Fairgrounds Speedway Racetrack expansion to 30,000 seats

[Jamie Hall]

23 hours ago, markhollin said:

Due to the massive undertaking of revamping and expanding the grandstands and other infrastructure elements, there will NOT be a first NASCAR race at the Fairgrounds in 2022. Probably 2023 at the earliest. 

https://www.essentiallysports.com/nascar-news-nascar-race-at-nashville-fairgrounds-speedway-in-2022-is-now-highly-doubtful/

I've read other speculation that the Fairgrounds' NASCAR date would likely be in September or even October to distance it from the Nashville Superspeedway date and allow time for construction. At this point it's all speculation anyway.

[DMilner]

From Colby Sledge this morning: 

"Speaking of the Fairgrounds, a lot of you have written to me regarding the future of the Speedway. I've been waiting to respond until I had an update regarding public engagement, and now, I do:

The Board of Fair Commissioners has scheduled a public hearing on a proposed partnership with Bristol Motor Speedway for Tuesday, May 11 at 5 p.m. at Music City Center, Karl F Dean Grand Ballroom C.

Complimentary parking will be available in the MCC parking structure, and you'll enter at P2 at 6th Ave S. Appropriate COVID-19 protocols will be in place and enforced."

[nashvylle]

From SNAP IG

https://www.instagram.com/p/COYhin5Bd9x/?igshid=153y0205ecdq

Just now, nashvylle said:

From SNAP IG

https://www.instagram.com/p/COYhin5Bd9x/?igshid=153y0205ecdq

 

[DDIG]

2 hours ago, nashvylle said:

From SNAP IG

https://www.instagram.com/p/COYhin5Bd9x/?igshid=153y0205ecdq

 

NOTE is the racetrack opposition group.

[nashvylle]

Dale Jr. has stated he will race if NASCAR returns. 
 

for all the passionate racing fans, I pray a solution with BMS and NOTE / Wedgewood Houston neighbors is made. The track deserves it. 

[titanhog]

They’re really crazy to oppose the track.  It’s already there…it will always be there…and what BMS wants to do is an upgrade for the area and will make the track better, with some “sound mitigation” without a huge increase in racing.  Some act as if they’re either going to stop racing from happening altogether or that NASCAR will suddenly make the area unlivable.  Both of those views are wrong.

[satalac]

SNAP and NOTE sound like villainous groups from a James Bond movie. Not calling them villainous, just ridiculing their names.

[nashvylle]

Some screenshots from SMI’s public presentation: 

 

 

and here is a nice thread of the comments from the public meeting:

https://twitter.com/mattweaveraw/status/1392240761366798346?s=21

Edited May 12, 2021 by nashvylle

[titanhog]

Everything about this is a win/win…as long as the taxpayers aren’t hung out to dry.  An improved track…same amount of races…top level racing for the first time in 45 years or so…sound mitigation on a pro level, which they’ve never had…and many more community provisions thrown in.

 

[samsonh]

4 hours ago, nashvylle said:

Some screenshots from SMI’s public presentation: 

 

 

and here is a nice thread of the comments from the public meeting:

https://twitter.com/mattweaveraw/status/1392240761366798346?s=21

Thanks for posting the thread, I don’t follow Matt and had not seen it. Seems like a  nearly unanimous no from neighboring residents.
 

Do we have a $ figure on Bristols commitment? The money from the city will not be nearly enough to create a modern speedway experience. 

[DDIG]

1 hour ago, samsonh said:

Thanks for posting the thread, I don’t follow Matt and had not seen it. Seems like a  nearly unanimous no from neighboring residents.
 

Do we have a $ figure on Bristols commitment? The money from the city will not be nearly enough to create a modern speedway experience. 

The opposition groups want racing at the Fairgrounds dead so there's no proposal (no matter how good for track or fair a deal) that they won't actively be against. Investment means racing has a future, disrepair and dilapidated track their hope is one day even with racing chartered the track and city will give up.

I didn't watch the presentation but aren't they collecting sales taxes from tickets to help pay for upgrades as well?

