37206dude

Thanks Will, Just to clarify when I say "bike lane", I only mean a protected lane with a real physical barrier (which could be parked cars) separating said lane from traffic. The FHWA just very recently released their own guidelines: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/separated_bikelane_pdg/separatedbikelane_pdg.pdf I have had many discussions with public works and with bike advocates and you will be surprised to know that I 100% agree with you, but we are both very rare even among cyclists. I have tried to convince many others, and it's almost always no sale even among experienced riders. I am way safer taking the lane, no questions, not even close. However I do ride through downtown during rush hour, and although the unprotected bike lanes are extremely dangerous I ride in them anyway because it is way way faster than sitting in bumper to bumper traffic. If I were in charge of designing roads then there would either be protected lanes or none at all. I feel much safer with a car behind me honking and threatening than I do squeezed to the side of the road with cars buzzing by me, riding in a debris filled gutter. Dealing with the road rage that accompanies riding in a full traffic lane is not tolerable for most riders, but I'm pretty well numb to it at this point. I got pissed off during bike to work day when a bunch of riders were squeezing over to the side of a traffic lane (no bike lane) instead of taking the lane properly. This is insanely dangerous but is what >90% of riders do (of the remaining ones 9% ride on the sidewalk, the other 1% are you and me). Then at the bike to work day reception, I thought one guy at was going to punch me in the face when I told him that I see no real difference in the last 10 years since we still have no protected lanes. My statements that paint and signs don't make biking any safer definitely lit a fire for this dude. So I agree with you, in the absence of a protected bike lane it is better to ride in the full traffic lane. Given the mentality of drivers, and the resulting beaten-dog mentality of most bike riders, this will never happen much. Even if it did, that would be dumb road engineering. You are devoting an entire 12 ft wide lane to a 2 ft wide vehicle that goes 10 mph. That's a very inefficient use of road space and only a few bikes would dramatically slow car throughput (I haven't modeled it but in a city the size of Nashville the 2 of us are likely to have a negligible effect). The data are overwhelming that traffic flows more efficiently on a complete street with a protected bike lane than with even a few bikes sharing a full lane with cars (I can look up refs another time...). It is also very clear that road diets lowering lane widths to 11 or even 10 ft have very marginal effects on throughput for cars, especially near saturation. There are also many very smart ways to design streets to mix bike traffic with turn lanes etc to maximize efficiency of road space. Even if public works refuses to build real protected lanes, for God's sake on streets with parking put the parked cars next to traffic as a buffer for bikes instead of using riders in the bike lane as human shields to protect parked cars. As far as inducing demand for bike riding, this can be done very robustly but requires the commitment to build a connected grid of protected lanes.

Chris, I'm not going to disagree with you. That seems to be the strong consensus. For me, it would be nice but not critical. There really isn't that much volume of traffic on the 11th street side. There are cheaper ways to calm traffic there than building a roundabout but something is sorely needed. There is a school, a library, bus stops on both sides of the street, and this spot is horrible to cross on foot. There's not even a painted line for cars to stop at the red light so they roll right up to the crosswalk. Someone else can fill in (hopefully a brief version of) the history because it long predates my arrival to the neighborhood in 2009. The plan for a "Civic Oval" at this location goes back to at least 2005 as far as I can tell. Talk to public works, for all I know they may be working on it right now, but I'm not holding my breath. I don't want to get sidetracked too much about the roundabout plan, since I want to emphasize that there is a real opportunity for a community project to do something small but substantively helpful here with the triangle. The library and the school should be priorities for the neighborhood and have a dignity about them. Lots of students walk across the street to that library and outdoor space. That triangle is a crying shame right now. We are talking about just some regular citizens putting in some plants, art, etc to make it a more worthwhile use of space. If the city ever gets around to a bigger fix (including traffic flow) then that would also be well appreciated. I see two purposes for this project here. First is the direct and obvious one to make better use of this specific public space for the quality of life of the students, library visitors, neighbors, patrons of local businesses, etc. Second is the principle in that it will hopefully cause more people to think about how we use public space in general.

