The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread

[Bos2Nash]

I agree that an overhaul of the overpasses and laying new track within the ROW is probably the only way to get additional rail on the lines. We would never see heavy rail (which to me is a third rail powered train) within this close proximity of the CSX freight lines (at least without additional separation protection), but a regional rail type setup (ie WeGo Star) could slip into the ROW with the improvements Baronakim is laying out. Ideally the regional rail would be EMU powered locomotives, but this would required electrification of the service which is a bullet that I don't think anyone would want to touch.

An overall of rail and highway is a necessity for our city's continued success. And ultimately it may come with the price tag of Boston's Big Dig. The Big Dig was originally planned all the way back in the early 80's (yes actually way back then) with an original price tag of around $14 million (which after design later in the decade shifted to $2.8 billion), by the time that the state got through EIRs in the 80s and pulled the trigger on construction in the 90's and finished construction, that cost ballooned to $14.5 billion! The received $7 billion in aid from the federal government and borrowed the rest. After factoring in interest and transit commitments, that final cost is at $24.3 billion!! The state of Massachusetts will be paying the debt until 2038. Here is an interesting article about breaking down a very complex project.

All this being said, what Nashville is looking at with its rail, roads and infrastructure is going to be even more daunting very quickly. We have a very limited amount of tax revenue (compared to the states) and a political viewpoint that clearly illustrates they don't want to invest in these things. I think we are very quickly approaching a tipping point...

[PruneTracy]

2 hours ago, Baronakim said:

However, I have walked the tracks downtown for many years and know that the R.O.W.  is perfectly adequate for additional tracks especially since the switchyard in the Gulch is likely to be closed down to two through tracks. 

43 minutes ago, Bos2Nash said:

I agree that an overhaul of the overpasses and laying new track within the ROW is probably the only way to get additional rail on the lines.

It probably won't come as a surprise, but CSX has pretty stringent requirements for track separation with adjoining facilities.

For the WeGo transit studies they have been asking for 65' separation between track centerlines (this is to accommodate potential future tracks, but they still require at least 50' between freight and passenger rail). They also require crash walls (think highway median barriers on steroids and I'm sure about a thousand times as expensive) where the separation is less than 40'.

For reference, the South Corridor study's commuter rail option would need about 12 miles of crash wall (a quarter of the route) and this is with liberal acquisition of new ROW.

Interestingly, outside of requiring a use agreement, they don't seem to have much of a problem with outside parties building tracks on their ROW, as long as the separation requirements are observed.

[BnaBreaker]

4 hours ago, Bos2Nash said:

I agree that an overhaul of the overpasses and laying new track within the ROW is probably the only way to get additional rail on the lines. We would never see heavy rail (which to me is a third rail powered train) within this close proximity of the CSX freight lines (at least without additional separation protection), but a regional rail type setup (ie WeGo Star) could slip into the ROW with the improvements Baronakim is laying out. Ideally the regional rail would be EMU powered locomotives, but this would required electrification of the service which is a bullet that I don't think anyone would want to touch.

An overall of rail and highway is a necessity for our city's continued success. And ultimately it may come with the price tag of Boston's Big Dig. The Big Dig was originally planned all the way back in the early 80's (yes actually way back then) with an original price tag of around $14 million (which after design later in the decade shifted to $2.8 billion), by the time that the state got through EIRs in the 80s and pulled the trigger on construction in the 90's and finished construction, that cost ballooned to $14.5 billion! The received $7 billion in aid from the federal government and borrowed the rest. After factoring in interest and transit commitments, that final cost is at $24.3 billion!! The state of Massachusetts will be paying the debt until 2038. Here is an interesting article about breaking down a very complex project.

All this being said, what Nashville is looking at with its rail, roads and infrastructure is going to be even more daunting very quickly. We have a very limited amount of tax revenue (compared to the states) and a political viewpoint that clearly illustrates they don't want to invest in these things. I think we are very quickly approaching a tipping point...

Hold on... the original cost estimate for The Big Dig was only $14 million?  I mean I know it's only an estimate and projects like that commonly compound in price as it actually comes to fruition and work moves forward, but that just seems like a comically horrendous estimate!  1980 was awhile ago, but it's not like inflation would change the equation to that extent.  $14 million is the sort of cost estimate I would expect to see for project on that scale if it were done in like 1750.  