Edited May 12, 2021 by DDIG

[titanhog]

21 minutes ago, DDIG said:

The opposition groups want racing at the Fairgrounds dead so there's no proposal (no matter how good for track or fair a deal) that they won't actively be against. Investment means racing has a future, disrepair and dilapidated track their hope is one day even with racing chartered the track and city will give up.

I didn't watch the presentation but aren't they collecting sales taxes from tickets to help pay for upgrades as well?

There will be racing at that track whether the residents like it or not (like there has been the last 100 years).  Why would you fight a major upgrade with sound mitigation and the same amount of racing days?  I just think NIMBYs can’t help themselves…and they fail to understand the realities of the situation.  I swear people complain just to complain.

[samsonh]

1 hour ago, DDIG said:

The opposition groups want racing at the Fairgrounds dead so there's no proposal (no matter how good for track or fair a deal) that they won't actively be against. Investment means racing has a future, disrepair and dilapidated track their hope is one day even with racing chartered the track and city will give up.

I didn't watch the presentation but aren't they collecting sales taxes from tickets to help pay for upgrades as well?

The financing is very much up in the air at this point from what I can tell. The $50 million from Nashville would be paid for by sales tax and "other" revenue streams( seems to be undetermined at this point). But it seems the figure to get this track to good racing condition and to be a place people want to visit will be far higher than that.  Will Bristol be able to pick that up? I kind of doubt it. This proposal needs to be more concrete imo with defined responsibilities of every party. 

[Bos2Nash]

Thanks for posting the screenshots @nashvylle. I couldn't find the link to watch the meeting so I appreciate the images!

35 minutes ago, samsonh said:

The financing is very much up in the air at this point from what I can tell. The $50 million from Nashville would be paid for by sales tax and "other" revenue streams( seems to be undetermined at this point). But it seems the figure to get this track to good racing condition and to be a place people want to visit will be far higher than that.  Will Bristol be able to pick that up? I kind of doubt it. This proposal needs to be more concrete imo with defined responsibilities of every party. 

Getting things to be concrete is what this current process is all about. Bristol has oddles of money and very deep pockets. I believe the letter of intent from the Mayor's office said the city will go in $50 million in bonds MAX and the rest is up to Bristol. The $50mil is what Bristol said it would take to upgrade the track in their previous bid. With material inflation now due to the pandemic, I would presume those costs have climbed pretty dramatically, but that should not be on the city to cover. 

Without the buy of city council (ie the public) there would be no point for Bristol to have fully baked plans and budgets. As a result, those figures develop as this process continues.

1 hour ago, DDIG said:

The opposition groups want racing at the Fairgrounds dead so there's no proposal (no matter how good for track or fair a deal) that they won't actively be against. Investment means racing has a future, disrepair and dilapidated track their hope is one day even with racing chartered the track and city will give up.

This is 100% the goal of the neighborhood. Quite honestly Colby Sledge is being a wet noodle (i resisted the more vulgar term) for not standing up for the charter and talking to his constituants with the right information. This is why I would ask every one of the opposing groups if they supported the soccer stadium and the upgrades to the fairgrounds. If they did, there is no logical/rational reason to oppose the race track upgrades unless their primary goal was to try and force out racing. Yes as @titanhogmentioned, racing will continue no matter what, but unfortunately if the neighborhood resists and opposes upgrades there is only so long that racing is financially feasible at the track and it will ultimately fail.

Edited May 12, 2021 by Bos2Nash

[titanhog]

16 minutes ago, Bos2Nash said:

. Yes as @titanhogmentioned, racing will continue no matter what, but unfortunately if the neighborhood resists and opposes upgrades there is only so long that racing is financially feasible at the track and it will ultimately fail.

I'm not sure it will fail…it will just remain local racing (without sound mitigation) as it has for the past 35 years (after NASCAR left).  There will be someone with deep pockets (not as deep as Bristol) who will pick up the pieces and keep local racing here because the local race fans will never allow that place to close down.  After living here for 30 years and seeing how they’ve fought the city more than once to keep things the way they are…I have no doubt racing will remain there no matter what.  There are too many guys like Darrell Waltrip and Dale Earnhardt Jr. who love the track to ever let it go all the way under.

The question is whether or not we keep the status quo of a cool track with no upgrades and local racing only…or upgrade to first class with top racing and bring the track into the 21st Century?

