The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread

[markhollin]

A fleet of 75 rentable, dockless electric bikes will roll onto select Nashville streets this fall as part of a new pilot program.

The e-bikes feature a small motor that boosts riders' pedal power, allowing users to traverse hills with more ease.

The program could launch as soon as next month. The initial zone will cover portions of South Nashville, Berry Hill, Wedgewood-Houston, Midtown, Sylvan Park, the Nations and North Nashville below the Cumberland River.

The Gulch and downtown Nashville inside the interstate loop will be excluded as the area undergoes the final weeks of a transportation study. The zone may extend through downtown once the study is complete, depending on the e-bike program's success.

Users will be required to deposit the e-bikes at any bike rack within the program's boundaries when they conclude their rides. The Nashville Department of Transportation is working to install 35 additional bike racks within the area over the next 30 days.

NDOT will work with three companies that will each manage 25 e-bikes: Bird, Lime and Spin.

More at The Tennessean here:

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/local/davidson/2022/10/10/nashville-electric-bike-rentals-dockless/69542950007/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NASH_10.11.2022_OCT&utm_term=NASHtoday: Subscribers - MASTER
 

[andywildman]

35 minutes ago, markhollin said:

A fleet of 75 rentable, dockless electric bikes will roll onto select Nashville streets this fall as part of a new pilot program.

The e-bikes feature a small motor that boosts riders' pedal power, allowing users to traverse hills with more ease.

The program could launch as soon as next month. The initial zone will cover portions of South Nashville, Berry Hill, Wedgewood-Houston, Midtown, Sylvan Park, the Nations and North Nashville below the Cumberland River.

The Gulch and downtown Nashville inside the interstate loop will be excluded as the area undergoes the final weeks of a transportation study. The zone may extend through downtown once the study is complete, depending on the e-bike program's success.

Users will be required to deposit the e-bikes at any bike rack within the program's boundaries when they conclude their rides. The Nashville Department of Transportation is working to install 35 additional bike racks within the area over the next 30 days.

NDOT will work with three companies that will each manage 25 e-bikes: Bird, Lime and Spin.

More at The Tennessean here:

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/local/davidson/2022/10/10/nashville-electric-bike-rentals-dockless/69542950007/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NASH_10.11.2022_OCT&utm_term=NASHtoday: Subscribers - MASTER
 

Good start, but mind-blowing that they're excluding downtown & the Gulch for the pilot.

[henburg]

A new B-Cycle Station was just added near the corner of 6th Ave and Broadway, so there is clearly still some focus being payed to downtown.

[Bos2Nash]

I have used the Lyft Bikes out in LA and found them to be really great. I hope this is not part of the downsizing of B-Cycle that we are seeing with the contract at Metro parks and all. 

[markhollin]

Walsh Road extension, bridge over Brown's Creek, and new traffic lights at Rains Ave. and Craighead Street intersections complete and operable.

Looking east from intersection of Rains Ave. and Walsh Rd:

Looking east from Walsh Road, 1/2 block east of Rains Ave:

Looking SE from Walsh Road, 1/8 block west of Craighead St:

Looking NW from Craighead St. at Walsh Rd:

Looking  NW from Walsh Rd. bridge over Brown's Creek, just west of Craighead St:

[markhollin]

One of the few brick roadways still in existence downtown: The alley between Rosa L. Parks Blvd. and 7th Ave. North, 1/2 block south of Commerce St.

 

[markhollin]

The latest effort to replace Nashville's coin-based street parking system with digital meters is a step closer to becoming reality.

Nashville's council on Tuesday advanced an agreement with a private company to overhaul the city's antiquated curbside parking system and ramp up enforcement.

The agreement with Georgia-based LAZ Parking hinges on final approval from the council in November.

Under the proposed five-year agreement, LAZ Parking would operate and maintain an updated on-street "smart parking" system, including overseeing the installation of new meters that would allow users to pay via text, QR code, phone app, credit card or cash.

Nashville would switch to an electronic ticketing system, and parking enforcement staff would grow from five employees to 13 with the addition of eight new staff members from LAZ Parking. Metro employees would review all citations issued by LAZ employees, and Metro courts would handle citation fee collection.