Edited January 13, 2022 by BnaBreaker

[Bos2Nash]

52 minutes ago, BnaBreaker said:

Hold on... the original cost estimate for The Big Dig was only $14 million?  I mean I know it's only an estimate and projects like that commonly compound in price as it actually comes to fruition and work moves forward, but that just seems like a comically horrendous estimate!  1980 was awhile ago, but it's not like inflation would change the equation to that extent.  $14 million is the sort of cost estimate I would expect to see for project on that scale if it were done in like 1750.  

That was a figure I remember hearing years ago at least. That may have been a political pitch price tag (as I cant find anything lower than the 2.5/2.8 billion estimate). 

The mega-project has spurred countless "best-practice" articles, but this one I just found specifically looks at the cost estimate and its inflation.

https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/practices-mega-project-cost-estimating-6668

[andywildman]

I love daydreaming like this. Nashville needs one of two things to make big rail (light or heavy): development density along corridors or a park and ride culture. Worsening congestion could help fuel the latter but it’ll take some “years ahead” planning to zone, incentivize, and build real transit oriented development, both in Davidson and surrounding counties.

Right now and in the next five to eight years, I think that really only downtown, midtown, an airport connector, and maybe Murfreesboro and Gallatin Pikes have the density and ridership to support rail. But once it proves successful, I think there will be appetite to continue expansion (billions of dollars and decades after it is truly needed).

 

[rookzie]

On 1/13/2022 at 9:24 AM, Baronakim said:

One of the things most folks are not seeing about the CSX tracks has nothing to do with sharing the tracks with freight traffic.  That is a non starter in my opinion completely.  However, I have walked the tracks downtown for many years and know that the R.O.W.  is perfectly adequate for additional tracks especially since the switchyard in the Gulch is likely to be closed down to two through tracks.  It would be extremely expensive as far as having to construct new overpasses at major choke points and there is NO solution really for the swing bridge over the river.  However... building a modern railroad beside the  existing low trestles like at 8th and on Gallatin Pike could be built higher and longer span to also eliminate the chokepoints of the automobile traffic as well.  There would have to be some design of switching  for the swing bridge which I do not think is going to  be replaceable (at least without shutting down river traffic  of a height that would  require opening the bridge so a new bridge could be built alongside.  I don't think switching would be a big issue during construction and replacement as the trains cross the existing bridge at very low speeds. This would also be difficult at times of high water too.   This is all IMO physically possible but these upgrades would vastly improve conditions for CSX as well as for commuter rail and highway traffic.  These CSX rail lines through Nashville were first laid before the Civil War.  All of these suggestions are technically similar in scale and costs to the BNA runway built over the highway at Murfresboro Pike.  One thing is clear to me though, if these issues are not addressed and solved now, nothing will change for another century or two.  This would be rather like Nashville's version (in scale of construction) of Boston's "Big Dig" I would think.     It is time to bite the bullet and rebuild it now.

 

Pardon me for coming out of thin air.

As far as the railroad swing bridge is concerned, there's simply no way feasible that it can me made to accommodate anything other than CSX freights, Amtrak  passenger rail, and possibly railroad-type FRA-compliant (Federal Railway Admin) commuter rail, such that of the WEGO Star.

FRA-compliant commuter rail volume still might need a dedicated bridge, due to the fact that the existing swing bridge through-trusses were built only wide enough to accommodate a single track.  So naturally it's a bottleneck, even for freights ─ a scenario I have observed as a daily norm based on CSX logistics along its entire network east of the Miss. River.  Sadly, the original owner of that bridge ─ the Louisville & Nashville RR ─ elected to build the span as single track, as with most of its other bridges in parts of the South.  Trains often are held stopped on either approach of the bridge, for opposing movements to clear.  The only way to build a fixed span bridge dedicated for FRA-compliant commuter rail, would be to construct long approaches to either end of the bridge, since such equipment generally cannot run along steep grades required for an ascent to the fixed span with required navigational towing clearance.   The approaches to a fixed-span bridge would have to be quite lengthy ─ likely an improbably-surmountable hurdle of approval more than the physical bridge height itself, given that the western approach would have to be built in the downtown area.  The state legislature might even fight such a plan.