[Bos2Nash]

3 minutes ago, titanhog said:

I'm not sure it will fail…it will just remain local racing (without sound mitigation) as it has for the past 35 years (after NASCAR left).  There will be someone with deep pockets (not as deep as Bristol) who will pick up the pieces and keep local racing here because the local race fans will never allow that place to close down.  After living here for 30 years and seeing how they’ve fought the city more than once to keep things the way they are…I have no doubt racing will remain there no matter what.  There are too many guys like Darrell Waltrip and Dale Earnhardt Jr. who love the track to ever let it go all the way under.

The question is whether or not we keep the status quo of a cool track with no upgrades and local racing only…or upgrade to first class with top racing and bring the track into the 21st Century?

And I hope it doesn't fail! Dale Jr. and DW are legends for good reason, and specifically Dale Jr's passion for older, smaller tracks is helping tremendously.

That being said, the current track is obtrusive for a number of reasons but from a sound perspective it is because local racing does not have restrictions on the exhaust of the engines. I have mentioned this before, but many of the cars have straight headers out of the engine which allows for additional power due to lack of restriction on the engine exhaust. Bristol specificall mentions that this will be a big change! This change alone will be sound mitigation improvement without even spending city dollars.

Additionally let's talk public benefit. We are talking about alot of non-profit and charity support as well as over $15/hour for event staff! I'm willing to bet some of these "anti" neighbors just glaze over these aspects because even though they support them, they hate the race track more.

Lastly, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasnt the focus of one of the early articles about a woman enjoying coffee or iced tea on her porch and thought the racetrack would ruin that? It's not these events start at 9am. Practice sessions rarely start before noon and the races have been trending later and later in recent seasons. The 11:00PM cut off would only be on saturdays or sundays of holiday weekends so it's not even like they would impact school kids or 9-5 office jobs.

Personally I dont even believe the city needs to go through the public process (other than because it is public bonds) because they are not changing any uses or even adding additional race weekends. They are simply improving something that is currently there. 

[titanhog]

5 minutes ago, Bos2Nash said:

Personally I dont even believe the city needs to go through the public process (other than because it is public bonds) because they are not changing any uses or even adding additional race weekends. They are simply improving something that is currently there. 

To me, the only question should be how much tax money is spent.  I think you have to at least come to the table with something equal to the MLS venture…and nothing more.  If Bristol balks at that…so be it.  Other than that…I don’t see where residents can stop this…nor should they.  It will upgrade what is quickly becoming an eyesore…will help improve the entire fairgrounds infrastructure and complete the 21st Century look of that entire acreage (which can’t hurt the value of nearby homes)…and will improve noise issues (at least some).

I just think many residents are mistaken into thinking this is a “track vs. no track” fight…which is not the case at all.

[samsonh]

10 minutes ago, titanhog said:

To me, the only question should be how much tax money is spent.  I think you have to at least come to the table with something equal to the MLS venture…and nothing more.  If Bristol balks at that…so be it.  Other than that…I don’t see where residents can stop this…nor should they.  It will upgrade what is quickly becoming an eyesore…will help improve the entire fairgrounds infrastructure and complete the 21st Century look of that entire acreage (which can’t hurt the value of nearby homes)…and will improve noise issues (at least some).

I just think many residents are mistaken into thinking this is a “track vs. no track” fight…which is not the case at all.

Bristol does not have deep pockets fwiw. You can view their financials before the company went private. They were not pretty, and I cannot imagine declining attendance + Covid has helped that situation. 

[titanhog]

14 minutes ago, samsonh said:

Bristol does not have deep pockets fwiw. You can view their financials before the company went private. They were not pretty, and I cannot imagine declining attendance + Covid has helped that situation. 

I'm sure the truth will come out when it’s time to sign the dotted line.  They’ll either have enough to make this happen or they'll ask the city for more than the city is willing to give and the deal will go away.

[DMilner]

I was unable to attend the meeting last night, but I have replayed the entire meeting. I was not surprised to find that most of the pro side were from outside Davidson County.  There is a lot of casting residents into the bucket of anti racing and NIMBYs, which I find pretty funny. Are there neighbors that want the track gone? Absolutely. However, many of the neighbors I've spoken with aren't against the speedway getting updated. We would like answers to questions that Bristol either doesn't have at the moment or is skirting questions. 