The Hunters thing reminded me... These guys are planning a very cool sounding project to clean up and do something useful with that ugly concrete triangle in front of the library. http://www.turbonashville.com/#!gallatin--11th/c20nw Gallatin & 11th We are at the beginning of brainstorming ideas for this unused space where Gallatin and 11th merge. It is right next to East Nashville Magnet School, the East Branch Library, Village Church, and Calypso Café. Some ideas for this unused concrete triangle include fun popups related to the school or library and adding more trees, flowers, and plants. What do you think this space should be used for? here is a google map pic of the spot I'm talking about

Hunters Automotive properties are apparently listed for sale. Anyone know anything about this one? I can't even guess if these are attractive prices or if this is more of a "make-me-move" see what the market is kind of thing... If I understand correctly, then this is right where the above mentioned recent surveying was. What would you all like to see here? It's prime spot. I'm hoping there will be eventually be a smoother (more pedestrian friendly) connection between the Main St corridor, 5 points, and the start of Gallatin with Barista Parlor etc and all the new residential there. 974 Main St / East Nashville Nashville, TN The Hunters Custom Automotive campus at Five Points is being offered FOR SALE. The campus south of Main Street consists of a total of +/-4,... $1,750,000 4,160 SF Bldg Street Retail 3 969 & 975 Main St / East Nashville Nashville, TN The Hunters Custom Automotive campus at Five Points is being offered FOR SALE. The campus north of Main Street consists of a total of +/-26... $4,750,000 26,982 SF Bldg Street Retail

I think we always need to look at the real data. We need to look at other cities and see what works and what doesn't. I would have bet a lot based on intuition that having good public transit options would cut highway congestion but according to the article above about L.A. it doesn't seem to make much difference and dynamic pricing is the only strategy shown to dramatically cut congestion. The "induced demand" of additional road capacity seems to be a really robust effect in cities large and small all over the world. Our natural intuition is that we don't think that many people have much discretion about their driving, but according to the data they do. There are many small discretionary trips that add up over the whole population and for example if there is a disincentive to driving a long distance to shop people will shop more locally on their way home etc. I have a general interest in transportation but really follow trends in walk/bike infrastucture. Induced demand works extremely well there too, but only if it is 1) safe, well protected from car traffic 2) convenient, goes where people need to go. 3) connected, transportation decisions are based on the weakest link. This is a demand that is beneficial to induce. Relieves congestion, also incrementally improves air quality, health. Going back to the data again: Most businesses fight bike lanes tooth and nail because they are scared to lose parking but the data are overwhelmingly positive for small businesses. Bike/ped have a lower barrier to come into a store, they make more frequent smaller shopping trips which are a net positive for businesses, etc.

Atlanta is doing this the right way: They keep one lane moving around 45 mph and adjust the price for the express lane in real time. I don't see why this won't eventually be expanded to 2 lanes or even the whole highway. This is Atlanta GA here, the solid south and the mecca of excessive sprawl. If Atlanta can do this there's no excuse for Nashville not to find a way. You can see express lane prices in real time: http://peachpass.com/cam/lawrenceville

The funding/gas tax issue is important but slightly tangential to my main point which is that in order to relieve traffic gridlock it will be necessary to reduce driving demand through a combination of tolls and/or building alternative transportation choices. Although it is very well established, it's somewhat counter-intuitive for a lot of people that when you widen roads (over a fairly large range of sizes) then throughput does not increase, all you do is induce more demand and the speeds do not improve. If you build it, they will drive on it but no one will get anywhere any faster. Here is one in the long line of examples of wasteful highway projects by folks who refuse to accept that induced demand is real: The surprising part to me is that according to this article adding capacity for public transportation didn't have much of an effect on congestion either. The only effective way to alleviate traffic is to charge during high demand. It's really about the choices people make about how frequently and how far to drive. http://www.vox.com/2014/10/23/6994159/traffic-roads-induced-demand The latest example of this is the widening of Los Angeles' I-405 freeway, which was completed last May after five years of construction and a cost of over $1 billion. "The data shows that traffic is moving slightly slower now on 405 than before the widening," says Matthew Turner. .... This is because, for the most part, drivers aren't charged for using roads. So it's not surprising that a valuable resource, given away for free, leads people to use more of it. Economists see this phenomenon in a lot of places, and call it induced demand. If you really want to cut down on traffic, Turner says, there's only one option: charge people to use roads when they're crowded. A model showing how induced demand works. Typically, traffic volume levels off and reaches an equilibrium over time, but when new capacity gets added, the volume increases to fill it, before reaching a new equilibrium. (Victoria Transport Policy Institute)

There are many areas of public policy (schools, health care, etc) where if I went into what I believed you could correctly call me leftist. My view on transportation is fairly libertarian. I stated earlier I want to get rid of mandatory minimum requirements for parking lots on private commercial property. The costs of building and repairing highways are astronomical and not sufficiently paid for directly by the people who use them. It has been explained many times here that the gas tax itself does not pay for all the costs, not even close. If you don't want the gas tax to go up then you need to 1) find some other revenue source to build and fix highways or 2) start charging money to drive or.... 3) let the highways rot and people will find other ways to get around What I like about the concept of a congestion/demand based pricing for highway use is that it kills 2 birds with one stone: raising revenue for transportation infrastructure and alleviating traffic gridlock. If we make pay to use lanes during high demand, those who cannot afford it will be SOL for now but like everything else people will adjust where they live, where they work, what time they travel, etc. There's really no other way to begin to fix this. It would of course work best in conjunction with giving people some safe, affordable, convenient transportation choices. This includes everything from big mass transit to improved sidewalks and crosswalks. The cost of mass transit projects always generate a lot of criticism but I hear very little about what we spend now on maintaining highways. I hear often that roads should be one of the core functions of a limited government, but I think we need to modify that slightly to broadly include all transportation. This is not to say we necessarily need to spend more, only to consider the proportion of what we spend to support (and therefore subsidize) individual auto travel vs mass transit vs walk/bike etc and make some choices about where we get the best return on investments. Give people some real choices and let them vote with their feet and their wallets.

I dislike the Koch brothers and in general think there needs to be more transparency in campaign finance for political office. Back to Nashville traffic: Communism results in distortion of supply and demand, inefficient use, and long lines. That's what we have on the highways now in Nashville. It’s not surprising that when you hand out something for free that there is demand that overwhelms the supply. Since there is no way to substantively increase the supply of road space very much (and even if you did it would then induce even more demand), we need to figure out some ways to influence demand. Atlanta (and many other cities) are using good ol' capitalist free market solutions to allocate road use to relieve gridlock: http://peachpass.com/peach-pass-toll-facilities/i-85-toll-rate-pricing Toll rates on the I-85 Express Lanes are based on the concept of dynamic pricing. The pricing for use of the Express Lanes varies between .01 cent and .90 cents per mile based on traffic flow. Ultimately, the price of the I-85 Express Lanes at a specific location and point in time is determined by consumer demand. As demand for use of the Express Lanes increases, the toll amount will rise to ensure that motorists using the Express Lanes will experience a more reliable trip time. As traffic in the Express Lanes decreases, the toll price will also decrease. Rates are recalculated at a configurable time period (minimum of every 5 minutes), 24 hours a day. Would this work in Nashville? I know it would work, my question is really is it politically possible in the near future? Tolls would be a tough sell at the state level, but I don't think increasing the gas tax would be any more popular than tolls and we need money from somewhere. At least with market rate pricing there is predictable travel throughput for those who are willing to pay for it instead of everyone stuck in the transportation equivalent of a soviet bread line. I'm being intentionally provocative with the language here but we need to start thinking of road space as a public commodity and transportation infrastructure as a public service. There is a lot of outcry that we don't want too much government handout or socialist-style control over for example health care, but somehow this same mindset does not carry over to transportation where everybody expects something for nothing and then is surprised when there is overwhelming demand for it.

I got the postcard in the mail about this rezoning request from metro planning today. We had discussed this lot when it was listed for sale. It does not include the church, but an adjacent grass field owned by the church that used to host a farmers market not to long ago. This is across the street from the under construction Farrow and it sounds like a similar concept. 2015SP-070-001 A request to rezone from R8 to SP-MU zoning for a portion of property located at 210 S. 10th Street, at the southwest corner of S. 10th Street and Russell Street (0.50 acres), to permit up to 13 attached residential units and up to 2,190 square feet of commercial space, requested by Civil Site Design Group, PLLC, applicant; East Nashville Free Will Baptist Church, Inc., owner.

This one has stuck out like a sore thumb for a while, considering the very modern new house adjacent on 14th. This intersection is OK. There's still the beer mart here with its wide parking lot entrance on both sides of the NE corner instead of a sidewalk. It's at a hilly spot with a 4way stop that gets rolled through. The sidewalk is missing on the NE corner and also soon ends abruptly on the SE corner. Considering this is halfway between the 11th Local Taco/Martin Corner and the 17th Post/O+S areas I would think it would be high priority to get the sidewalk completed. The next stretch past the SE corner on Fatherland is a weird series of homes where the address and mailboxes are up on Fatherland but that falls off a cliff and the homes are really only accessible by the alley.

