1st time poster so just want feedback on my suggestions to TDOT.
I attended a TDOT meeting on long range plans for the I-24 corridor and offered several suggestions to TDOT regarding improvements and alternative routes. The traffic on I-65 and I-24 thru downtown has gotten to gridlock almost all day long and the construction north of downtown where I-24 and I-65 merge for 2 miles is to a slow crawl all day long.
1) Since Briley Parkway is up to Interstate standards north of I-40, re-shield it a X65 or X24 bypass route. Add control cities of Knoxville and Memphis on I-65 southbound and I-24 eastbound. Also, add Louisville and Clarksville as control cites on east side and west side approaches to Briley Parkway on I-40. That alone would divert 10's of 1,000's of vehicles daily away from the downtown loop.
2) Upgrade Briley Parkway to Interstate standards south of I-40 to I-24 in the SE part of Nashville, re-shield it as a continuation of the newly designated X65 or X24, and add Chattanooga as a control city north of Briley Parkway on I-65 southbound and I-24 eastbound and add Louisville and Clarksville as control cities on I-24 heading west before the approach of Briley in the SE part of Nashville. The Briley Parkway route is literally only 1 mile longer to bypass downtown and would divert even more traffic around the downtown loop.
3) Re-shield the newly completed SR 840 to Interstate 840 and add control cities of Chattanooga, Huntsville, Memphis, and Knoxville on I-40 approaching I-840 depending direction of travel to divert thru traffic around Nashville. Add "to I-24 east and I-65 south" to east and west bound approaches. I thought the entire idea of building 840 was to get thru traffic to go around Nashville but signage is still not up on either approach to 840. I tend to find that drivers will not take a state route as a bypass since they don't know the quality of the road which 840 is built to Interstate standards. 840 adds 17 miles on I-40 thru traffic but the time savings due to traffic back ups in Nashville and higher speed limits negates the extra mileage especially during the daytime hours.
4) Widen I-24 thru downtown on the eastside to 8 lanes and eliminate the loops ramps and add frontage roads and diamond on/off ramps. It's a real confusing mess. Also, tear down that damn Fern Ave overpass to allow extra lanes(s) to/from I-24 and I-65. That lightly traveled overpass alone causes back ups for miles all day long.
I had more suggestions regarding Ellington Parkway from I-24 to I-65 but I'll get to that later.
Feedback anyone????
Making Briley Parkway I-224 has always been a fantasy of mine. Adding control cities would be a good start.
Upgrading the part in the southeast would be tricky. The interchange with I-24 would have to be redone (again) to get it to interstate standard. At least the Currey Road light is long gone, but between Venus Drive and Karen Drive http://goo.gl/maps/oRvXt there are several at-grade interchanges and driveways (some of those residential).
I think TN 840 already has some long-distance control cities - making that standard would be a good idea.
Widening that stretch of I-24 might work. I think the entire downtown loop (along with the two-mile overlaps for I-24 with I-65 and I-40) need C/D lanes or something similar. Putting those in would be a hassle though.
As there are no signed I-x24s anywhere, I would welcome I-224 (or I-424) to Briley Parkway.
In the interim, putting up signs that suggest through traffic use TN 155 and/or I-440 to bypass downtown would do better, as there are no signs saying that TN 155 is a bypass of any sort. It amazes me how much time TN 155 saves just because out-of-town motorists don't know about it.
I like the idea of both signing TN 155 as an I-x24 and extending it to I-24 east. This would take a lot of through traffic away from downtown that is headed between Chicago and Atlanta. Frontage roads could be put in for the businesses along TN 155 where the at-grade traffic signals are, but as elsmere241 mentions, it would be tricky.
Put in interchanges at Corporate Drive and Vultee Blvd and build frontage roads that connect to those cross-roads. A lot of the residential streets can be eliminated from access to TN 155 around Vultee Blvd. Build an overpass for Knights of Columbia Bivd/Karen Drive over TN 155. Finally, put in a flyover for TN 155 SB to I-24 EB and from I-24 WB to TN 155 NB.
Service roads would work in some form, including shifting things so that the current southbound lanes from Airways to Venus become the west service road. (There is room on the other side and the east service road could connect to McGavock Pike.) I don't know if I'd where I'd put interchanges, but I'd certainly take out the trumpet at Airways.
Great suggestions by all. But elsmere241, I would leave the interchange at Airways and force the plant traffic to use it. There plenty of room there to rebuild and extend those ramps. The Vultee at-grade intersection could be closed completely but add a north bound off ramp from Briley through the plant parking lot. Looks like there's plenty of empty parking lots on the north side of the plant for parking. Metro probably owns most of that land from the old BNA terminal and there used to be a hotel and more biz there until the new terminal opened on the east side of the runways. As said above, most of Briley could be widened and shifted a little east and use a frontage road on the existing roadway on the west side to allow for the driveways access. It would be a lot safer for those residents. With the current gridlock only to get worse as Nashville keeps booming I don't think Metro and TDOT will have any choice but to consider upgrading Briley along there and using it as a X65 or X24 bypass. It would be expensive and take time, but be worth it. A huge volume of traffic from the Midwest take I-65 and I-24 thru Nashville to Chattanooga on the way to GA and Fla. I know since I manage a hotel off I-24 in SE Nashville and almost all of my biz is from those states and Floridians heading north.
Why not number it I-840? It is not in use. :bigass: :)
Why not number it I-840? It is not in use
Not sure you would want to rename SR 155 Briley Pkwy as I-840 since that is being saved for the southern bypass of Nashville. I would hate to see 840 all the way around Nashville with a shared I-40 on the east and west sides. Why TDOT spent all the money to build SR840 and then not follow through with an Interstate designation is beyond me. I could see the south loop as I-840S and Briley Parkway as I-840N but I hate those letter routes and I think it would cause confusion with out of town thru traffic. Just renumber the parkway X65 or X24 and add control cities on all approaches and be done with it. Just don't use I-265 again since it was a west loop bypass before I-65 was rerouted there and there is already a TN SR 265 in Davidson County.
When I said take the Airways trumpet out, I meant replace it with something less land-consuming and more efficient and have it connect to one or both service roads (not necessarily at-grade) as well as 224/Briley. There are plenty of innovative interchange or intersection designs out there that would work.
I see what you mean now. That interchange could also tie into a frontage road on the west side for local traffic while shifting and widening Briley a little east of it's current alignment. Some property would have to be bought out but TDOT usually pays top dollar to get people to move for expansion projects. That part of Nashville is called Little Tijuana now with mostly older people and illegal aliens that rent. I'll leave it to the engineers to decide but that is a wasted highway in it's current form between I-40 and I-24 that could divert 10's of 1,000's of vehicles around Nashville.
There are reasons that I-840 was not initially used for the southern bypass of Nashville. It mainly had to do with how the roadway was funded (all state funds from my understanding) and the less involved environmental process that was used, based on using no federal funds. At some point in the future, it would not surprise me to see SR 840 converted to I-840 as a non-chargable interstate, but I figure it might be several more years. In any case, I figure that interstate number 840 will stay reserved for the southern bypass.
Quote from: RoadWarrior56 on August 13, 2013, 06:38:46 PM
There are reasons that I-840 was not initially used for the southern bypass of Nashville. It mainly had to do with how the roadway was funded (all state funds from my understanding) and the less involved environmental process that was used, based on using no federal funds. At some point in the future, it would not surprise me to see SR 840 converted to I-840 as a non-chargable interstate, but I figure it might be several more years. In any case, I figure that interstate number 840 will stay reserved for the southern bypass.
This statement is correct. If this had to go through the Feds they would have never approved the section from I-40 Dickson to I-65.
Yes, But Gene Cotton and his ilk sued to make TDOT do a complete EIS thru Leiper's Fork but was it was approved by the Feds with a lot of expensive revisions and delays on construction. I did ask at the TDOT meeting if SR840 and SR155 were eligible for Interstate status even if they were built with state funds. TDOT said they were eligible just like SR385 that has been approved as I-269 around Memphis. They said in order to get approved as an Interstate, it isn't so much as how they got built or how they were paid for but that they meet all the criteria that qualifies the road to get Interstate status.
