The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread

[vinemp]

On 2/3/2021 at 12:55 PM, Bos2Nash said:

I saw CityLab's post on instagram about this and considered posting about it. My mind also thought about which portion of highway could downtown remove effectively while maintaining certain vital connections. From an idealistic standpoint it would be great if we could remove the innerloop altogether and have 440 be the closest highway to the downtown core. That is unrealistic though. 

Here is my proposal based on the goal of dismantling our urban highways:

RED = Re-align and improve the 24/65 corridor that divides East Nashville from the East Bank. This was my first thought for a teardown, but if this stretch of freeway was to be removed, there isn't a ton of connections that can be re-created. Plus with developments such as River North, the redevelopment of the Truck Stop, Nissan Stadium Redevelopment and the future for PSC Metals, those will all be big money developments that will turn their back on the low income folks anyways.

Magenta = 440 and 40 become the same road and circulate around downtown to provie East/West connection. This would require a massive re-configuration of the 24/440/40 interchange along with Murfreesboro Road, but moving the East/West traffic out of downtown would be great.

BLUE = Removal of Interstate 65 extension. This provide the best chance to reconnect a decimated part of the city. North Nashville needs to have the street grid re-connected and those historic neighborhoods need to be woven back into the every day life of the city. The preferred route for drivers coming from the west and heading north would be to take Briley Parkway (see blue in second image).

GREEN = Removal of Interstate 65 from 440 to the Inner Loop. Redirect traffic east on 440/40 to connect to points north or east on 440/40 for points west. This will sow WeHo back together with the likes of Melrose and Edgehill.

CYAN = Removal of the inner loop entirely! There has been talk about the capping of this section, but that is unrealistic because the amount of ventilation and infrastructure that be needed (think Big Dig)

Obviously this would be a massive overhaul of our interstate system and would take someone an unfathomable amount of political power, but the benefits for our city - I think - would be tenfold. Sewing neighborhoods back together, expanding the plauisble footprint of our core and also remove alot of vehicle traffic out of the core. Not to mention the amount of land that could become available for actual taxable land that I'm sure the state would be able to solicit some big money for!

Here would would be an idea of what the core could look like with the inner loops whited out. Unrealistic in the grand scheme, but really not so far-fetched that it seems impossible.

 

 

You'd love the 'Plan of Nashville: Avenues to a Great City'...

[Bos2Nash]

34 minutes ago, vinemp said:

You'd love the 'Plan of Nashville: Avenues to a Great City'...

Haha I do. I own it in fact.

[LA_TN]

Remove all the exits on the loop. That would still allow through traffic to utilize that existing infrastructure

[L'burgnative]

Great plan if you want Nashville to be an even more of a traffic nightmare.  Sorry to be negative but just telling you what would happen.  The only Interstate I could see feasibly (maybe) going away without creating all Hell breaking loose on Nashville traffic would be what was I-265 if you reroute I-65 back where it was and still should be on the east side of the loop.  I know I still take the east side of the loop when I'm heading up north despite what the road signs tell me .  There's a saying I've heard; "architects don't care if it works as long as it looks good and engineers don't care if it looks good as long as it works" and being around both architects and engineers for a lot of my professional career I'm going to say there's very few truer sayings then that one.  You can tell "The Plan of Nashville" was done by a bunch of architects that SHOULD NOT be playing engineer.   Sure convert the interstates to wide boulevards, reconnect the broken road grid into those boulevards, add a gazillion red lights to all those intersections.  After about a month of all that stop and go from red light to red light I believe you'll be wishing for your interstates back.  Would you really rather take 8th Ave/Franklin Pike or I-65 down to Franklin and back, Murfreesboro Rd. with all its red lights and heavy congestion over I-24 down and back to the Boro?   You're essentially doing away with that option other than you're creating two Murfreesboro Rd's or two Elm Hill Pikes .  Interstates can handle SOOOOOO much more congestion than secondaries, if I was y'all I'd be wanting to keep your interstates.  What the inner loop needs is modernizing and ramp reconfiguration, sure as heck doesn't need to go away.  Interstate Shields on Briley so out of towner's not familier with Nashville might use it and go around the city rather than through it on the downtown loop.   Yes interstates create divide in neighborhoods but so does or can railroads and waterways, heck so can wide boulevards.