More behind the Tennessean paywall here:

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/local/davidson/2022/10/21/nashville-parking-meters-closer-to-agreement-modernize-city/69573205007/

[Bos2Nash]

The minimum parking ordinance passed Planning commission last night on a 5-3 vote. There was a large contingent of speakers (myself included) during the public hearing portion. Many supported the ordinance overall but questioned things within it. For me the inclusion of a couple things that bothers me:

• The inclusion of the substitute to convert the UZO parking minimums to parking maximums is just as detrimental as parking minimums, if nothing else because there is zero reliable, equitable transportation options in the city.
• The second portion if the vague, confusing language about the inclusion of parking in FAR requirements. My understanding of the substitute is as soon as a developer asks for more parking, it counts the area of parking towards your FAR, including loading berths that are required by zoning. WTF?! If a developer is including parking and is going to be penalized from an FAR standpoint, they are going to remove housing units to make their developments work with parking. They aren't going to remove parking and add residential. That is just not how it works.
• While on a more micro scale removing parking could reduce costs, on these larger multi-family projects it will change nothing. One because parking is still considered an amenity in our city because of the lack of a reliable, equitable alternative and two because when a developer does need to invest money one place it will be in another place. So maybe the finishes will be a little bit nicer or the exterior cladding wouldn't be stucco or fibre cement. But the rents of these units will stay the same, because that is what the market dictates these places can get for rent.

The ordinance will now pass to council where I believe there will be additional substitutes all the way up to third reading. I am hopeful that the parking maximum language gets removed before all is said and done (both personally and professionally hope that).

[smeagolsfree]

13 hours ago, Bos2Nash said:

The minimum parking ordinance passed Planning commission last night on a 5-3 vote. There was a large contingent of speakers (myself included) during the public hearing portion. Many supported the ordinance overall but questioned things within it. For me the inclusion of a couple things that bothers me:

• The inclusion of the substitute to convert the UZO parking minimums to parking maximums is just as detrimental as parking minimums, if nothing else because there is zero reliable, equitable transportation options in the city.
• The second portion if the vague, confusing language about the inclusion of parking in FAR requirements. My understanding of the substitute is as soon as a developer asks for more parking, it counts the area of parking towards your FAR, including loading berths that are required by zoning. WTF?! If a developer is including parking and is going to be penalized from an FAR standpoint, they are going to remove housing units to make their developments work with parking. They aren't going to remove parking and add residential. That is just not how it works.
• While on a more micro scale removing parking could reduce costs, on these larger multi-family projects it will change nothing. One because parking is still considered an amenity in our city because of the lack of a reliable, equitable alternative and two because when a developer does need to invest money one place it will be in another place. So maybe the finishes will be a little bit nicer or the exterior cladding wouldn't be stucco or fibre cement. But the rents of these units will stay the same, because that is what the market dictates these places can get for rent.

The ordinance will now pass to council where I believe there will be additional substitutes all the way up to third reading. I am hopeful that the parking maximum language gets removed before all is said and done (both personally and professionally hope that).

Yep, I feel your concern over this one Craig!!

If we had a viable transit option, I would be 100% on board.  What are your feelings about if it will pass council? It was a split vote on Planning. Seems as if the cart is in front of the horse as far as transit.

[downtownresident]

1 hour ago, smeagolsfree said:

Yep, I feel your concern over this one Craig!!

If we had a viable transit option, I would be 100% on board.  What are your feelings about if it will pass council? It was a split vote on Planning. Seems as if the cart is in front of the horse as far as transit.

I think it passes at council, most likely without the parking maximums language, or with more flexible maximum standards. 

[markhollin]

12th Avenue South bicycle lanes continue being built, now south of Wedgwood Ave.

Looking north from intersection of 12th Ave. South and Acklen Ave:
 

[MorganRehnberg]

12th Avenue South bicycle lanes continue being built, now south of Wedgwood Ave.
Looking north from intersection of 12th Ave. South and Acklen Ave:
 
http://content.invisioncic.com/x329420/monthly_2022_10/784999730_12thAveSouthbicyclelaneOct292022.thumb.jpeg.9c3f1fea0b3d6fa8e9d40eb9b2311396.jpeg

I hope this is a huge success so that it can come to 8th Ave S and some streets downtown.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[smeagolsfree]

Eighth is a whole busier and it was talked about, and the uproar was tremendous, and the pushback was immense. Three different entities involved there too. Metro, Berry Hill and the State.

[GregH]

Yeah there was a big pushback campaign when something similar was proposed for 8th. A shame, IMO, the need for some walkability there is even more evident now with all the new development. But at least rich people that live in Williamson county still have their (traffic choked) alternate route home.

[rookzie]

I've already soap-boxed about narrowing down any portion of 8th Ave S - Franklin Rd (US-31).

That's the only multi-lane corridor that allows for true arterial movement into and from the city-county in the due-south direction.  Choking it off will overbear and overwhelm I-65 and its interchanges, and it definitely would exacerbate the cut-through traffic issue ─ both local and pass-through.  When I still worked for the state, I recall a bus-riding buddy of mine who worked for TDOT commenting on the department's intense deliberation on that request, back around 2016-17 or so, and he indicated that the agency likely would be ruling against it ─ very likely for the same reason.  The ritzy Oak Hill community at large had been one of the most vocal opponents of the idea.

It does need to be tamed down for better walkability though.  The same could be said for burgeoning Charlotte Ave. (US-70), and to a lesser extent, N. First St. - Dickerson Pk., where development is evolving more slowly — or with any other state-federal designated urban highway corridor.  While 12th Ave. S. with Granny White Pk. extends beyond the county line where it eventually ends at Murray Ln, it never was a designated a US highway, after the federal highway numbering system was formed during the mid-1920s, and it also doesn't serve as an uninterrupted path connecting multiple counties (other than partially two).  Also, the unwidened portion that forms the current branding as 12South (south of Ashwood) helps justify the case of converting the roadway into two primary lanes, with a central median and bike lanes in both directions.  While at first I had been kind of against the proposal, I think it's fitting for 12th Ave. S, since it will connect the Gulch ─ which resulted early on with the reduction from 4 to 2 lanes ─ to the northern extent of the 12South retail district.  In effect, it can serve as a "fortified" and more direct version of Belmont Ave, Magnolia, 16th-17 avenues, by leading straight into downtown in a single continuous path.

So, there already have been measures in place to make favorable the conversion of that mile of 12th into a more complete-streets format, since 12th Ave S. really doesn't' cover much distance, compared to the highway designated routes.  I just wish they had better planned for a transit lane to run in at least one direction, to render it more (nearly) "complete".

Edited October 31, 2022 by rookzie

[Baronakim]

6 hours ago, rookzie said:

I've already soap-boxed about narrowing down any portion of 8th Ave S - Franklin Rd (US-31).

That's the only multi-lane corridor that allows for true arterial movement into and from the city-county in the due-south direction.  Choking it off will overbear and overwhelm I-65 and its interchanges, and it definitely would exacerbate the cut-through traffic issue ─ both local and pass-through.  When I still worked for the state, I recall a bus-riding buddy of mine who worked for TDOT commenting on the department's intense deliberation on that request, back around 2016-17 or so, and he indicated that the agency likely would be ruling against it ─ very likely for the same reason.  The ritzy Oak Hill community at large had been one of the most vocal opponents of the idea.

It does need to be tamed down for better walkability though.  The same could be said for burgeoning Charlotte Ave. (US-70), and to a lesser extent, N. First St. - Dickerson Pk., where development is evolving more slowly — or with any other state-federal designated urban highway corridor.  While 12th Ave. S. with Granny White Pk. extends beyond the county line where it eventually ends at Murray Ln, it never was a designated a US highway, after the federal highway numbering system was formed during the mid-1920s, and it also doesn't serve as an uninterrupted path connecting multiple counties (other than partially two).  Also, the unwidened portion that forms the current branding as 12South (south of Ashwood) helps justify the case of converting the roadway into two primary lanes, with a central median and bike lanes in both directions.  While at first I had been kind of against the proposal, I think it's a great fit for 12th Ave. S, since it will connect the Gulch ─ which resulted early on with the reduction from 4 to 2 lanes ─ to the northern extent of the 12South retail district.  In effect, it can serve as a "fortified" and more direct version of Belmont Ave, Magnolia, 16th-17 avenues, by leading straight into downtown in a single continuous path.

So, there already have been measures in place to make favorable the conversion of that mile of 12th into a more complete-streets format.  I just wish they had better planned for a transit lane to run in at least one direction, to render it more (nearly) "complete".

Beyond traffic in the immediate Nashville area,  those are indeed the only true arterials southwards.  IMO a lousy situation that is only going to get worse.  Beyond Franklin and Brentwood these two routes are likely to remain as the staus quo. At a minimum a four laning of US 431 from Lewisburg to Franklin seems to be the only option within sight in this decade IMO.  Whenever I 65 inbound gets backed up, so does 31 and 431.  US 31 is screwed as a candidate for widening beyond that existing, being plugged with Springhill.  However Us 431 is largely open country and is tied back to I 65 in an adequate interval and soon to have a new one with the new diverging diamond interchange  at Buckner Road.  It will be extended to US 431.   This is going to be a bandaid, but anything that will get the evening traffic out of Davidson County will probably help.  It will do little to improve the morning inbound except to give a more viable alternate to the pathetic 2 lane country road US 431 is now.  Traffic lights at I 840 would be a big help too.  One of the things that might be considered is using an expanded Us431 for some form of mass transit development that could at least help with reducing loads on I 65 someday.