Which also always makes me wonder why all the new freeways in and around Phoenix aren't signed as Interstate loops and spurs.
Anybody know why hasn't AZDOT never asked to have loops 101, 202, and 51 signed as Interstates?
Quote from: SFPredsFan on August 14, 2013, 12:28:57 AMWhich also always makes me wonder why all the new freeways in and around Phoenix aren't signed as Interstate loops and spurs.
Anybody know why hasn't AZDOT never asked to have loops 101, 202, and 51 signed as Interstates?
There were proposals for I-x10s in Phoenix and Tucson, but ultimately, they decided against those plans and built the aforementioned freeways with state/municipal funding (as well as the US 60 upgrade to the Superstition Freeway). At least they were smart enough to realize that not every freeway needs an Interstate shield attached to it.
QuoteSince Briley Parkway is up to Interstate standards north of I-40,
As I understand it, it's not. Freeway-grade, certainly, but not Interstate-grade, especially the narrow section west of I-65 (substandard shoulders).
Quotere-shield it a X65 or X24 bypass route. Add control cities of Knoxville and Memphis coming south on I-65 and add Louisville and Clarksville as control cites on east and west bound approaches to Briley Parkway on I-40. That alone would divert 10's of 1,000's of vehicles daily away from the downtown loop.
I think you're overestimating the amount of traffic that is through traffic.
Maybe a waiver can be handed out for that. Although TN is a red state so maybe Obama wouldn't hand out a waiver for it.
On the other hand, since we didn't use interstate funds for that strectch of highway why not leave as a state road. The increased traffic would surely increase the maintaince costs. Sometimes all factors need to be taken into account.
That's what I thought too froggie, but I asked about that at the TDOT meeting and they said that all of SR155 north of I-40 is up to Interstate standards and would be eligible since they rebuilt the west side interchange near White's Bridge Road at I-40. Maybe they were thinking they could get waiver since those shoulers and medium are pretty narrow. It's just a matter of time before they have to widen Briley on the west side so anything substandard would be fixed then I would think. And no, I'm not over estimating the thru traffic. Got caught AGAIN yesterday in a hour long traffic jam and the number of out of state plates I see everyday from the Midwest and FL is incredible. That construction zone will be going on for 2 more years and then the Fern Ave overpass construction to the split will be another year or 2. If it saves 1 life to get traffic to bypass that mess it would be worth it to re-shield Briley Parkway.
Quote from: froggie on August 15, 2013, 07:28:32 AM
QuoteSince Briley Parkway is up to Interstate standards north of I-40,
As I understand it, it's not. Freeway-grade, certainly, but not Interstate-grade, especially the narrow section west of I-65 (substandard shoulders).
Quotere-shield it a X65 or X24 bypass route. Add control cities of Knoxville and Memphis coming south on I-65 and add Louisville and Clarksville as control cites on east and west bound approaches to Briley Parkway on I-40. That alone would divert 10's of 1,000's of vehicles daily away from the downtown loop.
I think you're overestimating the amount of traffic that is through traffic.
Do they still have the utility poles on part of it? I do remember, them near the Opryland (or now the Outlet Mall), which struck me odd that a freeway would have overhead utilities along its ROW like an arterial when I was there decades ago. The only thing coming close to it is the Garden State Parkway with its wooden pole roadway lighting, that even they are phasing out for more traditional freeway type of light poles.
I have not been there since 2003, and cannot remember if those poles were relocated then or not, but in 1990 they were there for sure!
roadman65, As far as I can see driving through there, there are none now. They widened Briley Parkway on the east side to 8 lanes from I-40 to Ellington Parkway several years ago so they must have moved them for the expansion.
QuoteAnd no, I'm not over estimating the thru traffic. Got caught AGAIN yesterday in a hour long traffic jam and the number of out of state plates I see everyday from the Midwest and FL is incredible.
All we have (including your example) is empirical evidence to go on. But as a general rule, the vast majority of traffic in urban areas is local in nature. And a lot of your traffic that isn't local has either an origin or destination in that urban area. Even in DC, with as heavy traffic a road as I-95, at most only 30K of the traffic on I-95 is through traffic.
Based on the exurb traffic volumes, especially on I-24 towards Clarksville, there's likely, at the most, about 15K daily through traffic on I-24. Probably about the same on I-65. Maybe a little more on I-40.
Your right I don't know the actual traffic counts that could be bypassed, and I'm no expert on the subject, but when you consider Memphis, Knoxville, Louisville, Clarksville, and Chattanooga bound thru traffic could all be diverted off the downtown loop, 30-50k/day seems like a good guesstimate. That's quite signifigant when you consider that most of that traffic is during daytime hours going thru a very narrow lane construction zone that slows down things even more. Since almost everytime I drive Briley Parkway you could shoot a shotgun down the road and not hit a vehicle, it's got the be the most under utilized highway in Nashville and maybe Tennessee.
Even if the amount of through traffic isn't up to 30K AADT, resigning the interchanges and/or slapping an interstate shield onto Briley would divert some traffic away from the downtown area, which would be helpful.
While we are at it why don't we shield SR 396 as I-365 and SR 386 as I-165. Then at the end of I-165 it can become BUS SPUR I-165 to Gallatin and then at the end of I-365 we can a BUS SPUR I-365N to Spring Hill and a BUS SPUR I-365S to Columbia.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on August 16, 2013, 03:10:18 PM
While we are at it why don't we shield SR 396 as I-365 and SR 386 as I-165. Then at the end of I-165 it can become BUS SPUR I-165 to Gallatin and then at the end of I-365 we can a BUS SPUR I-365N to Spring Hill and a BUS SPUR I-365S to Columbia.
Let's not get into Fantasy territory here, please. Keep in mind the OP was sharing actual feedback to TnDOT.
I changed the heading on this rather than start a new thread since it is basically a continuation of the same subject.
Now that I have the discussion of re-naming Briley Parkway to use as a bypass around the downtown loop in Nashville out of my system, I thought I'd go on to the subject of Ellington Parkway which I mentioned in my 1st post that I said I would get to later.
I think almost everyone was in agreement that it would be beneficial to re-name Briley Parkway to an Interstate route and upgrade it to Interstate standards south of I-40 to I-24 on the SE side of Nashville so that Chattanooga, Knoxville, Louisville and Clarksville thru traffic could bypass the downtown Nashville loop. TDOT has to do something for short and long term plans for Nashville thru traffic and I think my suggestions address that something. For the sake of this thread I-465, 224, or 424 was mentioned as the best numbers to use, so lets use I-424 since I-24 has no signed 3 digit spurs or loops but I don't care as long as it's an even number since it connects Interstates. Let's also call Ellington Parkway I-365 since I can't find a Tennessee state highway using that number. If they redo the southern interchange with I-24, Ellington Parkway could be shielded as an even digit Interstate since it would connect 2 Interstates, but for now I-365 makes sense.
