nashvillain_too

Mayor Freddie O'Connell Executive Order Number 045 Subject: Green and Complete Streets Policy https://www.nashville.gov/departments/metro-clerk/legal-resources/executive-orders/mayor-freddie-oconnell/fo045

Maybe there is some overlap between WeGo and NDOT as their institutional roles aren't super well defined and/or maybe tackling the crosswalks within the scope of a larger infrastructural WeGo project might represent a good opportunity to get it done within the scope of that project rather than it being part of a separate NDOT project with a different funding mechanism and different timeline. Who knows...?

If you swing on up to County Hospital Road, there's even more 3 story apartment/condo developments going up. Bordeaux blowing up

Apparently the folks who are opposed to growth missed all the zoning hearings because it's happening. The question is how is the city going to (mis)manage all the growth? Baffling to me how Metro continues to put its head in the sand regarding growth along the pikes

It's already 4 traffic lanes and a turn lane, how much more could it expand? The city really should be looking at more ways to cross the river as Trinity/Buena Vista is the ONLY way for all these residents to move in and out. It's going to be a cluster once all this new development comes on line

Nashville, the 51st state

"Drivers say parking in Montreal is difficult. Experts say it should be" https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/parking-solutions-montreal-1.6230219 Source: Nacto (National Association of City Transportation Officials)

Metro and NES have a new contract which is much more advantageous for Metro this time around. NES will be replacing every single street light in the city over the next... 5 years (?) with smart LED lamps. I'm trying to find details about the new contract but I'm coming up empty but from what I remember, things should be much better in terms of random, persistent, and pervasive pole outages throughout the city. Did you know that in order to report a pole outage, you had to send NES the pole number? You couldn't just tell them the exact location of the pole. Anyway, that archaic system will be improved with the new contract which is already in effect. If I can find details of the new contract, I'll be sure to link it here

I realized that my post wouldn't be taken well and wouldn't do anything to move the conversation in a positive trend so I tried to remove it. Unfortunately, I didn't act fast enough. However, the statement that views are not inherently worthy of respect shouldn't be controversial and it wasn't aimed at anyone's views in particular except for Nash_12South's contention that viewpoints need to be respected. They absolutely do not.

I think you've made that point and I think everyone understands that significant changes to physical infrastructure, changes in systems of subsidies, and changing of mindsets and lifestyle preferences won't happen overnight. We all get that. Would you like to be on the side of change or would you like to be the guy who keeps saying it's gonna be hard and don't expect it to happen anytime soon? One of those things is helpful, the other is... less helpful

That is definitely the case but it's also a specific scenario which comes out of the existence of the stadium and the lease agreement between the Titans and Metro. I wonder how/if that arrangement will change with the new stadium

Big companies are providing their own parking to workers and if they aren't, they should be. The city doesn't need to continue to do it. All that parking takes up a tremendous amount of space. Space that could be used to house people. Space for transit lanes. It's also valuable real estate that is not maximizing its value for the city and for property owners by being underutilized to store private property at absurdly low rates.

Reducing or ending subsidies for parking isn't a punishment nor is it hateful. Ya'll are ones who are making the debate hysterical and polarized by using that kind of rhetoric. I understand that taking away subsidies is unpopular but it's not a punishment. It's a correction to an unequal situation and it's an incentive to change behavior. As Paul said, local governments don't have any sort of obligation to provide cheap parking although they've certainly taken on the job, much to everyone's detriment. Making it harder to drive in the city is absolutely necessary to improving the built environment, to making it safe, quieter, walkable, and amenable to transit. I understand that a transition to that reality will be difficult, but nothing worth doing is easy

The amount that governments have directly and indirectly subsidized the cheap storage of cars has not been reckoned with by anyone except obscure academics until very recently. The abolition of parking minimums throughout the UZO was a crucial first step and I hope Metro Council can keep up the pressure somehow--parking maximums, eliminating on-street parking and/or smart pricing based on demand, and UZO-wide upzoning. I just wish we could move more quickly on this which is why I'm so disappointed in the 10-year time frame that NDOT has laid out for Connect Downtown. It's impossible to have both. If you want a reliable transit system, you have to start making driving and parking more difficult

Truly peak car brain to characterize walking as a lifestyle which implies that driving is somehow natural.

^ Yes! I just watched the "Who Owns the Streets" video the other day (at the recommendation of NotJustBikes community post) and thought about linking it here myself. It's a great primer on... the stuff we've been talking about here the last few days

You know, there are lots of resources out there with real-world examples of what multi-modal infrastructure looks like. It doesn't, in fact, mean separated bike lanes everywhere. If streets are appropriately calm, there's no need for separate lanes or even sidewalks. Bike lanes are kind of a means to an end, which is a safe city that is pleasant and easy to navigate for everyone--children, seniors, and disabled included--and where a 2-ton wheeled appendage isn't a requirement for participation in life.

Again, you all are completely missing the point of there needing to be a network of connected bikeways. You even state that the surrounding areas are not safe to ride bikes...

So, again with the bike lanes thing. 12th ave. South is the only concrete protected bike lane in the city. It currently connects to ZERO other protected bike lanes. If 12th South were the only paved road, how many cars do you think you'd see driving on it? Transportation infrastructure only works if it's part of a NETWORK. Are cyclists supposed to teleport around to the various patches of cycling infrastructure? Also, have you heard of confirmation bias? Maybe look it up. Traffic engineers and politicians overbuild roads based on completely fabricated data all the time. https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/2021/09/09/every-traffic-projection-wrong https://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/12/17/study-transpo-agencies-are-terrible-at-predicting-traffic-levels

Usually worse for bike riders? I'd say so. It's like you're almost there in putting two and two together. But just a bit of data. As of 12/15, 132 people have been killed in vehicle accidents in Davidson County. 36 pedestrians. One cyclist. That leaves 95 in vehicles including 22 teenagers and 9 seniors. In 2022, 130 were killed and in 2021, it was 127. Nashville ranks 24th nationally in traffic fatalities per 100,000 people at 14.5/100,000. Looking at that, I'm just kinda baffled that we're arguing about making roads safer

Is commuting the only travel that people do? Is it possible to consider a transportation network that isn't solely for the benefit of commuters? Maybe we could acknowledge that there are places along Nolensville. that are worthwhile places to be in and of themselves and that the idea of the pikes as state highways that connect Nashville to other towns just isn't the reality on the ground anymore? (After all, they predate the interstate which is much more efficient at doing that task.) Through the laxness of our zoning and years of laissez faire development, that ship has sailed. These are now city streets. Not arterials. Not state highways. Their current form does not function well. They're dangerous. Unpleasant. Polluting. Loud. Inefficient. But you guys are right. Not many people are gonna commute 15 miles by bike. But commuting is only ONE trip that people take in the course of their lives. Downtown is not the ONLY destination. If you could walk or ride a bike a quarter mile to the store, to the clinic, to your kid's school, to the bus stop, to a bar, and it was safe, pleasant, and easy, wouldn't you do it? Don't you think LOTS of people would love to be able to have that CHOICE? I don't understand why, on a forum called URBANPlanet, so many are resistant to efforts to (re)make our city more urban. Maybe we should start a new forum called SuburbanPlanet or ExurbanPlanet to celebrate the wonders of cul-de-sacs and septic tanks.

I'm sure most sane people would love an alternative north/south route in South Nashville. But when you look at the map, what alternatives to Nolensville do you see? In the absence of adding all new non car-oriented infrastructure and development patterns, the only alternative is to diversify the current roadways.

You won't see bike lanes utilized until the bike lanes are safe. A bit of reclaimed gutter next to 5 lanes of 40 + mph vehicle traffic isn't a real bike lane. It's a dare. Implementing bike lanes like this and then saying, "See, no one rides bikes!" would be like building a highway with cobblestones (or something, IDK). Even if the bike lanes are safe, they won't be utilized because there aren't any connections to other safe bike routes. See 12th ave. Unless your start and end destination are along that one linear route, it's not very useful. Also, what times of day are you "observing" cyclist volumes? If you post up around Wedgewood and Magnolia at peak rush hour, you'll see quite a fair number of cycle commuters. I don't even know where to begin with your first paragraph but it seems like you're arguing AGAINST pedestrian safety improvements because it's currently not safe for pedestrians.

Hence the part where he says, "Narrowing lanes slows people down too." I'm sure whatever designs NDOT proposes will feature narrower vehicle lanes which in turn means wider, buffered bike lanes and wider sidewalks. NDOT should also consider curb outs, pedestrian islands, and (highly doubtful) raised crosswalks. Given state involvement, we'll probably settle for hawk signals.