Edited February 11, 2021 by L'burgnative

[Bos2Nash]

17 hours ago, L'burgnative said:

Great plan if you want Nashville to be an even more of a traffic nightmare.  Sorry to be negative but just telling you what would happen.  The only Interstate I could see feasibly (maybe) going away without creating all Hell breaking loose on Nashville traffic would be what was I-265 if you reroute I-65 back where it was and still should be on the east side of the loop.  I know I still take the east side of the loop when I'm heading up north despite what the road signs tell me .  There's a saying I've heard; "architects don't care if it works as long as it looks good and engineers don't care if it looks good as long as it works" and being around both architects and engineers for a lot of my professional career I'm going to say there's very few truer sayings then that one.  You can tell "The Plan of Nashville" was done by a bunch of architects that SHOULD NOT be playing engineer.   Sure convert the interstates to wide boulevards, reconnect the broken road grid into those boulevards, add a gazillion red lights to all those intersections.  After about a month of all that stop and go from red light to red light I believe you'll be wishing for your interstates back.  Would you really rather take 8th Ave/Franklin Pike or I-65 down to Franklin and back, Murfreesboro Rd. with all its red lights and heavy congestion over I-24 down and back to the Boro?   You're essentially doing away with that option other than you're creating two Murfreesboro Rd's or two Elm Hill Pikes .  Interstates can handle SOOOOOO much more congestion than secondaries, if I was y'all I'd be wanting to keep your interstates.  What the inner loop needs is modernizing and ramp reconfiguration, sure as heck doesn't need to go away.  Interstate Shields on Briley so out of towner's not familier with Nashville might use it and go around the city rather than through it on the downtown loop.   Yes interstates create divide in neighborhoods but so does or can railroads and waterways, heck so can wide boulevards.

The biggest flaw in this argument, is I would get on 65 to drive south into Franklin in Berry Hill or I would jump on 24 to drive to Murfressboro via the existing interchange that wouldn't be removed. The only difference is I would use the eastern leg of the downtown loop to get to those highways. None of the above completely removes highways from Davidson County, but rather scales them back from the direct core. Interstates can handle more congestion then secondaries, DUH, but that doesn't mean the center of our city needs to be completely encircled by them.

I-440 remains in place and would become the primary east/west connector - Removing cars from the direct core. If you would like to divert traffic around downtown on Briley, why would downtown need interstates circling the entire downtown? The  above diagram has the furthest a person needing to drive from a locatio to a highway on ramp would be Metrocent or Buena Vista. But by removing the highway and reconnecting the street grid we would have a much easier time pushing the bounds of development, connecting transit and generating alot more connections to our neighborhoods

City Planners lean more toward the architecture side of things than the engineering sides. Just saying. Also sounds like you've been around alot of bad architects if they aren't caring about how things work. There is a fair number of folks on this board that demean architects as selfish egomaniacs and it gets old pretty quickly. One could also argue that most of the single family construction in this city is by contractors playing architects and then folks complain about the design of homes. Should contractors play designers, no, but they do anyways.

Edited February 11, 2021 by Bos2Nash

[MLBrumby]

I realize I'm about to make an umpopular comment, but the expressways really are needed. These days however, they can be built with a lot of buffers to the surrounding areas. Not looking at the past in which many neighborhoods were virtually destroyed (those neighborhoods in Nashville are now worth a 'pretty penny'), but looking ahead it's possible to put sound walls, caps over wide freeway canyons, relieve congestion, manage traffic flow (Smartway, HOV, express lanes etc.), and even dampen noise. It's just that Nashville has NOT done any of that. Not to mention that local expressway traffic would be a complete mess if certain segments are removed. Think about all the bottlenecks at exits when an accident happens on the Interstate. 

Edited February 11, 2021 by MLBrumby

[BnaBreaker]

5 hours ago, MLBrumby said:

I realize I'm about to make an umpopular comment, but the expressways really are needed. These days however, they can be built with a lot of buffers to the surrounding areas. Not looking at the past in which many neighborhoods were virtually destroyed (those neighborhoods in Nashville are now worth a 'pretty penny'), but looking ahead it's possible to put sound walls, caps over wide freeway canyons, relieve congestion, manage traffic flow (Smartway, HOV, express lanes etc.), and even dampen noise. It's just that Nashville has NOT done any of that. Not to mention that local expressway traffic would be a complete mess if certain segments are removed. Think about all the bottlenecks at exits when an accident happens on the Interstate. 