At the TDOT meeting, I suggested that Ellington Parkway be used as an Interstate spur from Downtown Nashville to I-65 north. Like Briley Parkway on the east and west sides, Ellington Parkway is a very nice freeway that is under utilized and you could shoot a shotgun down the road and not hit a vehicle most of the day. Meanwhile, I-24 and I-65 north of downtown is a parking lot most if the time and very dangerous driving through the construction zone. Even after the construction is done in 3 or 4 years, traffic could be diverted onto I-365 and take 15-30k vehicles per day off from that concurrent section. My suggestion was to rename it I-x65 since it has a direct tie in on it's north side to I-65 but it's southern termination is not up to Interstate standards and the loop configuration would need a better tie in to I-24 just east of downtown Nashville. The entire interchange should be redone or just add a couple of ramps but the most important tie in is from I-365 southbound to downtown and I-24 eastbound and from westbound I-24 via Ellington Parkway to I-65 northbound. There is plenty of ROW and space to rebuild that interchange but the main problem is that there is no direct ramp southbound to I-24 east, there needs to be better access to downtown from I-365, and there are too many side street on/off ramps at its southern terminus. Anyways, my suggestion was to put Interstate shields approaching Briley Parkway for I-365 and include "To Downtown Nashville" signage on southbound I-65. TDOT spent a lot of money to upgrade that interchange from I-365 to I-65 and it is up to Interstate standards. Most if not all of I-365 is up to standards except for 1 or 2 interchanges and substandard shoulders in places. TDOT could ask for a waiver also and we all know there any many substandard Interstates sections across the country so what the hell is one more if it helps Nashville traffic. Also, an extra main line in each direction eventually could be added in the medium of I-365 with no ROW needed when the traffic counts warrant it which at that time TDOT could bring any deficiencies up to standard. On the eastside of Downtown on I-24 westbound, add signage approaching I-365 "To Louisville" so that that thru traffic could bypass the concurrent sections of I-65 and I-24 just north of downtown. That area will be under construction for at least 4 more years while they widen it and tear out and rebuild the Fern Ave overpass. It is a slow crawl everyday and any traffic diverted would help, so any traffic headed to Downtown from the north and Louisville bound thru traffic from Chattanooga and Knoxville that didn't use I-424 could use I-365. Some might ask why it is so important to re-shield Ellington Parkway as an Interstate and I'll say it again as I did before, most out of town thru traffic will not take a state route since they have no idea of the quality of road even if it is a freeway. I hope I was able to explain my suggestions and at the TDOT meeting they said they were excellent ideas that would not require long term planning, at minimal cost, and not require any new EIS. I am actually meeting with some TDOT officials and consultants to go over my suggestions in a couple of weeks.
Feedback anyone?
Did you attend a cannabis meeting or a TDOT meeting? US 31E (SR 6) is awful at the end of Ellington Pkwy in reference to transitioning from it's approach there to James Robertson Pkwy. Why spend so much of our hard earned state tax dollars on putting up so many red, white and blue shields. Did you also propose increasing the already inflated hotel/motel tax to pay for all of these upgrades. Nashville commuters already know the traffic patterns and travel times. Through folks should read a map.
Having said that I would support a I-365 for SR 396 and I-165 for SR 386. These would make sense and divert some tourist dollars to surrounding communities.
Yes, I did attend a cannabis meeting but that was AFTER the TDOT meeting. You don't have to be pissy about it. If you've got better solutions to Nashville's gridlock I'm all ears. I know the south end of Ellington sucks. Whoever designed that interchange was on LSD. Doesn't change the fact that I-24/I-65 is a nightmare from downtown north ALL DAY LONG.
There is a direct ramp from I-24 west that could be used for Louisville bound traffic via Ellington and TDOT puts it on the overhead message signs when traffic just stops and doesn't move. I take Ellington a lot and I'm literally the only one on it sometimes. Signage cost next to nothing compared to the pollution, gas, and time wasted. That's my point and why I even bother to suggest using Ellington as an alternate route as a short term solution of what is a long term problem in Nashville.
And no, most out of town traffic uses GPS now days, so Ellington is not an option given Ellington is a tiny line on the map. Might as we be a side street on the maps actually. I do agree the freeways to Spring Hill and Gallatin should be I-165 and I-565 respectfully and another reason I used I-365 for Ellington. I-140 in Knoxville should have been signed I-540. Interstates are suppose to have lower numbers from south to north and west to east. If we are going to spend the money to build a highway to Interstate standards it ought to be signed as one if it connects to another Interstate.
Everybody usually trust that highway when they see that "red, white, and blue" shield because they know it's safe, can drive 55+, and it's a direct or bypass route.
Some direct ramps between Ellington and 24 East (nee South) may be useful, but otherwise the goal there should be ramp simplification and Ellington just does not need to have an Interstate shield. NOT EVERY FREEWAY NEEDS TO BE AN INTERSTATE.
It should also be noted that Ellington predates the rest of the Nashville interstates.
Yes, Ellington is old, but today could be used as a good bypass for Louisville bound traffic. I can't even find a date when that parkway was built as a alt to Gallatin road.
Speaking of the Briley/I-65 interchange, does anyone know when the next phase of that interchange will be built, notably the flyover from the I-65 South to Briley Eastbound will be built? Now there is a stub (http://goo.gl/maps/9H82a) on the flyover from I-65 SB to Ellington SB where a ramp would continue to Briley SB.
They don't have to be interstates, but signs could be erected similar to those around St. Louis (http://goo.gl/maps/25sNu) advertising the route as a bypass.
Wow, of all the times I've taken that route I've never notice that. I've always hated taking that hideous loop from I-65 south to Briley east. It has to add a mile to my trip when I go that way. It's really stupid to spend all the money to redo that interchange but not finish that ramp a couple of hundred feet. There's a couple of trees growing on that stub ramp also. I'll ask when I meet with TDOT in 2 weeks.
And Cody your right, but I'd be more inclined to take MO 370 if it had an Interstate shield. For all I know it's just a bypass with traffic lights even if the map indicates it's freeway grade.
Quote from: SFPredsFan on August 20, 2013, 12:53:53 AM
Yes, I did attend a cannabis meeting but that was AFTER the TDOT meeting. You don't have to be pissy about it. If you've got better solutions to Nashville's gridlock I'm all ears. I know the south end of Ellington sucks. Whoever designed that interchange was on LSD. Doesn't change the fact that I-24/I-65 is a nightmare from downtown north ALL DAY LONG.
There is a direct ramp from I-24 west that could be used for Louisville bound traffic via Ellington and TDOT puts it on the overhead message signs when traffic just stops and doesn't move. I take Ellington a lot and I'm literally the only one on it sometimes. Signage cost next to nothing compared to the pollution, gas, and time wasted. That's my point and why I even bother to suggest using Ellington as an alternate route as a short term solution of what is a long term problem in Nashville.
And no, most out of town traffic uses GPS now days, so Ellington is not an option given Ellington is a tiny line on the map. Might as we be a side street on the maps actually. I do agree the freeways to Spring Hill and Gallatin should be I-165 and I-565 respectfully and another reason I used I-365 for Ellington. I-140 in Knoxville should have been signed I-540. Interstates are suppose to have lower numbers from south to north and west to east. If we are going to spend the money to build a highway to Interstate standards it ought to be signed as one if it connects to another Interstate.
Everybody usually trust that highway when they see that "red, white, and blue" shield because they know it's safe, can drive 55+, and it's a direct or bypass route.
The only reason that I did not advise on the usage of I-565 is that the I-565 in Huntsville is only like what 80 miles away from SR 396?
Quote from: froggie on August 20, 2013, 02:58:44 AM
Some direct ramps between Ellington and 24 East (nee South) may be useful, but otherwise the goal there should be ramp simplification and Ellington just does not need to have an Interstate shield. NOT EVERY FREEWAY NEEDS TO BE AN INTERSTATE.
It should also be noted that Ellington predates the rest of the Nashville interstates.
According to the Tennessean:
http://www.tennessean.com/article/99999999/MICRO0206/61027038/East-Nashville-history-timeline
Construction began in 1967.
rte66man
Quote from: froggie on August 20, 2013, 02:58:44 AM
Some direct ramps between Ellington and 24 East (nee South) may be useful, but otherwise the goal there should be ramp simplification and Ellington just does not need to have an Interstate shield. NOT EVERY FREEWAY NEEDS TO BE AN INTERSTATE.
I agree with that. Ellington seems to fit in better as part of the US Highway system than it would as part of the Interstate system, but that's just my two cents. It also looks more like a freeway section of a US Route than an Interstate, and having a 3di transition into a surface street a few feet away from another Interstate would just be weird. Briley Parkway also fits in better as a state route, since 155 makes a complete loop around the city, with Briley Parkway comprising the northern half.