Swing bridges are generally obsolete, because they often pose as navigational hazards ─ as the U.S. Coast Guard will be the first to exclaim ─ because their center (pivot) pier reduces the effective width of a shipping channel to less than one-half the distance between the inner piers of the fixed bridge spans.  What could be one large wide shipping channel has to be made into two separate channels, on either side of the open swing span, the width of which itself takes reduces navigational lateral clearance.  Swing bridges also are the slowest in mechanical operation.

The only feasible type of bridge that could serve FRA-compliant commuter rail would likely would have to be a movable-span bridge ─ most likely a vertical-lift bridge ─ with two end towers to hoist the movable span vertically.  Since the early 1980s, only two such bridges remain in the entire state ─ one between McEwen and New Johnsonville, and one at Chickamauga ─ both spanning the Tennessee River.  Vertical-lifts are more common along intra-coastal areas (NY, NJ, VA, FL, WA, OR, CA), as well as over rivers near the Great Lakes (Duluth, Chicago, Cleveland,...) and the Gulf region (LA, TX).  A few can be spotted inland, as with the two in TN.  While vertical-lift bridges provide the most height and width in navigational clearance, one the biggest issue is that they require towers, the appearance of which often is objectionable, particularly to naysayers in public office.  A second issue is cost, as they have more complex machinery with also requires more maintenance.  New vertical-lift bridges have been built during recent decades, often to replace severely deteriorated swing bridges and bascule leaf ("jackknife)" bridges, but new swing bridges just are no longer constructed anymore, as far as I'm aware.

Now as far as heavy-rail transit (subway/metro-like equipment with power 3rd-rail) and light-rail are concerned, a fixed bridge indeed would be more feasible and could be built more amenable to the landscape of downtown.  Two examples of such bridges for light rail and heavy-rail are the Tilikum Crossing (Portland, OR) ─ for bus, cyclists, pedestrians, and emergency vehicles only, with light rail ─ and the Skybridge (Vancouver, BC CAN), dedicated for the Translink Skytrain.  These bridges were built with a slightly arched deck, which can be easily negotiated by the types of trains that traverse them.  They're no good for freights or FRA-compliant commuter rail.  The only exception might be with electrified self-propelled equipment, such as with Chicago's Metra Electric, Northern Indiana's line Chicago to South Bend, Denver's RTD A-Line, and (some of) Philly's SEPTA Regional rail.  Such equipment could serve and has been in such service along grades not readily handled by locomotive-hauled trains.

As I see it, the swing bridge just cant be used for commuter rail coexisting with CSX freights ─ nor do I see it as being capable of being modified for such.  Even replacement with a new center (swing) span would not be feasible, given the condition and size and condition of the pivot pier, and the pivoting machinery, and the pier would have to be strengthened and enlarged in place.   Also, it would be a bit tricky to build a bridge of any kind parallel and close to the swing bridge, which must remain operable at anytime.  Any new bridge would have to be erected at a point at least the distance from the center span to the *dolphin* ─ that cylindrical steel-piling structure filled with concrete and positioned upstream of the bridge ─ the purpose of which is to minimize the chance of allision against the center pier by a towing movement (barges).  That alone presents yet another problem.   All new double-tracked spans *could* be pre-fab'd and floated to the site for replacement, so that would be no big issue, and some monetary deal to cover lost revenue and operating expenses would need to be worked out with CSX to persuade it to reroute traffic into and from CSX Nashville Terminal through the Radnor Yard and the Radnor Cutoff bridge (Shelby Bottoms) through East Nashville to bypass the site temporarily.  The Cutoff trestle and bridge also are single-track, so some traffic would have to be bypassed with other means and routes systemwide, away from the region entirely.  But with all that trouble, it still would be best in the long run to build a new vertical-lift bridge at the site ─ again, possibly a political issue at stake, even if funding could be garnered to entice CSX. 

A few years in the past, I mentioned the need of some dedicated transit bridge somehow connecting the west bank to the east side.  With no coordination and collaborative efforts among all stakeholders (Metro, Oracle, ...), there seems little chance of taking advantage of opportune timing of proposals.  I do recall that the now long-stillborn Maytown proposal was stipulated to require a bridge dedicated to transit.