At least a few of the immediate neighbors are upset about the SP proposed for "54 stacked flats and 9 detached residential units" on Porter just North of the bend from Eastland. Anyone care to weigh in? http://www.nashville.gov/mc/ordinances/term_2011_2015/bl2015_1093.htm http://www.nashville.gov/mc/pdfs/zoning/2015_calendar_year/bl2015_1093.pdf http://www.nashville.gov/mc/pdfs/zoning/2015_calendar_year/bl2015_1093_siteplan.pdf

There are two churches right near there... The Crystal Fountain church on Russell had some kind of disputed financing deal but I am not sure where that stands now: http://www.tennessean.com/story/money/real-estate/2014/10/10/east-nashville-church-loses-building-bank/17058881/ I checked the website for the listing company and the church I was talking about in my above post appears to only be selling the empty land that is now a lawn and not their building itself: http://x.lnimg.com/attachments/AA6FA9AA-CA41-45D0-81FA-14E1E208196B.pdf Here is the Farrow project: https://www.facebook.com/FarrowFivePoints The townhomes on 10th are pretty much built. They are tall and have rooftop decks that are claimed to have a view of downtown though I'm not sure if you can really see over the trees from there. They have not started yet on the retail part that will sit on the corner of 10th and russell.

I don't remember this being the orinigal plan for Martin Corner but a lot has changed in the neighborhood and it looks like Mark Sanders will be doing 3 buildings that are each 2 story office space on the corner of 10th & Fatherland behind the pavilion and small "Shoppes". http://www.nashville.gov/Portals/0/SiteContent/MHZC/docs/2015%20Meetings/4%20April/SR%20301%20S%2010th%20Street%20and%201004%20Fatherland%20Street.pdf This looks like the last empty lot around the original Martin Corner development. For a long time it was an empty concrete slab (and frequent staging area for very much needed speed limit enforcement on 10th street) and more recently has been parking. This is also right down the block from the under construction Farrow mixed use on 10th and Russell. Parking will continue to get tight but this is a really nice stretch linking together 5 points to the fatherland shops and restaurants. Furthermore the church on 10th and Fatherland has a real estate sign up that I presume may be for the huge empty lawn that used to host the farmer's market.

The focus (especially by of some of the mayoral candidates) on "regional" transit may be politically smart but as a matter of efficient transportation policy but we can't expect folks to leave their car outside of Nashville if they can't move around easily once they get here. We need to focus on the central core first. That will lead to a stronger demand for people wanting transportation options to get into the city. The combination of good transportation choices within the city and the inevitable higher cost of parking that will come with higher density will build market pressure and public support for commuter transit but we're not there yet. Right now from the experience of many suburban commuters the trip in and the parking costs are still tolerable and there aren't compelling better choices for getting around within the city. The most important point is that we don't make the mistake of trying to focus on build more parking or widen highways. These things just induce more demand and distort the free market for space. Building more parking or widening highways would artificially induce demand and we would continue to subsidizing sprawl that is really the source of many of our problems.

Yeah, I am normally a bike commuter ~5 miles East Nashville to Vandy but had surgery recently and have been in the car the last 2 weeks. It's been terrible beyond the bummer of missing the fresh air it's been a serious problem in terms of scheduling my trip home so I can get my kids on time. On the bike my commute takes me 25 minutes in nice weather with no traffic or 30-35 minutes in bad weather and/or bad traffic. Thursday with the rain and SEC tourney it took me 75 minutes. Although it is early yet and the candidates are still seeking the middle ground and not get too specific on anything I'd be curious if anyone has a take on how the mayoral race and new administration will address transportation. To me Megan Barry has the most specific, most sensible platform on this that I have read: http://www.meganbarry.com/transit She hits the important issues, makes relevant comparisons to other American cities, and cites studies suggesting a data-based approach to decision making. She also has the experience to work with the chamber in making transportation policy to support the economy of the city. If anyone is aware of other candidates plans on this or has any other information about how transportation policy figures in the mayor races then please share...