Yeah, the problem with a lot of Nashville's expressways is that they haven't really been upgraded since they were built in the sixties or seventies, and so instead of having efficient, compact, urban expressways you have these wide meandering parkways that take up huge swaths of land and have none of the trappings that make them palatable for those who live nearby.  The recent upgrade to 440 was definitely a step in the right direction, but much more needs to be done.  I'm of the mindset as well that we don't necessarily need to get rid of the expressway as a concept/tool altogether (although I'm not really sure what good Ellington Parkway is doing anyone,) we just need to find ways to build them so they aren't disruptive to the communities they are supposed to be serving, and we need to stop putting all of our transportation eggs in that one basket.

Edited February 12, 2021 by BnaBreaker

[markhollin]

Amongst many infrastructure upgrades being discussed by the new administration in Washington is talk of serious reconsideration of a High Speed Rail  Network in the continental states. Over the years, there have been several proposals for this that include Nashville as being part of routes (below are some maps).  This would  be a massive, decade-or-more undertaking...but if it were to happen, and Music City was chosen as part of a route, where would we put the terminal?
 

[smeagolsfree]

It depends if they are going to use existing track or if they are laying new tracks. If they are using existing tracks then the options would be limited to the corridor those tracks run. If they are going to lay new tracks then it could go anywhere, but the cost of laying new tracks is super expensive just for buying the land, so my guess is they will use existing track lines.

[markhollin]

I think with most high-speed rail, we're talking advanced tech that includes magnet propulsion in the lines, etc.  This administration is making a big commitment to green energy.  If we are looking at speeds of 200 mph range, then they would most likely be looking beyond traditional lines which would also not allow enough for the elongated curves necessary with higher speeds.  

[PillowTalk4]

6 hours ago, markhollin said:

I think with most high-speed rail, we're talking advanced tech that includes magnet propulsion in the lines, etc.  This administration is making a big commitment to green energy.  If we are looking at speeds of 200 mph range, then they would most likely be looking beyond traditional lines which would also not allow enough for the elongated curves necessary with higher speeds.  

The Biden administration will be exploring train expansion options and yes, that is supposed to include magnetic levitation rail systems.  The Northeast Maglev rail has been discussed for a couple of years now in the DC, MD, PA, NJ and NY areas.  There have been presentations on the proposed routes.  The site for the project claims in the FAQ section that the current proposed route between B'more to DC "involves no taking of houses, churches, schools or historical sites."  Some of the routes that were proposed would require the removal of homes and possibly churches and schools.  One even had a route that went straight through the campus of Bowie State University in Bowie, MD.  But, those maps are no longer available for viewing on their site.  Maybe they have isolated a few routes that follow the path of  the Baltimore-Washington Parkway.  But, I still don't understand how no homes, etc., wouldn't be impacted.  It's also important to note that unlike standard rails, maglev rails need stretches with minimal curves to sustain high speeds.  Winding routes are not desirable. That could be an issue in creating a route between Nashville and Atlanta because of the terrain between the two cities.

The initial response from people in the DC-MD area was negative when this was first announced.  Primarily because they learned that such rail systems are not like mass transportation rail systems that have multiple stops for locals.  People in the area had to be educated that this is for long-distance commuting.  Passengers on the Maglev could travel between DC and B'more in 15 minutes.  To drive that today would take about an hour to  1.5 hours depending on route and traffic.  The distance is about 40 miles, also depending on route.  The time to travel from DC to NYC would be about an hour on the Maglev.  That's normally a  4 hour trip depending on traffic.  It's like going from Nashville to Atlanta.  I think people in the area are starting to come around to the idea.  But, no specific routes have been announced and when that happens, I'm sure there will be plenty of issues from environmental groups and civic organizations.

[Baronakim]

On 2/12/2021 at 8:04 AM, markhollin said:

I think with most high-speed rail, we're talking advanced tech that includes magnet propulsion in the lines, etc.  This administration is making a big commitment to green energy.  If we are looking at speeds of 200 mph range, then they would most likely be looking beyond traditional lines which would also not allow enough for the elongated curves necessary with higher speeds.  

