Jump to content

Deepdish53

Members
  • Posts

    36
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Deepdish53

  1. 2 hours ago, Bos2Nash said:

    This confuses me because I am trying to think through how the Boulevard is aligning with current street grid. I don't think the KVB bridge approach is planned to be rebuilt as part of the EB Boulevard, so why would we be stopping the Boulevard at the existing Nissan footprint?

    EB Blvd is going to raise up to the current grade of the KVB bridge where it's shown to intersect. There will be minor bridge modifications to allow for an intersection, but no major rebuild of the KVB bridge.

    Additionally, Bob was discussing the temporary condition where Fallon is planning to develop their adjacent parcels prior to the rest of the central waterfront developing. They will be responsible for constructing the portion of the boulevard (from KVB to Victory) that fronts their parcels. Other development further along the boulevard will be responsible for constructing their portions of the boulevard.

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1
  2. 7 minutes ago, Bos2Nash said:

    I think there is a certain value to street parking in specific areas. I would love to see some corridors lose street parking entirely and have either a dedicated bus lane or possibly two way cycle tracks. Downtown businesses have killed some bike lanes previously, but hopefully it could gain more momentum another time around (not sure how at this moment). While 3rd Avenue may not be the most active road, it is relatively central within the CBD and is the only road that runs from the southern part of the inner loop all the way into Metrocenter.

    Getting this section of 3rd Ave would be the hardest connection to make as this is the only break in 3rd Ave until you get down to Hart Street in near Bento (3rd Ave terminates because of the RR).

    image.thumb.png.2f082fcf69c7faba1edb8a8bcaddfc05.png

    Connecting this stretch of 3rd avenue would be a huge improvement for connectivity from WeHo into downtown, but unfortunately I don't believe it's feasible. It would involve reconstructing the interstate, its associated ramps, Lafayette St, and the ramp intersections with 4th and 2nd streets, as well as the construction of a new bridge to support 3rd avenue. Not to mention if the interstate is raised to provide enough clearance for another bridge underneath it, the limits of construction to get back down to the existing interstate could possibly extend to the two T-interchanges to I-65 and I-24 on either side (as well as the pedestrian bridge that extends from Academy Place). It isn't unreasonable to assume all three of those major structures would need to be rebuilt in some way to meet interstate standards for vertical geometry.

    Outside of complete removal of the highway (which is an idea others on the board have floated) I doubt there would be a good justification for spending hundreds of millions of dollars to reconnect 3rd avenue.

    • Like 2
  3. On 9/16/2023 at 3:40 PM, PruneTracy said:

    The biggest issue is the distance between 16th and 17th Avenues (and, to a lesser extent, the "median" width of Magnolia Boulevard). If you constrain the roundabout diameter to typical for a multilane roadway, it will easily fit within existing right-of-way, but realigning 16th and 17th Avenues to meet it at appropriate angles becomes difficult. If you expand the roundabout diameter to try to help these approaches, it cuts into Belmont and other adjacent properties, and circulating speeds within the roundabout become unacceptably high.

    For reference I was able to fit a 350' diameter circle in the intersection without getting into existing structures, if Belmont will donate a little land (the yellow circle). The maximum recommended diameter for a roundabout is 200', which is the orange circle. But you can see even with the larger circle that the 16th Avenue exit is poorly aligned without much room to fix it. The positioning is also troublesome as pushing the roundabout to the east (right) improves the 16th Avenue exit but makes the 17th Avenue entrance much worse, and in either case there is a lot of unused space. On the other hand both Wedgewood Avenue and Magnolia Boulevard are well-aligned for roundabout approaches (it's desirable to have the centerline hit a little to the left of the center of the roundabout as it allows for more deflection and speed reduction on entrances).

    image.thumb.png.372c0cf36e893da794f55747693add12.png

    A second issue, mostly for the larger diameters, is the grades within the site. It's about a fifteen-foot change in elevation from the top of Wedgewood to 17th Avenue. Roundabouts generally need no more than a 2% cross-slope on the circulating roadway and max 4% grade longitudinally (circumferentially?); if you go higher drivers start to have a harder time navigating the traffic conflict points while turning and trying to maintain speed across varying grades. On the other hand, if we are thumbing our nose at the FHWA and AASHTO by building a big-ass roundabout we can probably do the same by making it go up and down hills.

    There are also several properties that only have access to streets within this area which would be cut off by a roundabout. Maybe not an issue since they all seem to have alley access.

    All said maybe we can take a lunch break one day to fix it.

    A traditional roundabout would certainly have numerous problems keeping it from being a realistic option (as you've laid out), but I do wonder if a dumbbell roundabout design (typically used with highway interchanges) would be possible. I haven't worked with them enough to know the ideal distance between the connecting roundabouts, but it seems like this could be a good candidate to have two smaller diameter roundabouts that would help with the offsets for deflection without having to alter the approaches too much.

    Ultimately I think grade would still be the constraint keeping it from being a feasible option, but it seems like a more reasonable option geometrically and could be worth exploring.

    • Like 2
  4. 8 hours ago, AsianintheNations said:

    Driving past the airport on I-40E this weekend, I noticed that there were exit signs recommending different exits for Departing (216A) and Arriving (216B) flights at BNA, which I don't remember being there before. I just double-checked myself on google maps and it matches what I remember, with 216A being marked as "Int'l Airport" and 216B being marked as "Air Freight." If this change is accurate, I assume the goal is to try to avoid the massive backup of cars at the 216A exit, but does anyone know if this is a temporary or permanent change in signage?

    Not sure how permanent it is, but I'd assume if this is the fix for the traffic situation until Donelson Pike can get relocated and the traffic flow within BNA can get reworked then the signage will probably be there for a good while.

    For what it's worth, it seems like this may be a good fix if folks start using this system. Exit 216B ends up looping you in to the left side of traffic at the choke point, while Exit 216A brings you in on the right side. One of the major contributing factors to why 216A is currently backing up on the interstate consistently is people are parked in their cars at arrivals waiting for folks. The resulting line of cars blocks all three lanes of traffic because cars are going from the right side to the left, which means people can't get to departures which is relatively free flowing in comparison. If 216B is marked for arrivals, that long line of folks behind parked cars can be kept to the left side of the choke point (and ultimately spill out on to Donelson Pike instead of I-24 if necessary), keeping the right side clear for folks coming in from 216A to go to departures.

    image.thumb.png.3697e1959e4cc41e8625c263650e6809.png

    • Like 4
  5. 1 hour ago, smeagolsfree said:

    Was this a recent plan? It was referencing the rebuild of I 440 which has already been done. So, I am thinking this is an old plan.

    On a similar note, the Gov and TDOT are expected to have a new spending plan announced this week, I think. Let's see how much of this is in there.

     

    This is from the list of projects that TDOT released a month or two ago that don’t have any funding but that they surmised could be built using the private-public partnership idea that they just came out with. I think there was a lot of discussion on the document in the Transportation and Mass Transit thread.

    Regardless - this is a recent proposal, but it’s one without a funding source and one that I can’t imagine will have any real momentum any time soon.

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1
  6. My understanding is that Harper's is going in to the other retail space along Peabody, which is facing Lea Ave (also towards the trolley buildings, Pinewood Social, etc.). That space has been in the process of being built out for the past 4-5 months.

    There's an internal hallway separating the two retail spaces which will keep them from being combined, so some other business should be going in to the space facing Hermitage. Seems like there's already an agreement in place since, as you said, a contractor just recently started building out that space as well - I'll be curious to see what goes in there.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
  7. 2 hours ago, Nathan_in_DC said:

    Holy crap, don't look at the price estimates on some of these. For instance, $1.4 million to add sidewalks to Eastland between 16th and 17th Streets. That seems excessive, even if they're burying utilities in the process.

    With many sidewalk projects the majority of the cost does not come from the concrete going on the ground, it's the drainage. If the existing roadway utilizes a ditch, then we're talking about putting a curb and gutter drainage system in where one doesn't exist today. That involves excavation, expensive concrete structures and pipes, and then connecting that new storm drainage system into other storm drainage systems that are existing today (which often means going outside the immediate project area to adjust existing drainage structures and connect to them). $1.1M for that little stretch of sidewalk certainly seems excessive, but the "per linear foot" costs are higher when you get to these small projects and with how construction costs have skyrocketed recently it doesn't seem too far out of whack.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
  8. 4 minutes ago, Archibum said:

    Pretty sure this is an actual real physical model, which would lead me to believe it is probably a little outdated. Looks like it was used as a sketch model to test ideas and easily swap things in an out. The renderings and plans in the publication would undoubtedly be the most up to date

    This is spot on - the caption for the image in the Tennessean does mention it's a small-scale physical model instead of 3D rendering.

    • Like 2
  9. 2 hours ago, titanhog said:

    Yeah…I can’t think of any teams building actual closed domes anymore.  I’m pretty sure most (if not all) are retractable.  Really like having best of both worlds…but like Ron said…I’m sure it’s quite a difference in cost and maintenance. 

    The only recently built closed dome that comes to mind is Allegiant Stadium in Las Vegas for the Raiders. That one is completely enclosed.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
×
×
  • 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.