Jump to content

The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread


TopTenn

Recommended Posts


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
 

Screen Shot 2022-10-11 at 9.48.16 AM.png

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Baronakim
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 4
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.