Interesting this should come up after so many years.  I was designing a maglev highspeed rail for this area  about 30 years ago.  I was the primary  archiect and was working with Secretery of Transportation Skinner in the Bush 1 administration.  The name of the project was Heartlands Worldport.  I think I coined that word.   We got around the land acquistion by putting the rail line 40 feet in the air and made the route through some very scenic parts of the country with air rights.  No crossing, no problem with high speed curves, as we were to be independant of existing rail.  The whole system had only 4 stops at the airports.  We held a big air conference at Opryland with him and the CEO of 6 European airlines .  We were looking to build a massive international airport down I 24 in Coffee County.   A key feaure was an elevated maglev system connecting O'Hare  to Heartlands (our proposal) on to Atlanta and Miami.  The idea was to use this system to distribute ALL eastern US international traffic to there and distibute to existing airports by air.  The maglev system our studies indicated at 300 mph, we could get passengers to O'Hare and south to Atlanta and beyond FASTER than taking  a  local flight.  The maglev trains would be boarded directly in the main terminal.  You can see the arc of the line in the rendering and a train departing at left.   All the ticketing such would be by interactive video with the staff in the 6 buildings.  The perspective of them is tricky as the teminal was to be built on a natural bluff feature of the site.  You don't see that the buildings actually step down another 8 stories to tie into the highway access below.   You can also see the Intermodal facility on the bottom of the plan.  The groupings closest to the terminal were for connections to the international flights and the one furtherest away was for domestic departures and arrivals.   The lounges were to be set up for digital I.D.  instead of having specific ones permanently for a specific airline.  A number of my concepts were adapted by several of the CEOs attending the conference into their own designs.  Sorry, I have not yet located the color renderings. These are preliminary  sketch perspectives.  To give an idea of scale the things in between the runways are the  boarding lounges which were to be accessed undergound on a people move system .  The baggage and ops would be the next level down.  Each of those 'mushrooms" in the blownup sketch serve four 747s  with two boarding arms  for each lounge as you see on the enlarged detail.  The runways were all to be 16,000 feet and eventually would serve as a spaceport for the shuttles.  What happened to the project was the economy went to hell in a handbasket  and the administration changed when Bush stepped down.  All of these designs were my sole design work.  I thought the flight tower was rather sexy.  Anyway, I was digging around in my old drawings and thought y'all might be interested.  BNA would have been VERY different if my proposal had come to fruition.

Answering a few questions from MLBrumby here as well as editing for future questions.    Ticketing and baggage were tied by an early version of card reading. Upon arrival your checkin bags would be delivered directly to the proper lounge pod/ flight.  Arrivals would enter their e-pass and designate to which domestic flight necessary.  Local departures or maglev would be directed to the proper entities.  The parking proposed was very like the mechanical parking stacks common now.  When you arrive from a trip, you inserted your e-pass and your baggage and your car would be automatically sent to your chosen exit for depatuture to regular highways or maglev inside the main teminal if taking that option  All of this was underground and automatic and only accessible to staff and customs (on the way to the terminal).  Why this location?  Studies indicated that this large area of Middle Tennesse was one of the clearest areas for all the flight patterns required for a new port of this scale .  Also he topography was mostly flat or so.  The project was aboout 28 square miles in all.. This facility was to be one of only two on this continent.  Mostly we were dealing at the federal level, so there was no specific Tennesse sponser other than an interface with the Governer's office.  As we were outside of Tennessee's four major cities, we bypassed them in essence., Too many fingers in the pie or screw it up.  Security, the interfaces were on the 3 big main people-moving tunnels.  This was way before the shoe bomber and the current bottlenecks of security.  It would have had to have been rethought for the specific aspects, but I don't think it would have been insurmountable.  A BIG reason for locating it here also was the land was cheap for outright purchase and we had a initiated a program we had started having big landowners get a share of the profits in exchange for rural land commital...a form of partnrship really.  We were actually in progress of land acquisation by such means to commit.  Most of that was handled by others...I dealt entirely with design.  Oh, MLB...not 45...99, each with 4 departure lounges for a total of 396 gates assignable.  Another big problem was that all of this is hand drawn.    Cad was just comming into its own in the larger firms we expected to hire for design development, but I had to do all of this myself by hand.  What a job!

Edited February 13, 2021 by Baronakim
additional comments

[MLBrumby]

That's pretty cool, but several questions:

How efficient would it have been to have the 45 different ports for baggage handling, passenger movement, security, etc.? 

Why Middle Tennessee?  Was the Bush Administration really serious about this? Who from Tennessee was the sponsor?