Edited October 31, 2022 by Baronakim

[markhollin]

Metro is applying for a $5 million federal grant to help with research on building the $100 million bridge from South 5th St. and Crutcher St. in East Nashville across the Cumberland River to the intersection of Willow St. and Fairfield Ave. in the Railroad District.

More at News Channel 5 here:

https://www.newschannel5.com/news/metro-applies-for-federal-grant-to-help-redesign-east-bank-project-including-potential-new-bridge

[smeagolsfree]

Hmmm,

I have already heard they were turned down for one big federal grant for the Spine Road project. 

[markhollin]

Church Street having some major work done below level in prep for all the new residential towers in the midtown area.

Looking west from intersection of Church St. and 19th Ave. North:

[smeagolsfree]

There will be a lot of changes to the midtown traffic flow now that the street collector plan was approved. This will affect the areas closer to the interstate but be prepared for some changes.

[markhollin]

TDOT will begin the reconstruction of the Broadway Viaduct (current version built in 1948) by the end of this year, and are aiming for an Oct. 2023 completion.  It will be fully closed between July 5 and Sept. 1, 2023. Some superstructure work has already begun. The overall cost is $51.5 million.  Gresham Smith is the architect; Kiewit is construction manager.  

The existing structure is approximately 700 feet long and 98 feet wide, and comprised of structural steel beams and support columns. The roadway consists of six 10-foot travel lanes (three in each direction) and one 12-foot center turn lane with one-foot shoulders, curb and gutter, and 10-foot sidewalks on both sides street.

The replacement structure will remain on the same footprint (and seven lanes) and be comprised of steel girders and support columns. The sidewalks will be just under 10 feet. As designed, the bridge will not offer pedestrian connections to The Gulch and the North Gulch. However, future such connectivity is referenced in the TDOT documents.

Gresham Smith led TDOT’s 2015 “Fast Fix 8” omnibus project, a $62 million series of Interstate 40 bridge rehabilitation projects that replaced four pairs of twin bridges seven months ahead of schedule using 10 weekend road closures. This was partly accomplished by fabricating steel superstructure units offsite at what TDOT described as a makeshift "bridge farm” at an I-40 median and then transporting the units onsite to install during weekend closures.

TDOT intends to use such accelerated bridge construction techniques on the Broadway Viaduct project.

More behind the Nashville Post paywall here:

https://www.nashvillepost.com/politics/state/work-to-start-by-year-s-end-on-broadway-viaduct/article_847ab732-594c-11ed-84d9-e37205342475.html
 

[PaulChinetti]

I get they are trying to go fast but why in the world would you not just go ahead and make the pedestrian connections to the lower streets now?

Smaller sidewalks? No bike lanes? Come on we are better than this!

[Bos2Nash]

Still think this was the perfect opportunity for an international design competition to really give us a cool viaduct. The Demonbreun Viaduct is nice enough with the locomotive bridge piers, but it is still a poorly designed bridge with regards to being anybody not in a car. 

Boring design and disappointed in the considerations for the viaduct.

[BnaBreaker]

So the city just decided that the functionality of the viaduct needn't reach beyond the standards of 1948.  Cool.  Cool cool cool.  

[PruneTracy]

1 hour ago, Bos2Nash said:

Still think this was the perfect opportunity for an international design competition to really give us a cool viaduct.

It didn't have to be international, the concepts we showed in our interview were fancy enough.

6 hours ago, PaulChinetti said:

I get they are trying to go fast but why in the world would you not just go ahead and make the pedestrian connections to the lower streets now?

Smaller sidewalks? No bike lanes? Come on we are better than this!

5 minutes ago, BnaBreaker said:

So the city just decided that the functionality of the viaduct needn't reach beyond the standards of 1948.  Cool.  Cool cool cool.  

Keep in mind that the site has a lot of horizontal constraints, one of which is NRHP-listed. There's practically no room to widen the bridge and the only candidate for clawing back width is the TWLTL which leads to some awkward lane shifts/tapers.

What's frustrating here is that at the time this was in the planning stages the Hyatt had not yet been built and the Tennessean's building was still standing. There could have been an opportunity to grab some extra ROW to the north at least.