Edited January 18, 2022 by rookzie

[donNdonelson2]

1 hour ago, rookzie said:

Pardon me for coming out of thin air.

As far as the railroad swing bridge is concerned, there's simply no way feasible that it can me made to accommodate anything other than CSX freights, Amtrak  passenger rail, and possibly railroad-type FRA-compliant (Federal Railway Admin) commuter rail, such that of the WEGO Star.

FRA-compliant commuter rail volume still might need a dedicated bridge, due to the fact that the existing swing bridge through-trusses were built only wide enough to accommodate a single track.  So naturally it's a bottleneck, even for freights ─ a scenario I have observed as a daily norm based on CSX logistics along its entire network east of the Miss. River.  Sadly, the original owner of that bridge ─ the Louisville & Nashville RR ─ elected to build the span as single track, as with most of its other bridges in parts of the South.  Trains often are held stopped on either side of the bridge for opposite movements to clear.  The only way to build a fixed span bridge dedicated for FRA-compliant commuter rail, would be to construct long approaches to either end of the bridge, since such equipment generally cannot run along steep grades required for an ascent to the fixed span with required navigational towing clearance.   The approaches to a fixed-span bridge would have to be quite lengthy ─ probably an improbably surmountable hurdle of approval more than the physical bridge height itself, given that the western approach would have to be built in the downtown area.  The state legislature might even fight such a plan.

Swing bridges are generally obsolete, because they often pose as navigational hazards ─ as the U.S. Coast Guard will be the first to exclaim ─ because their center (pivot) pier reduces the effective width of a shipping channel to less than one-half the distance between the inner piers of the fixed bridge spans.  What could be one large wide shipping channel has to be made into two separate channels, on either side of the open swing span, the width of which itself takes reduces navigational lateral clearance.  Swing bridges also are the slowest in mechanical operation.

The only feasible type of bridge that could serve FRA-compliant commuter rail would likely would have to be a movable-span bridge ─ most likely a vertical-lift bridge ─ with two end towers to hoist the movable span vertically.  Since the early 1980s, only two such bridges remain in the entire state ─ one between McEwen and New Johnsonville, and one at Chickamauga ─ both spanning the Tennessee River.  Vertical-lifts are more common along intra-coastal areas (NY, NJ, VA, FL, WA, OR, CA), as well as over rivers near the Great Lakes (Duluth, Chicago, Cleveland,...) and the Gulf region (LA, TX).  A few can be spotted inland, as with the two in TN.  While vertical-lift bridges provide the most height and width in navigational clearance, one the biggest issue is that they require towers, the appearance of which often is objectionable, particularly to naysayers in public office.  A second issue is cost, as they have more complex machinery with also requires more maintenance.  New vertical-lift bridges have been built during recent decades, often to replace severely deteriorated swing bridges and bascule leaf ("jackknife)" bridges, but new swing bridges just are no longer constructed anymore, as far as I'm aware.

Now as far as heavy-rail transit (subway/metro-like equipment with power 3rd-rail) and light-rail are concerned, a fixed bridge indeed would be more feasible and could be built more amenable to the landscape of downtown.  Two examples of such bridges for light rail and heavy-rail are the Tilikum Crossing (Portland, OR) ─ for bus, cyclists, pedestrians, and emergency vehicles only, with light rail ─ and the Skybridge (Vancouver, BC CAN), dedicated for the Translink Skytrain.  These bridges were built with a slightly arched deck, which can be easily negotiated by the types of trains that traverse them.  They're no good for freights or FRA-compliant commuter rail.  The only exception might be with electrified self-propelled equipment, such as with Chicago's Metra Electric, Northern Indiana's line Chicago to South Bend, Denver's RTD A-Line, and (some of) Philly's SEPTA Regional rail.  Such equipment could serve and has been in such service along grades not readily handled by locomotive-hauled trains.

As I see it, the swing bridge just cant be used for commuter rail coexisting with CSX freights ─ nor do I see it as being capable of being modified for such.  Even replacement with a new center (swing) span would not be feasible, given the condition and size and condition of the pivot pier, and the pivoting machinery, and the pier would have to be strengthened and enlarged in place.   Also, it would be a bit tricky to build a bridge of any kind parallel and close to the swing bridge, which must remain operable at anytime.  Any new bridge would have to be erected at a point at least the distance from the center span to the *dolphin* ─ that cylindrical steel-piling structure filled with concrete and positioned upstream of the bridge ─ the purpose of which is to minimize the chance of allision against the center pier by a towing movement (barges).  That alone presents yet another problem.   All new double-tracked spans *could* be pre-fab'd and floated to the site for replacement, so that would be no big issue, and some monetary deal to cover lost revenue and operating expenses would need to be worked out with CSX to persuade it to reroute traffic into and from CSX Nashville Terminal through the Radnor Yard and the Radnor Cutoff bridge (Shelby Bottoms) through East Nashville to bypass the site temporarily.  The Cutoff trestle and bridge also is a single track bridge, so some traffic would have to be bypassed with other means and routes systemwide, away from the region entirely.  But with all that trouble, it still would be best in the long run to build a new vertical-lift bridge at the site ─ again, possibly a political issue at stake, even if funding could be garnered to entice CSX. 

A few years in the past, I mentioned the need of some dedicated transit bridge somehow connecting the west bank to the east side.  With no coordination and collaborative efforts among all stakeholders (Metro, Oracle, ...), there seems little chance of taking advantage of opportune timing of proposals.  I do recall that the now long-stillborn Maytown proposal was stipulated to require a bridge dedicated to transit.

As a point of clarification, one of the lift bridges you reference is located at New Johnsonville where highway 70 crosses the Tennessee River/Kentucky Lake.

(I have family nearby and see that rusty old bridge frequently.)

photo and google map images from bridgehunters.com

[rookzie]

13 hours ago, donNdonelson2 said:

As a point of clarification, one of the lift bridges you reference is located at New Johnsonville where highway 70 crosses the Tennessee River/Kentucky Lake.

(I have family nearby and see that rusty old bridge frequently.)

photo and google map images from bridgehunters.com

 

Yes that's the one.

It was floated uptream for the big land-impounding project that created the KY Lake reservoir during the early-mid 1940s, and that inundated the site of the "old" Johnsonville ─ a fact you already must be aware of.  Originally, the New Johnsonville bridge  had been built in Kentucky, for the Illinois Central RR's Paducah-to-Louisville line.  The impoundment for the KY Dam and the lake, meant relocation of that line to cross along the dam itself, and the Nashville Chattanooga & St. Louis Ry (merged with the Louisville & Nashville in 1957) acquired it for its own use, where it has remained since.

A third vertical-lift not mentioned earlier got "stolen" by CSX conglomerate in the early '80s.  It had been located at the unincorporated podunk of "Danville", and since the L&N had abandoned that route in 1981, the lift-span and towers with counterweights and machinery, along with at least one fixed span, underwent a rehab and were floated upstream and reassembled at Bridgeport, AL.  So now they have OUR bridge.  Here it is shown during re-hab with freshly cleaned towers and lift-span prime coated.

Edited January 18, 2022 by rookzie

[Armacing]

To me it's obvious the solution in Nashville is water-based transportation.  Look at what they have been doing with commuter ferries in Lagos, Nigeria.  We need small commuter ferries and water taxies on the rivers, lakes, and navigable creeks around Nashville, as well as dredging in places to expand the range of said ferries.   

To connect Percy Priest Lake with the Stones river downstream of the dam we need a bi-cable gondola lift with ferry stations at either end.

Percy Priest ferries should extend all the way to Smyrna and "North Murfreesboro" via a deepened channel in the Stones River.  Maybe even all the way into downtown Murfreesboro via the Stones River with the right water flow system and changing boats a couple times.

Old Hickory Lake ferries should extend all the way to Gallatin, and service Hendersonville and Hermitage.  I'm not sure if the ferries would use the lock at Old Hickory or if another bi-cable gondola lift would be more efficient.

On the Cumberland river, ferries would service Goodlettsville/RiverGate,  Stones River/Percy Priest connection, Madison, Opry Mills, Downtown (WeGo rail station docks), Oracle/River North, Metro Center, TSU, The Nations, Ashland City, and Clarksville.

Building out the navigable waterways and gondolas will be cheaper and faster than acquiring rights-of-way on land and building bridges and tunnels.  There would be less disruption during construction, and docks are cheaper than transit stations.  There are plenty of vacant plots along the waterways for building docks.  And the best part of all is that the system could accommodate multiple companies all competing to provide service.  Some boats would target price competitiveness, others would target luxury and be floating limousines.  This could also encourage development along the riverfront in multiple places.

The only downside to such a system is that there is no obvious way to connect the airport to the system.  Possibly a connection to Percy Priest in some capacity?

 

[smeagolsfree]

19 hours ago, Armacing said:

To me it's obvious the solution in Nashville is water-based transportation.  Look at what they have been doing with commuter ferries in Lagos, Nigeria.  We need small commuter ferries and water taxies on the rivers, lakes, and navigable creeks around Nashville, as well as dredging in places to expand the range of said ferries.   

To connect Percy Priest Lake with the Stones river downstream of the dam we need a bi-cable gondola lift with ferry stations at either end.

Percy Priest ferries should extend all the way to Smyrna and "North Murfreesboro" via a deepened channel in the Stones River.  Maybe even all the way into downtown Murfreesboro via the Stones River with the right water flow system and changing boats a couple times.

Old Hickory Lake ferries should extend all the way to Gallatin, and service Hendersonville and Hermitage.  I'm not sure if the ferries would use the lock at Old Hickory or if another bi-cable gondola lift would be more efficient.

On the Cumberland river, ferries would service Goodlettsville/RiverGate,  Stones River/Percy Priest connection, Madison, Opry Mills, Downtown (WeGo rail station docks), Oracle/River North, Metro Center, TSU, The Nations, Ashland City, and Clarksville.

Building out the navigable waterways and gondolas will be cheaper and faster than acquiring rights-of-way on land and building bridges and tunnels.  There would be less disruption during construction, and docks are cheaper than transit stations.  There are plenty of vacant plots along the waterways for building docks.  And the best part of all is that the system could accommodate multiple companies all competing to provide service.  Some boats would target price competitiveness, others would target luxury and be floating limousines.  This could also encourage development along the riverfront in multiple places.

The only downside to such a system is that there is no obvious way to connect the airport to the system.  Possibly a connection to Percy Priest in some capacity?

 

To say this would be faster is somewhat absurd, as the speed limits are restricted by the Corp of Engineers as well as the amount of traffic that would be allowed. General commerce i.e. barges take priority over any other traffic on the river. Speeds would be lowered for erosion issues and any use of the lock system would be subservient to the barges as they would have priority. Dealing with a federal entity such as the C of E is like pulling whales teeth at 10,000 feet below sea level.

Only problem with a connection to Percy Priest is a several hundred-foot damn in the way. No lock system there to help out.

You guys feel free to chime in. I am not saying they will never allow water taxis but full use of the river on the scale will probably never happen. This is also not taking into account every time there are heavy rains the service will be halted.

[markhollin]

A direct connecting route from Highway 96 to Interstate 840 in Dickson, a topic that’s been discussed for a decade, is still being studied by state officials and a preliminary plan exists, according to the Dickson County mayor. 

More at The Tennessean here:

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/local/dickson/2022/01/19/dickson-countys-direct-840-connector-route-moves-closer-reality/6554739001/

[markhollin]

Nashville secures federal funding for new traffic management center, pending Metro Council approval.

More at The Tennessean here:

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/local/davidson/2022/01/21/nashville-secures-federal-funding-new-traffic-management-center/6597836001/

[markhollin]

I-840's proposed northern routes, 1995:

[Sean blackdog]

July 20, 2018. 
The Ledger. 
https://www.tnledger.com/editorial/articleemail.aspx?id=108458&print=1

[PaulChinetti]

I never think of how big 840 is but that northern most proposed loop is almost to Clarksville!

[MLBrumby]

Which tells me that if the northern loop were ever to get funding it would need Montgomery county politicians to be on board, which means the outer route. 

[Brichar4]

I’m not as familiar with traffic ideologies, but would a finished upper loop like this assist with limiting in metro General Trucking traffic on the more congested routes  (440/40, etc.) as the city grows?? 

[PaulChinetti]

If it’s quicker I think truckers would take it. If not then no. I guess too if they could see a traffic jam ahead they could bail off too. 

I’m thinking of the warehouse that sits up on the hill by the 24/65 split. Trucks will still be coming and going into town. I wonder if it would be a noticeable difference? 

[andywildman]

12 hours ago, PaulChinetti said:

If it’s quicker I think truckers would take it. If not then no. I guess too if they could see a traffic jam ahead they could bail off too. 

I’m thinking of the warehouse that sits up on the hill by the 24/65 split. Trucks will still be coming and going into town. I wonder if it would be a noticeable difference? 

We would absolutely still see local truck traffic but the long haul stuff would likely route around the city during rush hours. It would make a difference - for a while. But I think a completed 840 circle would really spur a lot of development on the Cheatham / Montgomery / Robertson corner of greater Nashville metro.

[Luvemtall]

39 minutes ago, andywildman said:

We would absolutely still see local truck traffic but the long haul stuff would likely route around the city during rush hours. It would make a difference - for a while. But I think a completed 840 circle would really spur a lot of development on the Cheatham / Montgomery / Robertson corner of greater Nashville metro.

Absolutely! A completed I-840 is needed to link all of the Metro together. It certainly will ease some of the congestion in Downtown, not just for truckers but traveler’s passing through also. Driving West on 1-40 , but need to pick up I-65 north ? Well then , 1-840 north from Lebanon to I - 65 in White House makes a lot of sense. Same holds true for for East bound , and vise versa. With projects like Ford’s Blue Oval City in Jackson , with truck traffic to and from the Northern  Midwest factories it just makes it easier for a lot of reasons. Plus as stated, opening up a huge potential for our northern counties for development. Also as a side note, the logistics hub that is quickly coming to be along I-840 , from Lebanon to Murfreesboro is a prime example of the need for a faster route to the North. 

[markhollin]

WeGo Public Transit launches  Quick Ticket.  New technology features reloadable card, smartphone app to pay fares:

https://tntribune.com/wego-public-transit-launches-quickticket/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2022.01.25 NASH&utm_term=NASHtoday Subscribers - MASTER

[downtownresident]

44 minutes ago, markhollin said:

WeGo Public Transit launches  Quick Ticket.  New technology features reloadable card, smartphone app to pay fares:

https://tntribune.com/wego-public-transit-launches-quickticket/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2022.01.25 NASH&utm_term=NASHtoday Subscribers - MASTER

About freakin time. 

[Bos2Nash]

Way to go WeGo. Only 15 years after the same technology was introduced for the MBTA (Boston) and almost 20 years after the MetroCard (NYC, which is being replaced now).

I understand that we are much smaller than those two examples, but hot damn the technology ain't that foreign. WeGo prolly just had to save up for the last 10 years or so for the technology because our city and state either cant afford to or refuses to invest in transportation technology (other than single occupant vehicles of course)

[Flatrock]

3 hours ago, Bos2Nash said:

Way to go WeGo. Only 15 years after the same technology was introduced for the MBTA (Boston) and almost 20 years after the MetroCard (NYC, which is being replaced now).

We're very slow to the party. Possibly in related news, the senior advisor for transportation and infrastructure is leaving her position, per the attached article. I noted from Mayor Cooper's quotes around her accomplishments - the words "plan, strategy, and hope" used throughout. She got some grant money, established a department, and some other stuff - but in no way got the needle moving to where it needs to go (IMO). C'mon Nashville, let's get GOING.

https://fox17.com/news/local/senior-adviser-to-nashville-mayor-on-transportation-to-resign

[downtownresident]

28 minutes ago, Flatrock said:

We're very slow to the party. Possibly in related news, the senior advisor for transportation and infrastructure is leaving her position, per the attached article. I noted from Mayor Cooper's quotes around her accomplishments - the words "plan, strategy, and hope" used throughout. She got some grant money, established a department, and some other stuff - but in no way got the needle moving to where it needs to go (IMO). C'mon Nashville, let's get GOING.

https://fox17.com/news/local/senior-adviser-to-nashville-mayor-on-transportation-to-resign

Mayor Coopers revolving door just keeps spinning.