My beef for anything Nashville hopes to accomplish regardint transit is they are so backward in their approach.  The Federal Government doesn't just award DOT grants without a solid, developed plan.  Nashville has had NO PLAN for decades, and when they pull a semblance of one together, it's never taken seriously and never gets priority.  Knowing how Jim Cooper has never made mass transit a priority in his district, I think it's a longshot that his brother would do so. 

[GregH]

That is very interesting but also completely insane.

[L'burgnative]

On 2/11/2021 at 3:08 PM, Bos2Nash said:

The biggest flaw in this argument, is I would get on 65 to drive south into Franklin in Berry Hill or I would jump on 24 to drive to Murfressboro via the existing interchange that wouldn't be removed. The only difference is I would use the eastern leg of the downtown loop to get to those highways. None of the above completely removes highways from Davidson County, but rather scales them back from the direct core. Interstates can handle more congestion then secondaries, DUH, but that doesn't mean the center of our city needs to be completely encircled by them.

I-440 remains in place and would become the primary east/west connector - Removing cars from the direct core. If you would like to divert traffic around downtown on Briley, why would downtown need interstates circling the entire downtown? The  above diagram has the furthest a person needing to drive from a locatio to a highway on ramp would be Metrocent or Buena Vista. But by removing the highway and reconnecting the street grid we would have a much easier time pushing the bounds of development, connecting transit and generating alot more connections to our neighborhoods

City Planners lean more toward the architecture side of things than the engineering sides. Just saying. Also sounds like you've been around alot of bad architects if they aren't caring about how things work. There is a fair number of folks on this board that demean architects as selfish egomaniacs and it gets old pretty quickly. One could also argue that most of the single family construction in this city is by contractors playing architects and then folks complain about the design of homes. Should contractors play designers, no, but they do anyways.

I understood what you meant that the interstates would remain from I-440 and Briley out but what I'm saying you're creating a traffic nightmare from I-440 and Briley in.  It would be gridlock from intersection to intersection till you got to the interstate loop.  Don't handcuff Downtown for the sake of "Urbanism," Nashville's not New York, Chicago or some European city.  Nashville is and always will to be a car concentric city until the time comes that Scotty can beam us up.  Even when or if Nashville gets some form of a transit system Nashville will remain a car concentric city.   

I'd also like to add this potential scenario,  you remove the interstates to and from downtown and you effectively make downtown less accessible you just might kill downtown and any future development.  Developers might start looking more in the areas along  I-440 or Briley.  Developers are going to want good access to and from there developments.  You'd might start seeing what you see in Atlanta along I-285 where you have pockets of large business parks with high rises that had access to downtown not been cut off they might of been in downtown instead.  I know Atlanta has interstates to downtown, that's not the point but instead just using Atlanta's I-285 as an example of what I'd expect to see along I-440 and Briley if you lose interstate access to downtown.

I don't disrespect Architects at all, in fact since I was about 6 years old I always said I wanted to be one but unfortunately today I'm not.  I'm just saying it's best to let the Architects do architectural work  and the Engineers do the engineering.  Y'all are smart people!

Edited February 13, 2021 by L'burgnative

[smeagolsfree]

I am doing a lot of tweaks and upgrades to the development map and these tow of these I have already added to the map.  Time line TBD

One is the two phase complete street project planned for Nolensville road from Burkitt Road to OHB.

State Route 11 (Nolensville Road) (tn.gov)

The other is the Donelson Pike I 40 interchange and realignment of Donelson Pike. The timeline states that is supposed to start this year.

I-40 Donelson Pike Interchange (tn.gov)

Another project I have yet to add to the map is the  I 24 Smart Corridor project. Time line states to be completed in 2024.

I-24 SMART Corridor (tn.gov)

I forgot to add this one Wedgewood & I 65interchange improvements.

I-65 Wedgewood Ave Interchange (tn.gov)

[markhollin]

The state is poised to tear down and replace the bridge serving as the main gateway into the center of downtown Nashville.

The state Department of Transportation expects to make one of two key hires within the next month, selecting an engineering company to provide a number of services including design work. The state will then select a contractor — which will build a new bridge on Broadway.

An average of 26,000 vehicles drive daily across the existing bridge, which is the widest and most traveled of the three bridges spanning the CSX railroad tracks that cut through downtown. This part of Broadway will close for months in both directions, starting at some point in 2022.

The bridge, built in the mid-1940s, is reaching the end of its lifespan. The new bridge will last 75 years to 100 years, said Ted Kniazewycz, director of TDOT's structures division.