Besides, it's good for drivers to be exposed to non-Interstate freeways; the last thing we need to do is encourage the "freeway must be an Interstate" misconception.
If I was to renumber every freeway in the Nashville region as an Interstate, TN 840 would become I-840, TN 396 would become I-165, TN 155 would become I-265, US 31E would become I-465, and TN 386 would become I-365. The short freeway (?) stretch off of Exit 221A east of Nashville could conceivably become I-340.
Quote from: SFPredsFan on August 12, 2013, 07:24:35 PM
1st time poster so just want feedback on my suggestions to TDOT.
I attended a TDOT meeting on long range plans for the I-24 corridor and offered several suggestions to TDOT regarding improvements and alternative routes. The traffic on I-65 and I-24 thru downtown has gotten to gridlock almost all day long and the construction north of downtown where I-24 and I-65 merge for 2 miles is to a slow crawl all day long.
1) Since Briley Parkway is up to Interstate standards north of I-40, re-shield it a X65 or X24 bypass route. Add control cities of Knoxville and Memphis coming south on I-65 and on I-24 eastbound and add Louisville and Clarksville as control cites on east and west bound approaches to Briley Parkway on I-40. That alone would divert 10's of 1,000's of vehicles daily away from the downtown loop.
2) Upgrade Briley Parkway to Interstate standards south of I-40 to I-24 in the SE part of Nashville, re-shield it as a continuation of the newly designated X65 or X24, and add Chattanooga as a control city north of Briley Parkway on I-65 southbound and I-24 eastbound and add Louisville and Clarksville as control cities on I-24 heading west before the approach of Briley in the SE part of Nashville. The Briley Parkway route is literally only 1 mile longer to bypass downtown and would divert even more traffic around the downtown loop.
3) Re-shield the newly completed SR 840 to Interstate 840 and add control cities of Chattanooga, Huntsville, Memphis, and Knoxville on I-40 approaching I-840 depending direction of travel to divert thru traffic around Nashville. Add "to I-24 east and I-65 south" to east and west bound approaches. I thought the entire idea of building 840 was to get thru traffic to go around Nashville but signage is still not up on either approach to 840. I tend to find that drivers will not take a state route as a bypass since they don't know the quality of the road which 840 is built to Interstate standards. 840 adds 17 miles on I-40 thru traffic but the time savings due to traffic back ups in Nashville and higher speed limits negates the extra mileage especially during the daytime hours.
4) Widen I-24 thru downtown on the eastside to 8 lanes and eliminate the loops ramps and add frontage roads and diamond on/off ramps. It's a real confusing mess. Also, tear down that damn Fern Ave overpass to allow extra lanes(s) to/from I-24 and I-65. That lightly traveled overpass alone causes back ups for miles all day long.
I had more suggestions regarding Ellington Parkway from I-24 to I-65 but I'll get to that later.
Feedback anyone????
I can't help but ask, but what, if anything, has TNDOT said about it?
Briley Parkway also fits in better as a state route, since 155 makes a complete loop around the city, with Briley Parkway comprising the northern half.
As I mentioned before, Briley Parkway north of I-40 is the only section up to Interstate standards since TDOT finished the new interchange on the west side with I-40. There are some sub standard shoulders and medium on the west loop but TDOT could easily ask for a waiver. They are going to have to widen it to at least 6 lanes on the west loop eventually and could get it up to standards then. It's ridiculous for I-40, I-24 west, and I-65 north thru traffic to go through downtown when Briley would be an excellent option to bypass. I'm a hotel manager at a hotel in SE Nashville and I can't count the out of town drivers bitching about going thru downtown traffic. I've asked everyone of them if they took or knew Briley was an option and not one has said they knew it was. That's why I suggested TDOT resign it and upgrade the section between I-40 and I-24 also. It seems like a natural Interstate just missing control city signage and Interstate shield for a 2/3's loop around Nashville. If it looks like an Interstate bypass, acts like an Interstate bypass, then put up a damn Interstate shield and make it a bypass. And I wouldn't use I-265 since there is already a TN 265 in Davidson County.
I can't help but ask, but what, if anything, has TNDOT said about it?
TDOT was very receptive to all of my suggestions and I'm meeting with them next week to go over them again with some planners and consultants they hired. They also agreed the Fern Ave overpass replacement needs to be added to the 3 year plan and TDOT needs to add an extra mainline on I-24 northbound and I-65 southbound on the downtown side of the overpass but the overpass prevents it. The TDOT rep said most of my ideas would not require any new EIS or public comment meetings. She said that they could just do it without going the Feds other than shielding Briley as an Interstate.
Quote from: SFPredsFan on August 23, 2013, 08:01:22 PM
I can't help but ask, but what, if anything, has TNDOT said about it?
TDOT was very receptive to all of my suggestions and I'm meeting with them next week to go over them again with some planners and consultants they hired. They also agreed the Fern Ave overpass replacement needs to be added to the 3 year plan and TDOT needs to add an extra mainline on I-24 northbound and I-65 southbound on the downtown side of the overpass but the overpass prevents it. The TDOT rep said most of my ideas would not require any new EIS or public comment meetings. She said that they could just do it without going the Feds other than shielding Briley as an Interstate.
OK I knew cannabis was involved. How can TDOT make such changes without an EIS or public meeting? I don't think that is a good idea.
QuoteThe TDOT rep said most of my ideas would not require any new EIS or public comment meetings. She said that they could just do it without going the Feds other than shielding Briley as an Interstate.
Not true. ANY work on the Interstate system, regardless of whether Federal funding is used or not, must be signed off by FHWA. In other words, for any work on I-24 or I-65, TDOT still must "go to the Feds"...
She wasn't referring to any road construction, just my suggestions to add control city signs on the approaches to Briley on I-40, 24, and 65 and the re-shielding of Briley and SR840 which would just require an application to AASHTO if I understood her correctly. I've not seen anything on the AASHTO application that requires an EIS or public comment meetings to re-shield a state highway to an Interstate but it's been a long time since I've looked at one. Of course any road construction projects require an EIS and public comment meetings. Since most of my suggestions, except for upgrading Briley from I-40 to I-24, wouldn't require any additional ROW, she said those projects take a lot less time to get going but a EIS still has to be done. If and when they finish the stub ramp from I-65 south to Briley Parkway east via the Ellington Parkway ramp, it wouldn't require an EIS or public comment I would think since it would've been covered in the original construction plans when they rebuilt that interchange.
ANY Interstate work besides basic maintenance (which is basically plowing, mowing, basic pavement repair, guardrail repair, etc etc), including sign changes, requires FHWA to sign off. Same thing with "reshielding" a highway to an Interstate....not only does an application go to AASHTO, but FHWA has final approval/disapproval for adding (or dropping) Interstate routes. It's possible who you spoke to didn't know this herself, especially if she's a spokesperson/media relations and not an engineer or planner.
Yes I agree, she couldn't answer a lot of my questions and that's why she said she would help set up a meeting with other TDOT officials that could answer the things she couldn't. But last time I looked at a AASHTO application, a highway has to meet all of the criteria to become an Interstate and they have final approval, but I didn't see anything requiring an EIS or public comment meeting. Maybe that has to be done before a state can even submit an application. Even if they left Briley Parkway as SR155, I would think just adding control city signage to get drivers to use it as a bypass would not require any approval by the Feds. Are you sure just adding control city signage requires FHWA approval?
Control city signage requires FHWA approval if it's along an Interstate. AASHTO doesn't have final approval for new Interstates...FHWA does.
Quote from: froggie on August 24, 2013, 01:59:16 AMespecially if she's a spokesperson/media relations and not an engineer or planner.
Hey, I resemble that remark. :bigass:
Quote from: froggie on August 24, 2013, 07:02:19 AM
Control city signage requires FHWA approval if it's along an Interstate.
