Jump to content

The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread


TopTenn

Recommended Posts

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)

image.thumb.png.5648803330a022b287e8ce5da6bc970d.png

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.

image.thumb.png.1597c285cd40c7063345485228584c63.png

 

 

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

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites


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 by L'burgnative
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Bos2Nash
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by MLBrumby
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by BnaBreaker
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by L'burgnative
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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."

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
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.

×
×
  • 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.