Nashville Bits and Pieces

[Flatrock]

Nashvillwill: thank you for clarifying.  :-) And I believe i understand you. Truly, my potential reverse snobbery is as distasteful as the other kind. There's so much opportunity in this great city to build bridges (literally /figuratively ) - it disappoints me when one such opportunity as this may slip through our collective fingers...

[markhollin]

CMT in talks to keep "Nashville" TV show rolling forward….

http://www.tennessean.com/story/entertainment/2016/06/07/cmt-talks-revive-nashville/85573196/

[smeagolsfree]

As far as the green-way goes, I will have to say this is an example of how the federal government misspends the tax dollars. The feds would cover 80% of the project. That money could go a long way to more worthwhile projects.

 

I am not against green-ways, just against foolish spending.

[markhollin]

22 hours ago, VSRJ said:

Nashville eyes $40M elevated I-440 greenway

http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/local/davidson /2016/06/06/nashville-seeks-30m--440-greenway/85490588/

It would be great to see a map of this (if there isn't already one out there).

 

Here ya go.

In what is being proposed in the article, it appears that the stretch of freeway will be at least three times as long as what is shown here (going from I-40 West down to I-65 South interchange.

 

[Will]

3 hours ago, smeagolsfree said:

As far as the green-way goes, I will have to say this is an example of how the federal government misspends the tax dollars. The feds would cover 80% of the project. That money could go a long way to more worthwhile projects.

 

I am not against green-ways, just against foolish spending.

If Metro were to implement dedicated bike lanes on this greenway, this project could punch far above its weight in enabling scaled intown bicycle commuting around some heavily traveled corridors, possibly reducing local use of 440 at peak times. See London's "Cycle Superhighways" for an example of the concept. The great thing about this greenway is that it would offer a relatively flat, quick ride connecting several major arterial roads.

[CenterHill]

I'm excited about the 440 Greenway.    I've seen another rendering of the proposed route that takes it north to Hadley Park, which is what the article actually says, but not what the accompanying drawing shows.   I'll see if I can find it.  

The interstate cap "park" in the renderings must be Brightwood Ave., which is not in phase I of the project.   I like that it may finally be utilized for something other than mowed grass.     

[smeagolsfree]

I guess my point is that the Feds can't continue to offer up money they do not have.

[RonCamp]

16 hours ago, nashvillwill said:

 

I hear ya. Please don't take my comments the wrong way either. I also like to, as you so eloquently put it, operate in multiple cultures and socio-economic strata. I do think this path would be a fantastic addition to that area. And it would help to right a not-so long ago wrong of that neighborhood being severed by the interstate highway system. But there are countless neighborhoods around this city where that cut runs deeper and longer. Areas that don't have nearly the density of nice parks to connect, as that area does. Sure, I would love to jog/bike from park to park in my hood, but unfortunately, those parks are few and far between and their budgets and landscaping are being slashed as I type. I used the Stop Amp reference as proving point, but I think it holds water. 

 

To summarize, I really do think this is a great idea. I wish we could see more of it around the city. But in my humble opinion, it's a load of horse manure to start in that area. 

I understand the sentiments behind all of these comments.  That said, the original 440 plans had this (or at least a similar) greenway design baked into them.  In fact, it was one of the factors that led to the approval of 440 if I remember correctly.  So that makes it about 30 years overdue. 

[Guest]

I wholeheartedly agree with SFree... the feds take our money or issue debt and then return pennies on the dollar after the funds make their way through the layers of bureaucracy ....

To Will's point  - I very much doubt this will alleviate any traffic on I-440 when it really matters.... there is no-one getting on 440 between 6AM-9AM and 11AM-1PM and 3PM-6PM that will decide to ride a bicycle to their destination. It is probably that only a minuscule amount of traffic from the surface streets (Murphy, Bowling, Chesterfield, Woodlawn Woodmont, Wilmington, Battlefield, Thompson, Melrose, ...) will be alleviated by this project, IMO.

If you question the veracity of my prediction I encourage you to research the bicycle utilization of the Church Street viaduct.. in their genius, the city took a 4 lane road and turned it into a single lane (with an undefined center lane) and 2 bike lanes. The results after 3 years? Massively backed-up traffic and maybe 20 bikes a day...if that...wonderful.

I will say the that number does not include the cyclists that also happen to belong to our vagrant community...they still use the sidewalks with impunity.

4 hours ago, Will said:

If Metro were to implement dedicated bike lanes on this greenway, this project could punch far above its weight in enabling scaled intown bicycle commuting around some heavily traveled corridors, possibly reducing local use of 440 at peak times. See London's "Cycle Superhighways" for an example of the concept. The great thing about this greenway is that it would offer a relatively flat, quick ride connecting several major arterial roads.

 

Edited June 8, 2016 by Guest

[titanhog]

5 hours ago, Will said:

If Metro were to implement dedicated bike lanes on this greenway, this project could punch far above its weight in enabling scaled intown bicycle commuting around some heavily traveled corridors, possibly reducing local use of 440 at peak times. See London's "Cycle Superhighways" for an example of the concept. The great thing about this greenway is that it would offer a relatively flat, quick ride connecting several major arterial roads.

Yes...if metro had some dedicated bike routes throughout the county, I could imagine a lot more people biking to work...which not only takes a few cars off the main arteries, but improves the health of the citizens.

[titanhog]

Gigi's Cupcakes sold to Texas investors and HQ moving from Nashville to Dallas.

http://www.nashvillepost.com/business/food-business/article/20782164/texas-privateequity-group-buys-gigis

[claya91]

1 hour ago, titanhog said:

Yes...if metro had some dedicated bike routes throughout the county, I could imagine a lot more people biking to work...which not only takes a few cars off the main arteries, but improves the health of the citizens.

As a novice cycler, I like this idea, but Nashville's topography would make covering several miles by bike grueling for many. You'd have to be exceptionally well conditioned to tackle some of Nashville's hillier areas for distance on a daily basis. Another reason why residential density within the city is so important.

Edited June 8, 2016 by claya91

[titanhog]

3 hours ago, claya91 said:

As a novice cycler, I like this idea, but Nashville's topography would make covering several miles by bike grueling for many. You'd have to be exceptionally well conditioned to tackle some of Nashville's hillier areas for distance on a daily basis. Another reason why residential density within the city is so important.

Sissy. 

(j/k...I probably couldn't ride a bike a mile on flat ground)

[samsonh]

18 hours ago, nashville_bound said:

I wholeheartedly agree with SFree... the feds take our money or issue debt and then return pennies on the dollar after the funds make their way through the layers of bureaucracy ....

To Will's point  - I very much doubt this will alleviate any traffic on I-440 when it really matters.... there is no-one getting on 440 between 6AM-9AM and 11AM-1PM and 3PM-6PM that will decide to ride a bicycle to their destination. It is probably that only a minuscule amount of traffic from the surface streets (Murphy, Bowling, Chesterfield, Woodlawn Woodmont, Wilmington, Battlefield, Thompson, Melrose, ...) will be alleviated by this project, IMO.

If you question the veracity of my prediction I encourage you to research the bicycle utilization of the Church Street viaduct.. in their genius, the city took a 4 lane road and turned it into a single lane (with an undefined center lane) and 2 bike lanes. The results after 3 years? Massively backed-up traffic and maybe 20 bikes a day...if that...wonderful.

I will say the that number does not include the cyclists that also happen to belong to our vagrant community...they still use the sidewalks with impunity.

 

I know these discussions often turn political, but saying the federal government just doesn't have the money is patently false. When you are talking about government debt you also need to look at the asset side of the equation, the full balance sheet. Many people forget to do this. 

 

Also Tennessee is a a net taker of federal dollars. https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/#methodology

 

Seems like we are getting more than our fair share of federal dollars if you ask me.

[fieldmarshaldj]

1 hour ago, samsonh said:

I know these discussions often turn political, but saying the federal government just doesn't have the money is patently false.

$20 trillion in debt. Many times that more in unfunded liabilities. Fact.

[samsonh]

8 minutes ago, fieldmarshaldj said:

$20 trillion in debt. Many times that more in unfunded liabilities. Fact.

I encourage you to expand your knowledge of debt.

http://www.pragcap.com/the-biggest-myths-in-economics-page/

http://www.barrons.com/articles/5-myths-about-u-s-government-debt-1459782685

It should put you at ease about the political football that is the government debt and SS and Medicare.

PS. If the debt is such an issue why do the markets continue to lend to US at extremely low levels? The market is telling you there is a shortage of risk free assets, and that our government should actually issue more debt. Even our Republican Senator Corker has lamented the fact that our current fiscal policy falls radically short in testimony with Chairwoman Yellen. We should be spending more money, not less.

[UTgrad09]

*Ahem*

[BnaBreaker]

Perhaps it's not my place to say this, and perhaps this thread is not the place to say this either, but can I just say how silly I think it is that any and all conversations that are even remotely political in nature are against the rules?  Don't get me wrong.  I'm in NO WAY criticizing any of the moderators, as they are simply doing their job enforcing the rules as they have been explained to them, and they do a PHENOMENAL job at it.  It is also true that these political discussions can occasionally get a bit testy, and when that takes place I totally understand the moderators getting involved and shutting it down.  The same goes for when the political issue being discussed has nothing to do with the subject matter (i.e. an abortion discussion taking place in a thread about the construction of a Marriott Hotel).  

But shouldn't a bunch of adult men and women be able to casually discuss the political side of important issues such as these, particularly when they are often apropos to the subject matter involved (in this case, the federal funding of a local greenway project)?  I mean, like it or not, there is a political aspect to urban planning, which is the whole point of this discussion forum.  I could understand the rule if this were, say, an NHL discussion forum, but it isn't.  Anyway, just my two cents.  

Edited June 9, 2016 by BnaBreaker

[fieldmarshaldj]

50 minutes ago, samsonh said:

I encourage you to expand your knowledge of debt.

http://www.pragcap.com/the-biggest-myths-in-economics-page/

http://www.barrons.com/articles/5-myths-about-u-s-government-debt-1459782685

It should put you at ease about the political football that is the government debt and SS and Medicare.

PS. If the debt is such an issue why do the markets continue to lend to US at extremely low levels? The market is telling you there is a shortage of risk free assets, and that our government should actually issue more debt. Even our Republican Senator Corker has lamented the fact that our current fiscal policy falls radically short in testimony with Chairwoman Yellen. We should be spending more money, not less.

Again, just because you can rationalize that massive government spending, debt and unfunded liabilities of astronomic proportions are negligible or unimportant does not change the fact that they are very, very real. The notion of the feds spending even more money given the above cited dynamic is beyond the definition of criminally insane.

Edited June 9, 2016 by fieldmarshaldj

[samsonh]

5 minutes ago, BnaBreaker said:

Perhaps it's not my place to say this, and perhaps this thread is not the place to say this either, but can I just say how silly I think it is that any and all conversations that are even remotely political in nature are against the rules?  Don't get me wrong.  I'm in NO WAY criticizing any of the moderators, as they are simply doing their job enforcing the rules as they have been explained to them, and they do a PHENOMENAL job at it.  It is also true that these political discussions can occasionally get a bit testy, and when that takes place I totally understand the moderators getting involved and shutting it down.  The same goes for when the political issue being discussed has nothing to do with the subject matter (i.e. an abortion discussion taking place in a thread about the construction of a Marriott Hotel).  

But shouldn't a bunch of adult men and women be able to casually discuss the political side of important issues such as these, particularly when they are often apropos to the subject matter involved (in this case, the federal funding of a local greenway project)?  I mean, like it or not, there is a political aspect to urban planning, which is the whole point of this discussion forum.  I could understand the rule if this were, say, an NHL discussion forum, but it isn't.  Anyway, just my two cents.  

Agreed. Also we can only discuss how unlimited building heights should be allowed in the loop and how boxy every building is so many times. In between new building announcements we need something to do

[titanhog]

4 minutes ago, BnaBreaker said:

 shouldn't a bunch of adult men and women be able to casually discuss the political side of important issues 

That's like asking, "shouldn't a lion be able to just lick a gazelle without actually eating it?" 

[samsonh]

1 minute ago, fieldmarshaldj said:

Again, just because you can rationalize that massive government spending, debt and unfunded liabilities of astronomic proportions are negligible or unimportant does not change the fact that they are very, very real.

I don't think you read my links

[fieldmarshaldj]

3 minutes ago, samsonh said:

I don't think you read my links

I augmented my prior post with another sentence after you replied.

[BnaBreaker]

6 minutes ago, titanhog said:

That's like asking, "shouldn't a lion be able to just lick a gazelle without actually eating it?" 

Ohh but they're just so tasty!!!  Just a little bite?  Pretty please?  

[dmillsphoto]

The reason we are so fast to pounce (in keeping with the punny theme) on these discussions is often they de-materialize into something unrelated to the thread topic. Prime example - federal debt/deficit opinions in a Nashville Bits & Pieces topic currently focused on a greenway. Is there federal funding involved? Yes. Does the other stuff matter? Not in this thread. Keep it to the Coffeehouse. That's why we have it.