The work will cost in the range of $40 million to $50 million and is fully funded through the state's bridge replacement program.

Seven engineering firms responded to the state's solicitation. Final design could be solidified in early 2022, with construction finished in late 2023, according to state documents.

Because the bridge was built primarily with structural steel, it isn't possible to keep part of it open while construction crews demolish and rebuild another part, Kniazewycz said. The state is using "accelerated bridge construction techniques" to minimize the shutdown, akin to TDOT's 2015 "Fast Fix 8" project that replaced eight bridges over the course of 10 weekend closures.

More at NBJ here:

https://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2021/02/18/tdot-broadway-bridge-replacement.html?cx_testId=40&cx_testVariant=cx_34&cx_artPos=2#cxrecs_s

 

 

[nashvylle]

It's sad that the new bridge will look the same. There is a great opportunity for a distinctive design for this location... and it doesnt have to cost a billion to do it (IE don't make the design structural). 

[smeagolsfree]

Needless to say this is going to be painful when it shuts down for several months. Maybe they will works night and day 24/7  to get it finished sooner rather than later. 

 

[gannman]

16 hours ago, markhollin said:

The state is poised to tear down and replace the bridge serving as the main gateway into the center of downtown Nashville.

The state Department of Transportation expects to make one of two key hires within the next month, selecting an engineering company to provide a number of services including design work. The state will then select a contractor — which will build a new bridge on Broadway.

An average of 26,000 vehicles drive daily across the existing bridge, which is the widest and most traveled of the three bridges spanning the CSX railroad tracks that cut through downtown. This part of Broadway will close for months in both directions, starting at some point in 2022.

The bridge, built in the mid-1940s, is reaching the end of its lifespan. The new bridge will last 75 years to 100 years, said Ted Kniazewycz, director of TDOT's structures division.

The work will cost in the range of $40 million to $50 million and is fully funded through the state's bridge replacement program.

Seven engineering firms responded to the state's solicitation. Final design could be solidified in early 2022, with construction finished in late 2023, according to state documents.

Because the bridge was built primarily with structural steel, it isn't possible to keep part of it open while construction crews demolish and rebuild another part, Kniazewycz said. The state is using "accelerated bridge construction techniques" to minimize the shutdown, akin to TDOT's 2015 "Fast Fix 8" project that replaced eight bridges over the course of 10 weekend closures.

More at NBJ here:

https://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2021/02/18/tdot-broadway-bridge-replacement.html?cx_testId=40&cx_testVariant=cx_34&cx_artPos=2#cxrecs_s

 

 

 

 

Also from the article:

"We'll take aesthetics into consideration and work with Metro Nashville to see what's important to them. We think shortening the closure is going to be more important at this location, to get traffic back and get the bridge in service for all those developments on the four corners of the bridge."

[CenterHill]

9 hours ago, gannman said:

 

Also from the article:

"We'll take aesthetics into consideration and work with Metro Nashville to see what's important to them. We think shortening the closure is going to be more important at this location, to get traffic back and get the bridge in service for all those developments on the four corners of the bridge."

ie, you can have a nice looking bridge or you can have a fast bridge, but not both

[henburg]

At the very least, there needs to be much wider sidewalks and some kind of pedestrian buffer.  If they can accomplish that, then I'll settle for a clone of the original unremarkable design.

 

 

[FrankNash]

^^^Plus multiple arches under the bridge that are made of limestone.  

[PruneTracy]

20 hours ago, henburg said:

At the very least, there needs to be much wider sidewalks and some kind of pedestrian buffer.  If they can accomplish that, then I'll settle for a clone of the original unremarkable design.

Part of the problem with increasing the pedestrian space is that the bridge is constrained not only by Nashville Yards and whatever goes on the Tennessean site but also Union Station, which is NRHP-protected. The bridge currently abuts Union Station (there's an emergency exit door that goes onto the sidewalk) so it can't be any wider on the south side, and Nashville Yards (including the ramp down to their park) constrains it on the north side.

FYI you can see the planning report for the bridge here:

https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/tdot/construction/cmgc--projects/cmgc_sr1_davidson/124238-00-TIR-Bridge_SIGNED_PJE_12-9-20.pdf

The report recommends the addition of a 4' furnishing zone on the north side but the sidewalk widths remain the same.

[markhollin]

Expanded diagrams from the document above that PruneTracy provided: