Jump to content

The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread


Recommended Posts


  • Replies 8.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Well....those "clueless people" happened to do over 100 town halls (attended by over 10,000 people) and a tremendous amount of research in putting that proposal together that many folks happen to thin

There was another couple of articles in the NBJ. It was a both side of the coin approach, as Charles Robert Bone Pro and Joe Scarlett Con shared their views.  The one comment Scarlett proposed wa

The land bridge to which markhollin has referred was  formally proposed in 2016 by Metro, as a component of the  Gateway to Heritage Walking Improvements initiative.   This particular land bridge woul

Posted Images

On 2/21/2021 at 10:44 AM, PruneTracy said:

There is a TWLTL in the middle of the bridge that's obviously of limited utility, but the problem again if you were to eliminate the TWLTL is that the constraints and design speed won't allow you to taper the lanes to the inside and back quickly enough to take advantage of the width. Plus that would look goofy. So the typical section is, if not set in stone, then perhaps a soft stone or plaster.

Nothing worse than these useless - and dangerous - turn lanes!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
13 minutes ago, markhollin said:

A resolution has been set forth for a bike lane to connect downtown and East Nashville.  Needs funding.
 

Screen Shot 2021-03-02 at 1.54.55 PM.png

Screen Shot 2021-03-02 at 1.55.28 PM.png

Yahoo!! Let's be honest, this is the easiest and cheapest form of Mass Transit and should be an easy approval funding measure.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mayor Cooper's Dept. of Transportation idea faces hesitancy from Metro Council.

Cooper’s proposal to transfer garbage collection from the Department of Public Works to Metro Water Services and then rebrand public works as a new Department of Transportation is facing some pushback from the Metro Council, which at its Tuesday meeting decided to defer a decision on Cooper’s resolution.

More at the Nashville Post here:

https://www.nashvillepost.com/politics/metro-government/article/21146335/mayors-department-of-transportation-idea-faces-hesitancy

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, PaulChinetti said:

Hell yes, cap away!

I wonder if it would be possible to extend the cap to Jefferson Street and tunnel I40 under Jefferson Street?  I don't think this project would really be complete unless something like that happens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, rookzie said:

I immediately KNEW he was a REAL sicko when I read that headline.

Hey Rookzie, do you have any opinion on whether the CSX tracks through the heart of downtown would/could make a great 'core' for a rail system with stops through town? I don't know much about the eastern leg that stretches from the junction at (what is now) Capitol View, but this is all in the possible move that (rumored) CSX is studying to build a replacement for Radnor Yards somewhere to the south of Nashville. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, MLBrumby said:

Hey Rookzie, do you have any opinion on whether the CSX tracks through the heart of downtown would/could make a great 'core' for a rail system with stops through town? I don't know much about the eastern leg that stretches from the junction at (what is now) Capitol View, but this is all in the possible move that (rumored) CSX is studying to build a replacement for Radnor Yards somewhere to the south of Nashville. 

I'd have to take a chunk of time to formulate and "draft" an updated response to the Radnor relocation concept.  In the meantime I copy here what I posted on that issue in July 2016:

________________

 

On 7/5/2016 at 7:31 PM, rookzie said:

I'm actually a bit unresolved to think that a clear and conclusive solution lies with the goal of relocating Radnor within Middle Tenn.  Until I can hear or read about some well-defined rationale in a plan to handle the geographic movements of main-line freights through the area as a whole, then I really am not convinced of any real resolution with such a move.

Yes, Radnor itself would be gone, but that in and of itself does nothing to divert these movements passing through the city from the several railway sub-divisions ─ West, NNW, NNE, SE and South ─ spoking into CSXT Nashville Terminal, which includes Radnor.  Not all the movements passing through the city pass through Radnor, and in fact many bypass Radnor, so I don’t quite buy TDOT’s argument with Joffrion’s statement of the purported benefit of relocating Radnor for that purpose.  Nissan is not the only bread and butter in the region for CSXT, as there also is GM as well, in Spring Hill, on the S&NA (North and South Alabama Sub-Division).  Logistically, the freights on these various main-lines cannot be easily diverted around Nashville, without some major infrastructure addition or without some disadvantage to the carrier incurred with circuitous re-routing to bypass the city as, the tracks are now established, and nearly all these (if not actually all) routes provide a remote interchange point for freights with other lines (Memphis, Birmingham, Cincinnati, Louisville, Chicago, Chatta,...)

And this is only an aside from the mention of long-term "environmental" impact on the concentration of activities on the West- and East Banks of downtown (which pale in comparison to the around-the-clock activity of Radnor). Then there's the Cockrill Bend Industrial complex, which is no small operation.  All this customer base collectively constitutes rail activity which requires the classification procedures handled by a facility like Radnor, where freight cars to and from a major classification yard must be handled by local switching.  If they want to do away with Radnor, then they also need to deal with Kayne Ave in the Gulch, since Kayne is the primary staging point for local switching in the districts just mentioned, an intermediate point of handling for locally confined movements of cars to and from Radnor as the “final-“or “initial- terminal” break-up or assimilation of main-line trains.  To relocate Radnor, say, to Rutherford Co., would mean higher tariff rates to local customers for drayage and car spotting along stub spurs.  This could ramify favorably with the result of a CSXT election to abandon these local districts and with a takeover purchase by a regional short-line, such as the passenger-friendly Nashville and Eastern RR.

My point is that relocation of a major railroad facility as Radnor affects collaterally the remaining brick-and-mortar mercantile operations, which the city seems totally oblivious to within its own backyard.  The CSXT couldn’t really care less about the calculable effects on local business in Davidson Co., since it cares most about its lucrative mineral- and intermodal (containerized) movements. I’d be all for re-purposing Radnor, but not without a more comprehensive analysis of collateral ramifications on the local industrial eco-system, and TDOT and other proposal makers need to re-scope they vision, if they’re entertaining the concept with such a huge order of magnitude in funding.

 

 

In theory, the CSXT lines that radiate from the city (excluding the Radnor Cutoff bypass, Englewood to Radnor via Shelby Bottoms), *could* comprise an excellent framework for each of the long proposed corridors along those routes.  I also made previous mention long ago of a glaring, missed window of opportunity to coordinate redevelopment plans in the Gulch with commuter rail and or rapid transit.  Compared to commuter rail, light rail terminal in the Gulch might have been potentially the only viable consideration in the 2000s and the early 2010s, because such a network could have been planned and incrementally built, as CSX continued to sell off much of its industrial real estate back then.

But any ability to utilize existing rail RoW for either dedicated urban or "interurban" (commuter) rail virtually has remained unchanged now since that period, due to the enormous cost of funding infrastructure that would be acceptable to CSX, the city, and the Mid-State as a whole.  IMHO there simply isn't sufficient redundancy in CSX's divisions and sub-divisions which pass through this region.  That's a huge logistics constrain in its own right, let alone terminal interchange at Radnor or a relocation of such an operation within the Mid-State.  That redundancy existed along the Lower Great Lakes border and the Atlantic Seaboard regions, to the extent that much of it either was abandoned or more favorably approved for repurposing under concerted and consortial agreements by state governments and local agencies, such as with Virginia and Florida.

In summary, a lack of rail-route redundancy in this area, in conjunction with topographical constraints, and a relocation of Radnor seem to make highly unlikely the probability of transforming the city rail into a core system of regional travel.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I always wondered why didn't  Wilson county  grow nearly as much as Williamson, Montgomery, and Rutherford county.  The land is pretty flat,  close distance from Nashville ,  and the Music City Star is located there.  I don't know but if I had a real estate business that area would be a prime location. Wouldn't it just be simple as to build out the areas near the train stations? 

Link to post
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.