I'm having doubts about that given some of the control cities being used elsewhere on the interstate system. If FHWA gives final approval for control cities, seems there should be a little more consistency across the interstate system.
As I'm sure you're aware, regional FHWA officials (usually the state FHWA office) are a lot more lenient on things than the national office. Plus, if you're talking about control cities for a cross-road (i.e. Briley Pkwy), those aren't exactly on the "required" list, so they'd likely be approved anyway.
Quote from: SFPredsFan on August 20, 2013, 12:53:53 AMAnd no, most out of town traffic uses GPS now days, so Ellington is not an option given Ellington is a tiny line on the map. Might as we be a side street on the maps actually.
I don't have a GPS or navigation system, but Rand McNally marks Ellington with a blue freeway line. Google Maps and Mapquest also mark Ellington as a freeway. If GPS navigation systems mark a lot of non-interstate freeways as side streets, then may God have mercy on Californians' souls (the vast majority of freeways in California are not Interstates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Freeway_and_Expressway_System)).
Quote from: SFPredsFan on August 24, 2013, 02:39:16 AMEven if they left Briley Parkway as SR155, I would think just adding control city signage to get drivers to use it as a bypass would not require any approval by the Feds.
No approval is needed to change anything on a state route, especially if no federal funding is involved. I would like to change the control cities on 155 (and 440) to a local point/long-distance point model. At the I-24 interchange in particular, 155 West could be Music Valley/Knoxville, and 155 East could be Bellevue/Memphis. Currently 155 West is "Opryland" (a place that no longer exists) and 155 East doesn't have any control cities.
Come to think of it, if a direct interchange connection was established between 31E and 24, 31E North could have Madison and Louisville as control cities, and VMS's during rush hour could display something like "Traffic to 65 N use Ellington Pky" instead of "Don't Drive Drowsy". It might be advisable to expand the roadway to 6 lanes to accommodate the extra traffic, but that wouldn't require taking any land since it could easily be made into a 3 lanes/barrier/3 lanes setup. Increase the speed limit from 55 mph to 65 mph and we'd be all set. I make it sound easy, don't I? :eyebrow:
No approval is needed to change anything on a state route, especially if no federal funding is involved.
The control city signage I was suggesting would all be on I-40, 24, and 65 as they approach Briley Parkway. TDOT already has control city signs as you approach the different Interstates on Briley so why not add them as you approach Briley from the different directions on the Interstates? The main bypass traffic on the west loop would be for Memphis and Louisville bound drivers. The eastern loop would be Louisville, Knoxville, Clarksville, and also Chattanooga (if they upgraded the SE Briley section between I-40 & I-24). The amount of traffic taken off the downtown loop would be tremendous IMHO. Getting around the construction zone with the concurrence of I-65 & I-24 would save so much time, gas, and pollution not to mention road rage. That area will be under construction for at least 3 more years and is now down to 6 very narrow lanes where 8 lanes funnel in to it.
during rush hour could display something like "Traffic to 65 N use Ellington Pky"
I've seen TDOT display that on the ITS signs on I-24 westbound on the east side of downtown but it's only when traffic is at a complete stop. I've also seen them display it on I-40 eastbound approaching Briley Parkway on the west side as "Heavy traffic ahead. To I-65 N use Briley Pkwy N". My thing is just re-shield Briley Parkways as I-465, slap up the right control city signs depending on the direction traveled, and watch traffic actually move on the downtown loop. It shouldn't take an act of God to get this done and it's just basic common sense to do it when Briley is such an under utilized highway. The last traffic counts TDOT took on Briley had 42k/day on the westside and 70k/day on the eastside while I-24/65 had over 180,000k/day at it's concurrence.
^ I also saw that the I-24/40 overlap also has around 170,000 AADT as well. Upgrading the I-40 to I-24 segment of SR 155 has a lot of merit.
As many of you know I live in Lebanon, TN just a stones throw away from the east end of 840, I do agree about Briley and being posted an I-x24 or I-x65 (Billy Riddle and I talked about that alot years ago) and I think the editions of control cities besides "Briley PKWY" and "Opryland" would help circulate long distance travelers, the local and regional traffice already use 155 and 840 to the south. 840 already has some control city usage where it intersects but could use better distance signage on it for distance to those control cities. Saturn PKWY is up to interstate standard but Vietnam Vets PKWY (386) ends at an at grade intersection with TN 174 near the US 31E Gallatin By-Pass and the speed limit was lowered from 70 to 65 a year ago. I am just paitently waiting for TDOT to start widening 109 near me in Wilson County.
840 already has some control city usage where it intersects but could use better distance signage on it for distance to those control cities.
Since 840 was completed has TDOT still just got Murfreesboro as the control city westbound on I-40 approaching 840W? That's all they had the last time I drove it but that was over 6 months ago. And did TODT ever add control cities on the eastbound approach to 840E from Memphis. There were none there just after TDOT opened it to traffic. It just really seems stupid to spend all this money on these Interstate grade highways and not add Interstate signage and the control cities of Memphis, Knoxville, Huntsville, and Chattanooga. What was the point to build the 840 bypass if your not going to include were they hell they are going. GPS doesn't help since it takes you the shortest route even if it takes you through the heaviest traffic at slower speeds.
Again, I think you guys are overestimating just how much traffic would divert. Furthermore, there's enough latent demand in the Nashville core that whatever you DO manage to divert will just fill up again fairly quickly....exact same thing happened after I-65 was moved onto former I-265.
I don't think anybody's over estimating the potential diverted traffic at all. We all know most traffic is local, but if even half of the out of town thru traffic (especially truck traffic) could be diverted it would be a great help to the total gridlock on the downtown loop. Otherwise, what's the point to build and expand a bypass if it's not signed properly and it's just locals that use it. TDOT expanded the east loop of Briley to 8 lanes which only has 70k/day but has the capacity for over twice that. Why bother to expand it if almost every time I drive it there's hardly anybody on it while downtown loop is bumper to bumper for miles? Furthermore, I-265 was never considered a bypass but has always been an inner city route. Traffic speeds are much better when TDOT rerouted I-65 on to I-265. Which is exactly the point of what a few signs and renumbering a route can do to improve traffic flow.
Quote from: SFPredsFan on August 26, 2013, 02:07:53 AM
Otherwise, what's the point to build and expand a bypass if it's not signed properly and it's just locals that use it.
Campaign contributions from developers.
I have been using Briley Parkway as a bypass for I-24 through Nashville at certain peak hours for years. Don't give out the secret by making it an interstate. I love that most through traffic probably doesn't know about it.
Quote from: SFPredsFan on August 25, 2013, 10:21:20 AMI've seen TDOT display that on the ITS signs on I-24 westbound on the east side of downtown but it's only when traffic is at a complete stop. I've also seen them display it on I-40 eastbound approaching Briley Parkway on the west side as "Heavy traffic ahead. To I-65 N use Briley Pkwy N".
My idea is to display it on VMS's during Rush Hour every day, say between 5-8 AM and 4-7 PM, or whatever the hours are (I avoid Nashville during the morning and evening commutes). That would be more effective than displaying it after the traffic is already at a standstill. What Nashville really needs is more road space, since obviously the current demand is too much for the current freeways - IMO most Nashville freeways should have roughly double the lanes they currently have, and a commuter rail network should be created. That's the only solution that's going to be effective long-term, and it would whip the congestion problems :spin:. Adding in a subway system would be even better, but that's not needed at this point.
3 lanes in each direction is the norm for a Nashville freeway, so doubling it would create a norm of 6 lanes, which is large but not unreasonable. In fact I-65 between Briley Pky and Old Hickory Blvd is 6+ lanes in each direction right now. As an aside, I-65 just north of Briley Parkway is the widest stretch of freeway in Middle Tennessee - 18 lanes total if you include parallel ramps.
EDIT: Or you could eliminate all those random or sudden lane drops across the Nashville area. That alone would be a big improvement.
@SFPreds: what you will find is that whatever capacity you open up in the core will quickly be swallowed. When I-65 was moved to the former I-265 in 2000, there was a bit of a drop on the standalone segments of I-24 and I-40, but it took less than 3 years for traffic on I-24 to bounce back up to what it was before I-65 moved. You will have the same situation with whatever diversion you manage to implement here with Briley.
@31E: How do you propose paying for all that widening? Especially where it will involve land acquisition? Freeways are not cheap anymore.
31E...actually other than I-440, 24NW, parts of 40W, and the downtown loop, all the freeways in Nashville are 8 lanes or more and are all under capacity other than I-440 and a few miles of 40W. It's the downtown loop that causes backups in all directions. That was a design flaw from the 60's of all the weaving from one Interstate to another every 2 miles and some of the horrible exit/entrance ramps. The last couple of miles of 40E and 65S will be completed to 8 lanes within 2 years all the way out to SR840. It would be impossible to expand the freeways in Nashville where they are 8 lanes or more now due to budget and ROW constraints. I will agree the ITS should display alternative routes but I would display it during all the daytime hours since you never know when traffic will get bogged down on the downtown loop. Same goes with SR840. I would put ITS signs on the east and west bound approaches to 840 and have them say "Extreme traffic in Nashville. I-40 Thru traffic take 840" all day long. That was another one of my suggestions to TDOT and they thought it was an excellent idea to encourage thru traffic to use it.
Subway and trains would be nice but Nashville is another million people or so from making that happen. The Nashville Star is a money pit and requires heavy subsidies to keep running. The worst mistake this country ever made was to let the auto and oil lobby rip up all the street car tracks that ran through neighborhoods so that buses would have to be used.
froggie...I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying don't bother to divert traffic to bypasses because the congestion you just free up will eventually just get congested again? That make no sense if I read you correctly.
My biggest gripe is that so much traffic could be diverted to much safer routes especially around bottleneck construction zones.
I'm not saying don't bother. Your control city idea makes sense. I'm just being realistic about the likely effects/expectations afterwards.
But yes, if your goal is to reduce congestion on I-24 in the core, the result will be short-lived at best.
And the reason actually makes a lot of sense. You move some longer-distance traffic off I-24. Locals see that I-24 is less busy and flock to it, with the end result being that I-24 fills right back up fairly quickly. As I mentioned before, we saw it when they diverted I-65 to the former I-265 12 years ago.
Even if the capacity is completely soaked up by latent demand, you'd still be moving more vehicles through, so all is not lost. Like I said, the only viable long-term fix is to provide more road space across the board, since there isn't enough to go around for the demand (latent and otherwise) that is there. Adding commuter rail would also ease traffic, and I don't care whether it turns a profit or not - do we ever expect Interstates to be profitable?
Quote from: SFPredsFan on August 26, 2013, 09:35:36 PM
31E...actually other than I-440, 24NW, parts of 40W, and the downtown loop, all the freeways in Nashville are 8 lanes or more and are all under capacity other than I-440 and a few miles of 40W.
I was primarily referring to the downtown area in my post.
Quote from: froggie on August 26, 2013, 01:26:28 PMIt would be impossible to expand the freeways in Nashville where they are 8 lanes or more now due to budget and ROW constraints.
The status quo in Tennessee is to spend $30 billion a year and let transportation infrastructure languish due to "lack of funds", which is ridiculous if you ask me. There is enough room to expand almost every freeway in Davidson County without destroying any structures, even if additional ROW would have to be acquired. I won't get into the political arena here, except to say that providing excellent transportation infrastructure should be considered top priority by all states. Let the state legislatures figure out where to get the money for the improvements :pan:.
Quote from: SFPredsFan on August 26, 2013, 09:35:36 PMI will agree the ITS should display alternative routes but I would display it during all the daytime hours since you never know when traffic will get bogged down on the downtown loop. Same goes with SR840. I would put ITS signs on the east and west bound approaches to 840 and have them say "Extreme traffic in Nashville. I-40 Thru traffic take 840" all day long. That was another one of my suggestions to TDOT and they thought it was an excellent idea to encourage thru traffic to use it.
That's an even better idea, since there are random traffic jams at all times of day in downtown.
Quote from: NE2 on August 26, 2013, 03:30:47 AM
Quote from: SFPredsFan on August 26, 2013, 02:07:53 AM
Otherwise, what's the point to build and expand a bypass if it's not signed properly and it's just locals that use it.
Campaign contributions from developers.
Bingo. This poster knows of what he speaks. SR 840 was not built with our funds for out-of-towners to use. It was built for local land development and it has been a tremendous success in Rutherford County; however, strangely there are few services directly off of it.
Post Merge: August 27, 2013, 08:53:20 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on August 27, 2013, 07:02:43 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 26, 2013, 03:30:47 AM
Quote from: SFPredsFan on August 26, 2013, 02:07:53 AM
Otherwise, what's the point to build and expand a bypass if it's not signed properly and it's just locals that use it.
Campaign contributions from developers.
Bingo. This poster knows of what he speaks. SR 840 was not built with our funds for out-of-towners to use. It was built for local land development and it has been a tremendous success in Rutherford County; however, strangely there are few services directly off of it.
Follow the money trail folks. The reason why the state roads are signed as such as they are maintained with local funds. Furthermore the through traffic is run through town to get the folks to stop and spend money here. SR 840 was built for local land development. It serves the locals so it is easier for the locals to commute. There are virtually no services along the SR 840 corridor. Could that change with a shielding as an interstate, no doubt. Just look at the politics and money and not just the how nice it would look with a red, white and blue.
@31E: that was not my quote (it was SFPreds), though I agree with the premise made. Furthermore, freeways actually begin to lose efficiency once they're expanded beyond 8-10 lanes (documented in the Highway Capacity Manual).
Per-lane efficiency (assuming that's what you're talking about) may drop, but a 12-lane freeway still accommodates a lot more cars than an 8-lane freeway, and the added capacity is needed in the region. If I had total power, the downtown loop would have priority, and the bulk of that is 6 lanes, and no part of it is more than 8 lanes.
And I'm sorry that I mixed up your quotes :poke:. Besides, we're veering into fictional highways territory with talk of total power and my laundry list of improvements, so let's get back to the original topic. The point about local funding is a good one, but locally-funded roads can be added to the Interstate system as non-chargeable mileage IIRC.
Maybe there need to be some VMSes with travel times mentioned.
Say, on I-40 westbound approaching Lebanon:
Time to Dickson
Via I-40 west: 65 minutes
Via SR 840 west: 45 minutes
(Those times are just guesses).
And do something similar for the approaches to the Briley.
hbelkins....TDOT does that sometimes on other routes and it's nice info. The only problem I see with that for 840 is when they display a quicker time thru Nashville, traffic could get bogged down or a crash could happen just a few minutes after you pass the ITS sign and then it's too late to get take the bypass so you'll be stuck in a traffic jam. Your time savings, or what you thought would be, would then be a 2 hour ordeal navigating around wrecks and/or traffic jams. Now if TDOT displayed a quicker time permanently via 840 that would work especially since the higher speed limits and less traffic would negate the extra 17 miles by taking 840. When I made that suggestion to TDOT to display "Extreme traffic in Nashville. I-40 Thru traffic use 840" at all times during the day, a TDOT official said what if there is no extreme traffic in Nashville. I told him that's easy, just lie about it. It's not like anybody's going to know it would've been smooth sailing thru Nashville since they took the bypass anyways. They all just laughed and said good point.
QuoteIt's not like anybody's going to know it would've been smooth sailing thru Nashville since they took the bypass anyways.
This will increasingly not be the case, as people rely more and more on their GPS's, which are now incorporating traffic data into their logarithms.
As for travel time VMS, I'd think a better option for those would be for 40 vs 440. 840 is too far out. Then there's the case where there, compared to the 130K-some on 40 in the downtown core, only a small percentage of that is actually through traffic with an origin and/or destination beyond 840.
In my opinion, interstate shields should only be used on interstate quality roads.
However, I also think that if a freeway would be a great fit to the interstate system, except that the road doesn't meet
interstate standards, that road should have a state highway number that fits in to the numbering system. Nashville already
has SR 840. Other examples include SR 470 in Denver, SR 210 east of Los Angeles, SR 878 near JFK Airport in New York.
Briley Parkway should be renumbered as TN 224 (or 424) and signed with control cities of Memphis, Paducha, Louivsille, and Knoxville, along with other appropriate local control cities.
Ellington Pakway should be signed as TN 365 with guidance signage that says: Central Nashville, East Bank, Use 365.
Quote from: mrsman on September 02, 2013, 08:36:21 AM
Briley Parkway should be renumbered as TN 224 (or 424) and signed with control cities of ... Paducha
Except Tennessee uses Clarksville, not Paducha, for I-24. And they don't use Paducah either. :bigass:
mrsman....Glad you agree with my suggestions to TDOT. SR840 and SR155 are already are built to Interstate standards so TDOT should just request they be added to the Interstate system and add the proper control city signage. As mentioned before, a few miles of SR155 on the west loop have some narrow shoulders but TDOT could easily get a waiver from the FHA. I'd still love to see TDOT upgrade the SE loop of SR155 from I-40 to I-24 and Ellington Parkway's ridiculous ramps at it's southern end . They're going to have to widening them to at least 6 lanes probably sooner than later so TDOT could upgrade them then. I make sure to check the TDOT Smartway camera website several times everyday and especially before I head to work and home. I'm still amazed at how SR155 and Ellington Parkway are ghost roads yet I-24 from the I-24/40 east split to the end of I-24/65 north split is just barely moving ALL DAY LONG. I-65 back to I-40 on the west downtown loop is just as bad. I've sit for 30 minutes in that traffic before and not moved even without a wreck ahead. SR155 on the Briley Parkway east loop averages 66k/day yet it has been widened to 8 lanes and can handle more than twice that with the Midwest and Southeast bound traffic. That's why I'm so adamant about upgrading the SE part of Briley and adding Chattanooga for a control city on the north and NW side and Louisville and Clarksville and the SE side. Sure, most traffic is local, but it's total bullshit for out of town thru travelers to get stuck in our traffic jams and add to it because TDOT hasn't signed any controls cities and promoted use of our bypasses.
Except Tennessee uses Clarksville, not Paducah for I-24.
I remember when St.Louis was the control city for I-24 westbound in Nashville even though I-24 didn't even reach it. At over 310 miles that had to be one of the longest distance control cities east of the Mississippi.
QuoteAs mentioned before, a few miles of SR155 on the west loop have some narrow shoulders but TDOT could easily get a waiver from the FHA.
Not really. Given past and current precedent, the roadway must be fully up to Interstate standards before FHWA will accept it as a non-chargeable Interstate. It would have to be a very significant engineering reason (and cost is NOT considered an option) for FHWA to grant a waiver.
Not really. Given past and current precedent, the roadway must be fully up to Interstate standards before FHWA will accept it as a non-chargeable Interstate. It would have to be a very significant engineering reason (and cost is NOT considered an option) for FHWA to grant a waiver.
Your kidding right???? I can name at least a dozen Interstates and sections that are not up to standards off the top of my head that were granted waivers. That's not even including I-180 in Cheyenne that is at grade it's entire route. The Sure Kill in Philly doesn't even have shoulders on the inside or outside lanes, I-70 barely has an inside shoulder thru St. Louis, and WTF is up with I-80 Breezewood, PA? Most older Interstates that were built or added later in the Northeast have horrible off/on ramps that could never be considered Interstate standards but were granted waivers or grandfathered into the system. DOT has changed the specs since the early days of Interstate building, but they've granted plenty of waivers since then. I-22 is the one example that I can think of where they won't let MSDOT sign it until they get some bridges, shoulders, and interchanges up to date and they made TDOT take down the I-124 signs in Chattanooga until it is up to standards. That's what TDOT told me anyways along with the fact there was a lot of confusion for out of town thru traffic taking I-124 by mistake so they put up US27 shields thru downtown. TDOT did say they might resign it and ask to extend it to Dunlap via SR111, with Cookeville as the control city, after they're finished with the Rebuild US 27 projects thru and north of downtown.
But back to SR155 west loop, TDOT told me when the westside interchange with I-40 was completed, that made the entire northern loop of SR155 up to Interstate standards and eligible to apply for I-Xwhatever status. After looking up the criteria for Interstate Highway standards, all that's required is 10' outside shoulders and 4' inside shoulders which SR155 already has on it's entire loop north of I-40.
Those were all Interstates that were part of the original 41,000 mile plan (yes, even I-180 in Cheyenne)...a little different situation there. Every new Interstate added since the 1980s (including I-39, I-88, I-22, I-355 Chicago, the new North Carolina Interstates, etc etc) has had to be up to standards first, *ESPECIALLY* in the case of non-chargeable Interstates like your Tennessee proposal would be.
Also, shoulder standard for urban areas or where there is median divider is a 10ft inside shoulder, not 4ft.
It should also be noted that standards change over time. For example, prior to 1967, it was not required to carry the shoulders across bridges. This is why you only see a 2ft shoulder on some bridges on the older rural Interstates. Some bridges have been retrofitted since then as they've come up for bridge redecking projects, but several still remain, especially on longer bridges (Vermont is full of them on I-89 and I-91, also several remain on I-59 in Mississippi).
According to AASHTO, these standards are, as of July 2007, as follows:
Shoulder width: Minimum outside paved shoulder width of 10 feet (3.05 m) and inside shoulder width of 4 feet (1.22 m). With three or more lanes in each direction, the inside paved shoulder should be at least 10 feet (3.05 m) wide. If truck traffic is over 250 Directional Design Hour Volume, shoulders at least 12 feet (3.66 m) wide should be considered. In mountainous terrain, 8 feet (2.44 m) outside and 4 feet (1.22 m) inside shoulders are acceptable, except when there are at least four lanes in each direction, in which case the inside shoulders should also be 8 feet (2.44 m) wide.
SR155 east loop easily meets that. SR155 west loop is 2 lanes in each direction so it meets their criteria by their own standards. Now the "If truck traffic is over 250 Directional Design Hour Volume, shoulders at least 12 feet (3.66 m) wide should be considered", I read that as a consideration when building or upgrading a highway but not an absolute requirement with existing highways otherwise they would have said so as picky as DOT is about Interstate designation. TDOT did say when SR155 west loop was finally completed back in the 80's they built it to Interstate standards at that time and actually had 840 in mind before Gov. Alexander pushed SR840 to be built by TDOT as the south bypass for Nashville.
And no, not all Interstates have been grandfathered. Several others were added or built after the original Interstate route plans. If you can find an update to 2007 AASHTO regulations let me know. I couldn't find any updates since then.
Quote from: SFPredsFan on September 02, 2013, 11:27:56 PM
Except Tennessee uses Clarksville, not Paducah for I-24.
I remember when St.Louis was the control city for I-24 westbound in Nashville even though I-24 didn't even reach it. At over 310 miles that had to be one of the longest distance control cities east of the Mississippi.
There is still one remaining mileage sign on I-24 west of Nashville that shows the distance to St. Louis. From there I don't think you see any mention of St. Louis again until Paducah.
Quote from: codyg1985 on September 03, 2013, 10:21:53 AM
Quote from: SFPredsFan on September 02, 2013, 11:27:56 PM
Except Tennessee uses Clarksville, not Paducah for I-24.
I remember when St.Louis was the control city for I-24 westbound in Nashville even though I-24 didn't even reach it. At over 310 miles that had to be one of the longest distance control cities east of the Mississippi.
There is still one remaining mileage sign on I-24 west of Nashville that shows the distance to St. Louis. From there I don't think you see any mention of St. Louis again until Paducah.
