Jump to content

North Gulch Gateway, (Tennessean site) Phase II: Gulch Central (41 story residential/hotel, 28 story office, 6 story mixed-use); Phase I: Asurion HQ (10 & 11 stories)


markhollin

Recommended Posts


On 5/16/2021 at 5:38 AM, markhollin said:

Gulch Central, May 14, 2021, render 1.png

Why on earth do we have a center turn lane on 11th Ave? I know TDOT has requirements for the state roads (which I disagree with most of the time), but why would Metro require it here? The street is nowhere near busy enough to justify it and all it really does is give more space to cars, which is what we are moving away from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Bos2Nash said:

Why on earth do we have a center turn lane on 11th Ave? I know TDOT has requirements for the state roads (which I disagree with most of the time), but why would Metro require it here? The street is nowhere near busy enough to justify it and all it really does is give more space to cars, which is what we are moving away from.

 

Some points;

  • I've had several planners actually tell me TDOT needs focus less on our safety regulations and more on planning stuff (whatever that is). That has actually happened. Planners! (eyeroll)
  • Eleventh was 'planned' that way long before you showed up in town and before any significant development was present in the Gulch. There was no way to know where entrances and driveways were going to be, so building a uniform, three lane cross section was the smart solution at the time.
  • The middle lane does not give 'more space to cars' other than to remove turning vehicles from the through lanes and make the corridor operate more efficiently, thus reducing pollution and increasing safety,  It's about science and math (two things antithetical to 'planning' (whatever that is)),  I would be interested to see your traffic analysis regarding any alternatives.
  • And when they quit making cars, TDOT will quit making roads, not the other way around. That's the way our society likes it. Good luck with that.

Thank you.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My statement, was not an attack on TDOT, it was an observation of mine because in many instances the turn lane is a huge waste of space from a planning and development approach in my opinion. My favorite example is the lane on Woodland Street from S 5th Ave to S 10th Ave. remove the center turn lane, create a dedicated, buffered bike lane, and provide a larger sidewalk and that corridor instantly becomes more friendly to people.

I'm gonna say this first, because I figured PHofKS and Prune Tracy would be some of the first to comment on my comment. I am not attacking the people at TDOT or Metro with regards to the fact they are executing the policies that have been put in place (just like I understand how the Planning Dept does the same thing with Zoning), but rather I am criticizing the policy that I believe is outdated and needs to take a more human-first approach to their policies moving forwards. Quite honestly, we cannot move forwards without criticism because then everyone would agree all the time and nothing would change.

The rendering that I referenced also does not show any on street parking. If the center turn lane was gone, we would immediately have space to integrate parking on one side of the street and would only need to remove some sidewalk to get the other side of the street. This creates a slower road and a revenue stream for the city.

1 hour ago, PHofKS said:

I've had several planners actually tell me TDOT needs focus less on our safety regulations and more on planning stuff (whatever that is). That has actually happened. Planners! (eyeroll)

1 hour ago, PHofKS said:

'planning' (whatever that is

Planning is within the sphere of Urban Design/Architecture/Built Environment (criticize them all you want, but they are some of the best forward thinking people in the design sphere). They are at the front lines of so many discussions of the design disciplines because they are the ones having the discussions with municipal engineering departments like TDOT. Maybe those planners had reason to believe that some "safety regulations" have become antiquated as a result of advancement of the city? Planning theories are based on human patterns, not car patterns and planners have just as much of a right to advocate for humans than TDOT does for motor vehicles. Please don't discount an entire profession just because you disagree with them. Disagree with certain theories/practices/regulations all we want, but taking it personal or trying to discredit an entire profession doesn't look good and really only makes things worse.

1 hour ago, PHofKS said:

Eleventh was 'planned' that way long before you showed up in town and before any significant development was present in the Gulch. There was no way to know where entrances and driveways were going to be, so building a uniform, three lane cross section was the smart solution at the time.

Of course 11th Ave was intended to be 3 lanes wide long before I arrived, because three lane road "regulation" has been around longer than I've been alive haha. There is no way to know where curb cuts and entrances will be because the roads should be designed/improved with the built environment. It's not like they should be two different trains of thought or be in silos from one another. We can say it was a smart solution at the time, but 21 years ago (when market street started envisioning the Gulch) was a lifetime ago, especially in how quickly Nashville is developing. McGavock to Church street it is currently two-way traffic only and it is fine. the road is slower, easier to cross and if a car has to move a little slower through a pedestrian dense area that should be applauded.

1 hour ago, PHofKS said:

The middle lane does not give 'more space to cars' other than to remove turning vehicles from the through lanes and make the corridor operate more efficiently, thus reducing pollution and increasing safety,  It's about science and math,  I would be interested to see your traffic analysis regarding any alternatives.

I'm not discounting the analysis that says they make roads more efficient for motor vehicles, I'm discounting them as my experience has proven they are unsafe to anything not in a motor vehicle. Even other motor vehicles, I have seen the human error of somebody whipping down a center turn lane due to impatience or incompetence (James Robertson and Hermitage Ave are two specific spots I have seen this, but these are more arterial so I give more credence to the solution at these locations). They do in fact give more space to cars though, because they are literally giving an extra full lane to cars and I believe this is because the intent is to remove road design from development, which really shouldn't be the case. I would be more open to the idea of these lanes if pedestrian islands were built at intersections, but sometimes pedestrians are lucky if crosswalks are even striped at intersections (11th Ave does have them striped, but other roads do not) and this would remove the ability for cars to turn at intersections easily. I get a little chuckle out of the pollution part of the statement because when you look at the actual life cycle of a road in terms of the energy and pollution necessary to 1) make the asphalt, 2) truck it to a site, 3) lay it (and have the trucks idle around while waiting to lay it), 4) maintain it every 5 to 10 years and 5) the heat island effect it creates and then weigh it against the actual usage, I wonder how that science lays out next to "there is no way to know where entrances and driveways were going to be". I would think it would at least make the discussion more realistic to have and not so discountable to some. As for alternatives, Houston/LA/Boston have proven we can make roads as big (or complex) as humanly possible and there still isn't enough room for all the cars, because more cars always come. In a downtown core, where we are building walkable neighborhoods, car space should be minimized wherever possible. Provide space for humans in terms of sidewalks, bikes lanes, ample road crossings those are human alternatives. 

1 hour ago, PHofKS said:

And when they quit making cars, TDOT will quit making roads, not the other way around.

I'm not about quitting making cars. I really like my car, but I also understand that the car is not the dominant force in the city, the people are. That is why we need to design for people with the alternatives listed above. Why Mass Transit is always such a big topic (not because of congestion, but because it is for people and it is a people equalizer). The notion that the city is based around the car is an antiquated model, cars are only a tool on the overall tool kit of a city. It worked for many many years, but to grow a city well, we need to have people in mind and not cars.

Edited by Bos2Nash
added Woodland Street comment
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.