For reference, there is a muffler requirement at the Fairgrounds; they are supposed to be limited to 90 decibels. Will sound mitigation help with this? Probably, but Bristol still hasn't completed their sound study  from 2019 and cannot give an answer on how much it will help. The renderings show gaps in the buildings with no mitigation wall. The sound mitigation wall only covers half the track in their proposal. The real problem for folks is Jerry Caldwell admitted the NASCAR cars will go to 140 decibels. So you're talking about an extra 50 decibels, which sound mitigation may help what, 10 decibels? 

Another question brought up was at the end of this 10 year lease with how the letter of intent reads, Bristol could walk away and leave Metro on the hook for the rest of the bonds. That probably won't happen after they've invested money, but who knows what NASCAR will look like in ten years. I believe Metro would structure the contract to absolve the city of being on the hook, but that will need to be seen with the draft proposal.

Keeping the number of racing weekends the same is fine, but how many of those 10 weekends will be the louder cars? Bristol will have four race weekends on their schedule, will these all be 140 decibel vehicles?  

There are just too many unanswered questions at this point. Hopefully Bristol can get these questions of the neighborhood groups answered and help mitigate the fears of most of the residents. They've not going to please everyone. But for talks that have supposedly been happening for over four years, the plan they put forward last night is severely lacking in actual details.  That, coupled with the fact they’re trying to race this trough by July with only one public hearing so far raises some red flags for me. 

Edited May 12, 2021 by DMilner

[titanhog]

7 minutes ago, DMilner said:

I was unable to attend the meeting last night, but I have replayed the entire meeting. I was not surprised to find that most of the pro side were from outside Davidson County.  There is a lot of casting residents into the bucket of anti racing and NIMBYs, which I find pretty funny. Are there neighbors that want the track gone? Absolutely. However, many of the neighbors I've spoken with aren't against the speedway getting updated. We would like answers to questions that Bristol either doesn't have at the moment or is skirting. 

For reference, there is a muffler requirement at the Fairgrounds; they are supposed to be limited to 90 decibels. Will sound mitigation help with this? Probably, but Bristol still hasn't completed their sound study  from 2019 and cannot give an answer on how much it will help. The renderings show gaps in the buildings with no mitigation wall. The only sound mitigation wall only covers half the track in their proposal. The real problem for folks is Jerry Caldwell admitted the NASCAR cars will go to 140 decibels. So you're talking about an extra 50 decibels, which sound mitigation may help what, 10 decibels? 

Another question brought up was at the end of this 10 year lease with how the letter of intent reads, Bristol could walk away and leave Metro on the hook for the rest of the bonds. That probably won't happen after they've invested money, but who knows what NASCAR will look like in ten years. I obviously believe Metro would structure the contract to absolve the city of being on the hook, but they will need to be seen with the draft proposal.

Keeping the number of racing weekends the same is fine, but how many of those 10 weekends will be the louder cars? Bristol will have four race weekends on their schedule, will these all be 140 decibel vehicles?  

There are just too many unanswered questions at this point. Hopefully Bristol can get these questions of the neighborhood groups answered and help mitigate the fears of most of the residents. They've not going to please everyone. But for talks that have supposedly been happening for over four years, the plan they put forward last night is severely lacking in actual details.  That, coupled with the fact they’re trying to race this trough by July with only one public hearing so far raises some red flags for me. 

Those are all good questions…and you’re right…Bristol needs to be forthcoming on answering those.

[Bos2Nash]

1 hour ago, DMilner said:

I was unable to attend the meeting last night, but I have replayed the entire meeting. I was not surprised to find that most of the pro side were from outside Davidson County.  There is a lot of casting residents into the bucket of anti racing and NIMBYs, which I find pretty funny. Are there neighbors that want the track gone? Absolutely. However, many of the neighbors I've spoken with aren't against the speedway getting updated. We would like answers to questions that Bristol either doesn't have at the moment or is skirting. 

For reference, there is a muffler requirement at the Fairgrounds; they are supposed to be limited to 90 decibels. Will sound mitigation help with this? Probably, but Bristol still hasn't completed their sound study  from 2019 and cannot give an answer on how much it will help. The renderings show gaps in the buildings with no mitigation wall. The only sound mitigation wall only covers half the track in their proposal. The real problem for folks is Jerry Caldwell admitted the NASCAR cars will go to 140 decibels. So you're talking about an extra 50 decibels, which sound mitigation may help what, 10 decibels? 

Another question brought up was at the end of this 10 year lease with how the letter of intent reads, Bristol could walk away and leave Metro on the hook for the rest of the bonds. That probably won't happen after they've invested money, but who knows what NASCAR will look like in ten years. I obviously believe Metro would structure the contract to absolve the city of being on the hook, but they will need to be seen with the draft proposal.

Keeping the number of racing weekends the same is fine, but how many of those 10 weekends will be the louder cars? Bristol will have four race weekends on their schedule, will these all be 140 decibel vehicles?  

There are just too many unanswered questions at this point. Hopefully Bristol can get these questions of the neighborhood groups answered and help mitigate the fears of most of the residents. They've not going to please everyone. But for talks that have supposedly been happening for over four years, the plan they put forward last night is severely lacking in actual details.  That, coupled with the fact they’re trying to race this trough by July with only one public hearing so far raises some red flags for me. 

Valid questions. Hopefully they get them answered. I feel like this is also where the city council member should step in with some simple information to help alleviate these concerns. For example. sound drops 6 decibels for every doubling of distance from the source. so being 100' from the source would drop the sound approximately 20 decibels. This is gonna suck for the apartments between the stadium and the racetrack, but simple math will help with some residents close by. 

Here is a good reference: https://bkl.ca/noise-barriers

Additionally this does not take into account the topography of the fairgrounds, trees, the structures etc. . Physical mitigation of the new buildings push the sound up pretty dramatically. As mentioned before the sounds crossing Craighead and Nolensville pike are really the concern, So those homes will probably be hearing 100 dB sounds on those NASCAR weekends. I don't see physical sound mitigation being built facing that direction with maybe the exception of the putting a sound wall along the railroad tracks (which could help the aesthetics of Craighhead anyways). As long as the mitigation "shoves" the sound up, it will provide some solid mitigation. The autoweek article below references that some folks don't believe a giant concrete wall (highway sound barrier) will suffice for mitigation which just further proves for some it is not at all about sound mitigation, but rather about closing the race track down.

So yes, Bristol should be providing these answers to the public, absolutely. But the city council member not helping something that will benefit the city - the same council member that has been an adament supporter of the soccer stadium - is bogus in my opinon. Based on his silence, he clearly holds his nose up towards racing while slapping the soccer fans on the back. He helps Bristol group make contact, but he isnt out there trying to stop misinformation or just plain out wrong assumptions.

This quote from a resident in a April 2021 article is what is being represented for the neighborhood

[DMilner]

22 minutes ago, Bos2Nash said:

Valid questions. Hopefully they get them answered. I feel like this is also where the city council member should step in with some simple information to help alleviate these concerns. For example. sound drops 6 decibels for every doubling of distance from the source. so being 100' from the source would drop the sound approximately 20 decibels. This is gonna suck for the apartments between the stadium and the racetrack, but simple math will help with some residents close by. 

Here is a good reference: https://bkl.ca/noise-barriers

Additionally this does not take into account the topography of the fairgrounds, trees, the structures etc. . Physical mitigation of the new buildings push the sound up pretty dramatically. As mentioned before the sounds crossing Craighead and Nolensville pike are really the concern, So those homes will probably be hearing 100 dB sounds on those NASCAR weekends. I don't see physical sound mitigation being built facing that direction with maybe the exception of the putting a sound wall along the railroad tracks (which could help the aesthetics of Craighhead anyways). As long as the mitigation "shoves" the sound up, it will provide some solid mitigation. The autoweek article below references that some folks don't believe a giant concrete wall (highway sound barrier) will suffice for mitigation which just further proves for some it is not at all about sound mitigation, but rather about closing the race track down.