OK, I apologize that my reply was too confrontational and misrespresented your points. I do think we largely agree. My bad. My emotional reaction to the call for public input was largely due to the example when Peter Westerholm was proposing a protected bike lane on a portion of Woodland there was a small but very vocal opposition that made it impossible to move forward. I am firmly convinced that from a best practices street engineering point of view that this would be an overall improvement for this road. I have no formal training nor professional background in street design but have read up some and I think people have preconceived ideas about street design/function that don't match real world data. The Woodland St bikelane would have removed a left turn lane which is a relatively underutilized space and intermittent left turn bays could have been installed to still allow dedicated space for left turns without taking up long stretches of space that never get used. To move on, I think a relevant point to discuss on this board is how transportation policy relates to zoning policy: specifically I contend that the requirements to include parking spaces as part of commercial real estate zoning are flawed policy that distorts the free market and harms the city. If a business has a reason to believe that customers want to park next to their building then they will choose to dedicate space to parking. If parking becomes scarce, as is almost always the case in any thriving neighborhood, then someone will charge money for it and the market sorts it out. From an economics point of view, requiring private businesses to build parking for cars forces them to subsidize one transportation option at the expense of all others (walk/bike, bus, uber/lyft etc). It also so happens that in forcing private businesses to subsidize individual auto travel we are incentivizing additional congestion and air pollution. Please pardon me if I'm incorrect, but I believe we actually end up in concurrence, after all. -==-

OK, there's a lot here and you make some very important points. "I think that as a project they should have to be treated as any other transportation infrastructure improvement" "I have observed cases in this here town where some bike lanes were basically worthless and dangerously put in place" Correct, these are two important and related issues. The current best practices for TN are outlined here: http://www.tdot.state.tn.us/bikeped/CompleteStreets.pdf As you correctly observed many bike lanes in Nashville are no safer than having no bike lane and therefore many cyclists ride in the shared traffic lane anyway. Bike lanes should be at least 4 ft wide not including a gutter. There are many places in Nashville where they are less than 2 feet wide and consist almost entirely of what is for practical purposes a gutter. Almost without exception bike lanes are placed on the edge of the road where there is the most debris and uneven surface. I'm not sure why you think separated bike lanes are less safe. This is the opposite of true. Bike lanes with any physical separation from traffic are much safer and have much more frequent use, but only if they exist where people need to go. But I take exception to the idea that bike lanes are ram-rodded down anyone's throats. People should have the right to travel walking or biking without fearing for their lives. It's a public safety and quality of life issue as well as a transportation issue. This isn't about a political ideology but is a practical economic consideration in that walk/bike access is a factor in recruiting young talent to work in cities. Walk/bike infrastructure has been proven time and time again to benefit local businesses who often fight when parking is taken away but end up benefiting in the end. If you think bike lanes are ram-rodded down anyone's throat think about the converse. Let's say you want to ride a bike somewhere but the government has spent 99.9% of transportation infrastructure money and space on automobile travel. A fellow citizen who wants to ride a bike instead of drive a car is decreasing air pollution and taking up a much smaller portion of the road space so there should be a collective incentive for you to encourage this behavior. Bike lanes represent such a minutely small portion of road space and cost almost nothing to build. There are ways to improve street safety and efficiency while incorporating bike lanes and pedestrian infrastructure. Many lanes are 12 ft wide (or more). Reducing lanes to 11 or even 10 ft has been found to be dramatically safer for cars as well as pedestrians with only very modest if any reductions in traffic throughput.

I hope the next mayor understands the importance of multimodal transportation to the future of the city as well as Dean does. While none of the candidates is very specific at this point, I have high confidence that Megan Barry has a real understanding of the issues and has demonstrated familiarity with the data from other cities as far as what works for transportation efficiency and economic impact. Transit is important but will be expensive and politically difficult to tackle. Adding bike lanes is a slam dunk huge bang for the buck component of transportation infrastructure that should be given high priority. The Complete Business Case for Converting Street Parking Into Bike Lanes An annotated, chart-filled review of 12 studies from around the world. http://www.citylab.com/cityfixer/2015/03/the-complete-business-case-for-converting-street-parking-into-bike-lanes/387595/ New York City's Protected Bike Lanes Have Actually Sped Up Its Car Traffic http://www.fastcoexist.com/3035580/new-york-citys-protected-bike-lanes-have-actually-sped-up-its-car-traffic http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/2014-09-03-bicycle-path-data-analysis.pdf

Im not sure if you are joking with this post but yes there are pedal cabs downtown. http://www.nashvillepedicab.com/ this picture is not from nashville but they look like this

Is there any corridor in Nashville where express buses could use the highway shoulder? Maybe even airport to downtown...

aertson

They have this logo all over the side of the Aertson construction site. For me this is too much like the upside down V that UT players flash at Vandy. I doubt that was intentional though: