.  I remembered several underpasses on Interstate 75 between Cincinnati and Dayton with fencing that I thought were attractive.  

I assume the fencing in the second photo was added after the bridge was built.  I'm no civil engineer, but I would think this would be a rather cost effective way to add another physical barrier between people on the bridge and the traffic below.  I wouldn't think it'd require mare than maybe a couple of weeks of night lane closures to drill holes in the existing concrete barrier for the iron fence posts. 

With that being said, I would also assume that it is getting close to the point where we need to completely replace those bridges anyway. Weren't they built the same year that the bridges we're currently replacing were built?

Also idk why my legend says Chicos on the top right, never stepped foot inside one nor have I ever searched the store online haha.

Edited October 30, 2015 by 21jump

[titanhog]

A few years back, Albuquerque re-did all of their bridges and walls along I-40...and it made a huge difference.  Not saying we should replicate ABQ's bright colors (in honor of Native American heritage)...but just something a little more attractive than what we have now.

[smeagolsfree]

I've seen many attractive bridges in NM, AZ, and TX, some of which are seen above. I have often wondered the same. Maybe PHofKS can shed some light on why this ever happened here.

[Jamie Hall]

The other day I was thinking about the discussions many on the board had about how uninviting the bridges at 12th ave, Division, and Demonbreun are to pedestrians.

You've hit on one of my favorite rant topics. Our downtown bridges arguably serve as the gateway to Nashville for out-of-towners, and not only are they ugly as sin, but they're poorly lit and generally unsafe to pedestrians. The safety and beautification perks at the intersection of I-65 and McEwen Drive in Cool Springs -- great safety railings, lighting and walkability -- is a good example of what TDOT can do if they're inclined to do it.

[titanhog]

You've hit on one of my favorite rant topics. Our downtown bridges arguably serve as the gateway to Nashville for out-of-towners, and not only are they ugly as sin, but they're poorly lit and generally unsafe to pedestrians. The safety and beautification perks at the intersection of I-65 and McEwen Drive in Cool Springs -- great safety railings, lighting and walkability -- is a good example of what TDOT can do if they're inclined to do it.

Absolutely!  That McEwen bridge is very nice.

[BnaBreaker]

Those ABQ bridges are gorgeous!  I am a HUGE fan of cities making beautiful art out of otherwise blank, dead spaces.  The entire city is a potential canvas!  I'd love to see more murals and the like in Nashville.  One of my favorite elements in Nashville is that dragon mural in Hillsboro Village, and it seems like nobody ever talks about it!

Edited October 31, 2015 by BnaBreaker

[japan]

Not a big fan of the ABQ bridges in hose pictures. I'm sure this can be done well, but the first one makes me feel like I'm driving around Juarez. 

[markhollin]

I've seen a lot of those bridges in Ohio crossing over the interstate system.  Must've been form Ohio State Transportation budget.  Not sure TDOT has things like this in their coffers.  Certainly would be up for some instances of these in urban areas.

 

[rookzie]

That McEwen Drive bridge at I-65 is nearly identical in design as the bridge at the triangulation of Maddox Rd., SR-840 (exit 65), and So. Wilson - NE Rutherford Co line (near Nashville SuperSpeedway, Lebanon TN).  PHofKS is very familiar with this design (Single Point Urban Interchange - SPUI), and it is the very same type of set-up that he suggested back in August to address the "dire strait" of I-40/65 at Broadway.

That design would lend itself well to a panoramic graphic or structural adornment ─ something thematically associated with the locale, but not so "busily" ornate that likely would induce undue distraction.

-==-

 

Edited November 2, 2015 by rookzie

[21jump]

I was in ABQ over the summer and thought the bridges there were well done and fit in with the area.  What you don't see in those pictures is the very nice landscaping (mostly underneath the stack interchange and other interchanges in downtown ABQ). 

[Neigeville2]

That project was a failure from the beginning. Elon Musk had a way to make it better for 1/3 the starting price tag but they went on with this cluster.

Elon Musk's proposal is a joke:  Why the Hyperloop is a vomit comet that will cause terrorism and deafness 

The Voyage No One Wants To Take: Why The Hyperloop Is A Catastrophe-Waiting-To-Happen

This "hyperloop" technology has been around since the 1800s and pops up from time to time in the media, but no one has been able to implement it on the scale needed to actually transport people. 

Hyperloop would also be strictly point to point, you can't take it from LA to Bakersfield or other points in between, so it's far less useful.  And  Musk proposes running along the freeway ROW to save money--that is, your little canister would not be travelling in a straight line-it's not at all clear how that would work at 800 MPH.  If it has to go in a straight line to keep from jerking its passengers apart, that means tunneling and acquiring lots of ROW and it wouldn't be any cheaper than a nice comfortable train would be.

[MidTenn1]

That McEwen Drive bridge at I-65 is nearly identical in design as the bridge at the triangulation of Maddox Rd., SR-840 (exit 65), and So. Wilson - NE Rutherford Co line (near Nashville SuperSpeedway, Lebanon TN).  PHofKS is very familiar with this design (Single Point Urban Interchange - SPUI), and it is the very same type of set-up that he suggested back in August to address the "dire strait" of I-40/65 at Broadway.

That design would lend itself well to a panoramic graphic or structural adornment design ─ something thematically associated with the locale, but not so "busily" ornate that likely would induce undue distraction.

-==-

 

Denver also has very nicely built and landscaped interchanges.

But, to be fair, Colorado does not have the number of bridges that Tennessee has and is probably not as tight in its budget for bridge replacement as we are. Tennessee is 10th (19,490) and Colorado is 27th (8,097). So going back and retrofitting bridges for aesthetic purposes is probably not going to happen. Bridge beautification does happen, however, when a major widening project occurs as in Knoxville.

And the Demonbruen Street Viaduct looks very nice now!

 

The first 'SPUI' in Tennessee was built in Memphis at the Walnut grove with Germantown Road intersection. Soon after I was involved with the analysis and design of several interchanges on Nonconnah Parkway (now Bill Morris Parkway) southeast of Memphis. I acquired engineering plans from the state of Alabama where they had built several SPUIs in Huntsville on US 431.

The important feature in this plan is the C-D (Collector Distributor) system which is a series of one way roads parallel to the controlled access (Freeway) highway. They allow access to local business and residential and require a special u-turn lane at each intersection.

The SPUI I suggested for Broadway and I-40/65 came with several caveats as I admitted it needed a more rigorous engineering analysis to determine if it would work from a physical layout and traffic capacity standpoint.

It may be a little pie-in-the-sky, but I think it's worth a look.

Edited November 1, 2015 by PHofKS

[CenterHill]

You've hit on one of my favorite rant topics. Our downtown bridges arguably serve as the gateway to Nashville for out-of-towners, and not only are they ugly as sin, but they're poorly lit and generally unsafe to pedestrians. The safety and beautification perks at the intersection of I-65 and McEwen Drive in Cool Springs -- great safety railings, lighting and walkability -- is a good example of what TDOT can do if they're inclined to do it.

Couldn't agree more.    For whatever reason, the pedestrian components of our downtown bridges suffer from a case of benign neglect.   Good points have been made about the design, low railings, etc., but I'm talking about basic maintenance and debris removal.    Dirt and weeds are allowed to accumulate on bridge sidewalks and I would venture to say that the pedestrian walkways that pass under the highways have never been swept or cleaned in modern history.   Walk down Arthur sometime where it passes under I-65, or Woodland St under I-24, or 8th Ave S under the CSX trestle and again passing under I-40, or Charlotte passing under the CSX line near Capitol View.    These are considered city sidewalks, but what they really are, are 50 years of accumulated dirt (mud, when wet), trash, broken glass and pigeon droppings.   Forget about the tourists, we who live here deserve better.       

As part of the I-64 upgrades in St. Louis a few years ago, MODOT replaced every bridge with more attractive, better functioning overpasses.    Similar to those that have been posted.     

 

Edited November 1, 2015 by CenterHill

[rookzie]

Fact is, and just as PHofKS noted, as far as budgeting is concerned, Tennessee is going to find itself and to remain in some serious funding quandary (-ries, plural), if it cannot find some viable about-face changes in how it can allocate resources to sustain and augment the state's transportation infrastructure as a whole, much more with addressing the crescendo of mid-state mobility challenges and alternative option provisions.

I foresee some kinds of public-private consortiums and initiatives, more likely on the local municipal and county levels, than with the state, if it even comes to fruition at all. ("half-full? half-empty?").  Otherwise the mid-state is "consigned" by relegation to settling for a norm of cars and buses, and the indefinite vacillation of changing between 1-way and 2-way roadways every 5 years, as if to expect different results each time.  So we think we have it sort of bad right now?
-==-

Edited November 2, 2015 by rookzie

[markhollin]

Music City Star train line is focus of early regional transit talks. 6 area counties announce public meetings:

http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/local/wilson/2015/10/29/train-makes-wilson-county-vital-solve-traffic-woes/74805374/


 

[markhollin]

Developers eye Mt. Juliet train station/mixed use building for Music City Star...

http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/local/wilson/mt-juliet/2015/11/06/developers-look-mt-juliet-train-station/75213936/

 

 

[PruneTracy]

Developers eye Mt. Juliet train station/mixed use building for Music City Star...

http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/local/wilson/mt-juliet/2015/11/06/developers-look-mt-juliet-train-station/75213936/

From the article:

One of the initial proposals was for a three story structure and the other was five stories, [Mt. Juliet Mayor Ed] Hagerty said, though both can change as the city and RTA evaluate the projects. Mt. Juliet's current zoning does not allow a five-story building, which Hagerty said he wouldn't support.

“It’s out of scale for Mt. Juliet," he said. "The city planner recommended we stick with three stories. It's all very preliminary.”

Yes, spreading development out along six miles of SR 171 presents a much better scale for the city.

C'mon, dude, this is your city center. The real one, too, not the one dictated by developers who want blank slates and cheap land. Live a little.

[Pyramid Scheme]

 

From the article:

Yes, spreading development out along six miles of SR 171 presents a much better scale for the city.

C'mon, dude, this is your city center. The real one, too, not the one dictated by developers who want blank slates and cheap land. Live a little.

Oh my gosh let them build 5 if they want to. What's the point of those height limits?

[arkitekte]

Oh my gosh let them build 5 if they want to. What's the point of those height limits?

Precedent, primarily. Why introduce a five story structure, approaching heights of 70 feet in an area that's typically had single and two story structures not taller than 30 feet? The added density is another concern. Typically, streets, traffic patterns and other infrastructure (that keeps water runoff from flooding the house 200 yards down the road) can handle certain densities of building impact before a major overhaul takes place. While it sounds menial, adding two additional floors (providing precedent for additional developments) raises a situation to where addition codes are needed, additional low impact development studies, etc. 

[PruneTracy]

Precedent, primarily. Why introduce a five story structure, approaching heights of 70 feet in an area that's typically had single and two story structures not taller than 30 feet? The added density is another concern. Typically, streets, traffic patterns and other infrastructure (that keeps water runoff from flooding the house 200 yards down the road) can handle certain densities of building impact before a major overhaul takes place. While it sounds menial, adding two additional floors (providing precedent for additional developments) raises a situation to where addition codes are needed, additional low impact development studies, etc. 

I'd be more sympathetic to the argument against overloading infrastructure if not for the existence of Providence, among other residential and commercial developments that have accompanied, if not prompted, the city's many annexations over the past thirty-five years. (The "original" Mount Juliet is rather low-density relative to newer areas.) As it stands, this seems more an effort to continue plucking the low-hanging fruit rather than make efforts to embrace smarter and more sustainable developments.

It was one thing a decade or two ago when the demand in the area was exclusively for single-family housing on sub-acre lots, of which the master tracts were plenty. But noting how quickly the city limits seem to be catching up not only to the UGB but also other jurisdictional boundaries it might be prudent to accommodate demand for higher-density developments in the city center while it exists. If you can bend over backwards to allow "lifestyle centers" and Walmarts on farmland next to the Interstate you can handle low-rise residential in the closest thing you have to an urban core.

[arkitekte]

I'd be more sympathetic to the argument against overloading infrastructure if not for the existence of Providence, among other residential and commercial developments that have accompanied, if not prompted, the city's many annexations over the past thirty-five years. (The "original" Mount Juliet is rather low-density relative to newer areas.) As it stands, this seems more an effort to continue plucking the low-hanging fruit rather than make efforts to embrace smarter and more sustainable developments.

It was one thing a decade or two ago when the demand in the area was exclusively for single-family housing on sub-acre lots, of which the master tracts were plenty. But noting how quickly the city limits seem to be catching up not only to the UGB but also other jurisdictional boundaries it might be prudent to accommodate demand for higher-density developments in the city center while it exists. If you can bend over backwards to allow "lifestyle centers" and Walmarts on farmland next to the Interstate you can handle low-rise residential in the closest thing you have to an urban core.

All true, however, the developments that you've mentioned (Walmarts, subdivisions on former farm land, interstate shopping areas, etc.), aren't going to present an argument for added density in the city's center. Of course we can say "Lower density in town leads to this [inset whatever cheaply built, cookie cutter development]." and to some extent that's true, however, the majority of those developments wouldn't and shouldn't work in a city's center. 

I'm not for sure if I'm following you on the infrastructure comment, sorry for that. What I think you're saying is "Do to our need to plan for additional infrastructure needs, we proactively gobble up your lands."...this is kinda true and sometimes works, but it's more of "Give me your tax money and I'll build a sidewalk and oddly placed turning lane." 

 

Of course additional density in town is smart, but it needs to be done correctly. I'm too concerned with five stories if it's adjacent to one or tow. Five stories adjacent to three also presents problems if in a neighborhood that has more of a low scale development pattern. No one realistically wants five stories in their neighborhood of one story homes. 

[rookzie]

This obstacle is more psychological. in search of suburban living in Wilson county. People, both new and existing families, either are fleeing the urban centers for greener pastures or are compelled to do so by skyrocketing rents of core urban development, and so traditionally who wouldn’t shoot for a house with a yard?  The demand for traditional suburban living will surely remain strong, but more options likely are to be in demand in the future.  The single-family house is not even close to being or becoming endangered, and there always will be a segment that desires this. The problem is that sprawl has lent itself to building only for that segment for the last 50 years or so.
-==-

Edited November 9, 2015 by rookzie

[Pyramid Scheme]

This obstacle is more psychological. in search of suburban living in Wilson county. People, both new and existing families, either are fleeing the urban centers for greener pastures or are compelled to do so by skyrocketing rents of core urban development, and so traditionally who wouldn’t shoot for a house with a yard?  The demand for traditional suburban living will surely remain strong, but more options likely are to be in demand in the future.  The single-family house is not even close to being or becoming endangered, and there always will be a segment that desires this. The problem is that sprawl has lent itself to building only for that segment for the last 50 years or so.
-==-

I think it's ok to set new precedents. The development is targeting the commuter rail station, so people moving there are likely going to be using mass transit so the traffic impact won't be quite as bad as it sounds (I would think). Also, I'm a firm believer in Says Law: demand should be met with supply and the g'ment can go %$@#!&*. If there's a demand for more density, why not meet it? even if it sets a new precedent. Also, all cities had to set the high-density precedent at some point, why can't Mt. Juliet?

[PruneTracy]

All true, however, the developments that you've mentioned (Walmarts, subdivisions on former farm land, interstate shopping areas, etc.), aren't going to present an argument for added density in the city's center. Of course we can say "Lower density in town leads to this [inset whatever cheaply built, cookie cutter development]." and to some extent that's true, however, the majority of those developments wouldn't and shouldn't work in a city's center.

You're absolutely right. My question is why or how exactly those developments are more appropriate than this proposal. It's bewildering that the city, with the tacit approval of its planning staff, would want to dial back a five-story building with transit access in the city center while green-lighting townhouses and three-story apartments three miles away where cars are the only realistic transportation option. It made sense when it was simply a matter of letting developers do their thing but putting a foot down here defies reason.

I'm not for sure if I'm following you on the infrastructure comment, sorry for that. What I think you're saying is "Do to our need to plan for additional infrastructure needs, we proactively gobble up your lands."...this is kinda true and sometimes works, but it's more of "Give me your tax money and I'll build a sidewalk and oddly placed turning lane."

My point was that the city has typically allowed a certain level of development on the fringes of town without regard to whether the existing infrastructure could support it or even whether it could be improved feasibly in the future to properly support the level of approved development. Note that I'm not trying to pick on Mount Juliet; this is a trait of satellite cities throughout the region if not the country. But I don't really buy the idea that this particular proposal would place a strain on the city's infrastructure any more so than others that were approved and built outside the city center.

Of course additional density in town is smart, but it needs to be done correctly. I'm too concerned with five stories if it's adjacent to one or tow. Five stories adjacent to three also presents problems if in a neighborhood that has more of a low scale development pattern. No one realistically wants five stories in their neighborhood of one story homes. 

The bigger question is whether the level of density of Mount Juliet's nominal town center, especially relative to its fringe developments, is befitting of a suburb of 30,000. Of course, the citizens of that town are entitled to determine that themselves. But the Star station represents a huge missed opportunity by the city to enjoy the benefits of development without the costs associated with typical suburban sprawl.

RTA commuter rail service was a gift dropped in the lap of Wilson County. Simply by virtue of hosting a short line, its communities gained a level of access to the jobs and entertainment options in Nashville's CBD that other satellites, e.g., Franklin, Murfreesboro, etc., don't and maybe never will have. Every other suburb is married to the roads and subject to their congestion. Residents of downtown Mount Juliet and Lebanon could, theoretically, live in the 'burbs and work and play in one of the hottest cities in the nation, without the need to hop in a car and sit in traffic. But unfortunately the operative word is "theoretically" because thus far the only development intended to take advantage of it had to build its own station in an unincorporated area. Everyone else treats it as a glorified park-and-ride.

It's a waste.