So yes, Bristol should be providing these answers to the public, absolutely. But the city council member not helping something that will benefit the city - the same council member that has been an adament supporter of the soccer stadium - is bogus in my opinon. Based on his silence, he clearly holds his nose up towards racing while slapping the soccer fans on the back. He helps Bristol group make contact, but he isnt out there trying to stop misinformation or just plain out wrong assumptions.

This quote from a resident in a April 2021 article is what is being represented for the neighborhood

I don't really think it's Colby's place to speak on sound mitigation. As far as I know, he's not an expert on that sort of thing. The expert that SMI brought in last night went over really none of the things you posted here; it seems he should have. He did speak about physical structures, mounds of earth, trees, etc. helping mitigate sound, but gave no hard numbers from the supposed tests they have run. I believe that's the number one issue neighbors have and again, haven't really been told what the net effects of the mitigation will be. The company SMI hired to create the sound mitigation should be the one jumping on these neighborhood meeting to speak with residents. 

As far as support from Colby, I do think you're spot on there. I think it stems from the fact that the previous operator was a pretty terrible neighbor for everyone in the neighborhood and Colby probably got tired of getting complaints from neighbors when the races would run late, they'd run testing during school hours, and had zero outreach for upcoming events. 

As I said, there are definitely neighbors that want the track gone, and there's nothing that is going to change that. For the majority, it's Bristol's job to convey to all the neighborhoods how this will be a benefit, and they're failing pretty miserably. I also find some of Matt Weaver's reporting pretty disingenuous. He keeps touting how 71% of Nashville voted for the referendum. In reality, 6% of the population voted for it and I'd imagine many had no real clue what they were voting for. 

Lastly, I'd actually prefer SMI almost fully get rid of testing days. I'm sure it would be much more profitable for them to have more concerts and events, which I would be all for.    

[markhollin]

Coverage from The Nashville Scene and a crisper rendering:

https://www.nashvillescene.com/news/pith-in-the-wind/article/21147359/sports-are-good-pekka-is-better

 

[Bos2Nash]

Autoweek article on the meeting regarding the speedway. Seems like Jerry Caldwell is releasing information and answering questions. Also seems like board member Jason Bergeron is finding every avenue to squash it. 

A couple key points:

• The deal is only for 10 years (unlike the 30 years Soccer has), but can be extended up to 30 years via four 5-year extensions.
• SMI would honor the 10 race weekend limit set out by the Charter (already known). only ONE weekend would be a Nascar race weekend (I presume one date will move away from Bristol as they have had their share of issues in recent seasons). The other 9 would remain local and regional races including the All American 400. So only one weekend of the 140 dB and the rest of the weekends to oblige to the muffler rules.
• 20 midweek test session throughout the year including at least one for Goodyear tire test (this in my opinion is the most important test). Personal note; most "test" sessions are not a full field of cars, so the noise level is very reduced. Test sessions are not practice sessions that occur on race weekend.
• No detailed parking plan – what a shock! This has been a concern throughout the soccer stadium as well. 
• $15.50 per hour wages for event and regular staff
• As rendering that Mark shared above they would relocate the infield tunnel to turn 3. This allows for the park along Craighead to be continuous. 
• The rendering above does show sound mitigation walls going from turns 2, down the backstretch and through turn 3. They are currently rendered as 20'-0" high, concrete walls. This height may vary around the track though. 
• The "organizational building" in turn 4 I would believe have the infield car in it along certain race day admin offices. Personal note; I presume that additional structures, like garage bays, will need to be built. Also possibly a fueling facility. I also dont really believe the entrance to pit road is all that feasible. Dropping off a banking like that into a very sharp left-right movement is bad news for race cars.
• SMI intends to promote two concert series events to help with less track days than ideal.
• Jason Bergeron had to be cut off by the Fair Board due to constant questioning (that the article claims borderline berating). Bergeron voted to delay things by a month and was voted down.
• A public commenter claimed we have 5 venues within 30 minutes that host Nascar and Formula 1. This was obviously a soundbite line, but goes to show that there are people that dont understand things fully. We obviously don't have Formula 1, but we also only have one venue that can host any of the top 3 series in Nascar.

The next meeting - scheduled for June 8th - is expected to have a formal plan presented. A formal resolution is expected to be presented and voted on during the July 12th meeting. 

Edited May 14, 2021 by Bos2Nash