I never understood why St. Louis was the control city as many (if not most) of the drivers were heading to somewhere east and north of it.
rte66man
Trust me when I say over half of the guests at my hotel are from the Midwest mostly going thru St. Louis. I'm exactly at the half way point to Florida for most of them either way and I see the same guests coming or going home. We've got a pet friendly hotel so I know the dogs better than the people that stay here.
Quote from: codyg1985 on September 03, 2013, 10:21:53 AM
There is still one remaining mileage sign on I-24 west of Nashville that shows the distance to St. Louis. From there I don't think you see any mention of St. Louis again until Paducah.
Years ago, there was one sign on an intersecting route in Kentucky (think it was at the Pembroke/Oak Grove exit) that mentioned STL. In Kentucky, everything else is Paducah until you get to the US 68 Paducah exit, then STL starts showing up as a control city and on mileage signs. From Paducah east, everything is Nashville, not Clarksville.
Quote from: rte66man on September 03, 2013, 10:24:08 AM
I never understood why St. Louis was the control city as many (if not most) of the drivers were heading to somewhere east and north of it.
The original 2di control cities from Nashville, similar to many cities in the US, used relatively big cities as control points:
Louisville, Knoxville, Chattanooga, Birmingham, Memphis, and St.Louis.
Even though I-24 doesn't reach St. Louis, it's pointed almost directly toward the city. The only other big city that would make any sense would be Chicago (I-24 ends at I-57 and I-57's control city is Chicago). But I believe that most traffic from Chicago to Nashville would probably go by way of I-65.
Just received an e-mail from TDOT regarding my suggestions.
Looks like TDOT will follow through with re-signing SR840 and add control cities on all major directional interchanges. TDOT said they will start designing signage now and I assume they will only have to apply to AASHTO and await their approval. The e-mail also stated they want to do everything they can to encourage thru traffic to bypass Nashville.
As for Briley Parkway, they stated it's potentially too confusing to sign this type of alternative routing plan and it could have an adverse impact on the local communities along Briley Parkway. Most of the senior management were leaning against it but several are in favor of it. Their reasoning confuses me because when Briley Parkway was expanded to 8 lanes on the east loop, noise walls were built where needed. The west loop of SR155 is a no mans lands with very little development or traffic to speak of. I can see the impact of upgrading SR155 between I-40 and I-24 on the SE loop, but the 16 or so homes with driveways on Briley Parkway are hardly considered nice houses, pretty ghetto actually, and a frontage road for them would be much safer than direct driveways on Briley. TDOT has bought off nicer homes in the past so I think the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. The few connecting side streets could easily be sealed off and a couple of interchanges built for access for those neighborhoods to the west and commercial plants to the east of Briley. IMO, You can't buy or build a home next to a highway, railroad, or airport and bitch about it later.
As far as the confusion of putting an interstate shield on SR155 and adding control cities at the major directional interchanges, I think they are flat out wrong. How hard is it to follow control city signs to where you are headed? I have to tell at least 20 guests leaving or coming to my hotel everyday to take Briley Parkway to get around that hell zone called the downtown Nashville loop and they are all VERY, VERY, grateful they didn't have to spend an extra 30-60 minutes in traffic. I will follow up again with TDOT and I'm going to another meeting on Oct. 22nd but told them I'm going to a NIN concert at Bridgestone Arena afterwards so I can't stay long for that meeting.
QuoteIMO, You can't buy or build a home next to a highway, railroad, or airport and bitch about it later.
However, if they buy/build a home before the road becomes a highway (which I believe was the case with these homes on Briley...that leg of Briley has not always been a traffic sewer), then they have rationale to complain...
Geez Froggie, Who the hell ever built some thing B4 that highway or that road that was a trail in this major city? Gimme a friggin break! It used to be the entrance to the old BNA so I could give a rats ass about them bitching about traffic noise today.
u mad bro?
Uhh, yea..Try navigating these freeways in Nashville everyday then you can tell me about it. The way Nashville is booming with no end in sight I'm trying to offer solutions by going to TDOT directly and meeting with them. This fictional BS is a waste of time and I thought this board was about getting results. Maybe this is the wrong venue to be on to talk about REAL problems and how to get them fixed regarding our gridlock in America. BTW, for every car and truck spewing out their toxic spill stuck going 2 mph stuck in traffic, they could be driving 55+ around my city and I take that personally b/c I have to breath this shit.
QuoteGeez Froggie, Who the hell ever built some thing B4 that highway or that road that was a trail in this major city? Gimme a friggin break!
It happens far more often than you give credit to, where roads leading out of and near major cities had roadside development along them long before they became major roadways.
As for your latest comment, you may have missed it when you first signed up but this is a board made up of road and transportation enthusiasts. While this is a good board to discuss ideas and thoughts related to roads, if you want action taken on a given issue you did indeed come to the wrong place.
Lastly, if you're concerned about breathing in "toxic spill" from Nashville traffic, you had best start talking to your fellow Nashvilliens, as they are the ones causing most of your air pollution (and the trucks to a lesser extent, but most of those are on I-65 or I-40, not I-24).
Quote from: SFPredsFan on September 20, 2013, 09:53:32 AM
Uhh, yea..Try navigating these freeways in Nashville everyday then you can tell me about it. The way Nashville is booming with no end in sight I'm trying to offer solutions by going to TDOT directly and meeting with them. This fictional BS is a waste of time and I thought this board was about getting results. Maybe this is the wrong venue to be on to talk about REAL problems and how to get them fixed regarding our gridlock in America. BTW, for every car and truck spewing out their toxic spill stuck going 2 mph stuck in traffic, they could be driving 55+ around my city and I take that personally b/c I have to breath this shit.
I take it personally too, since I drive through there often and Nashvillians are the ones who have to sit in this traffic so much, so they should take it personally too. It's TDOT's job to make sure that Tennesseans get where they're going as efficiently as possible. If TDOT has failed to do that don't blame Nashvillians for having the gall to *gasp* travel around their own city as froggie seems to be doing. The default assumption at most DOTs is that congestion will increase and increase until our road system and economy ceases to function, and all that DOTs can do is delay the inevitable. The reality is that there's enough money coming in to create a transportation system second to none, but our politicians have other priorities.
I agree with froggie that this board is for roadgeeks to discuss ideas and facts about roads; for direct action you need to enlist the help of the locals, and we're no good for that. I also agree with froggie that often when new roads are built or turn into major thoroughfares there are pre-existing residents. However, the western half of Briley Parkway has no pre-freeway development next to it that I've ever seen (and I drive on that stretch a lot so I know what I'm talking about). In this particular case no one built anything next to it before it was a major thoroughfare, and most major routes in Nashville have been that way so long there's virtually no pre-existing residents left.
Not blaming Nashvilliens per se...just pointing out that, as with other major cities, the vast majority of traffic (and resultant air pollution) in a given metropolitan area is local in nature, or has an origin or destination in that area. My point about talking to your fellow Nashvilliens is that the solution will ultimately have to be local in nature, whether it be transportation improvements (and how to fund them...also ultimately local in nature), alternative modes, or people finding a way to move closer to where they work/do stuff which short of economic meltdown is the only real way to reduce overall traffic.
@31E....While I agree this board is intended for road geeks an such, there's room for both. IMO there's enough room for people to encourage and take action with DOT's and get personally involved with solving our gridlock problems wherever they might be and road enthusiast. I don't consider myself a road geek but I took a lot of classes at NDSU on Urban Planning and Civil Engineering and almost made it my major/minor for my degree. I probably should have since managing hotels sucks more time than not and I'm sure the money would have been better.
As far as Briley Parkway, from the history I can find, it was built for access to the old BNA terminal back in the 1937 and none of the homes or owners today originated before that time. That area was farm land and all the homes were closer to Murfreesboro Road and the homes with driveways on Briley were built later. If BNA would have expanded the original airport terminal back in the 80's, TDOT would've had to buy them out and make it a freeway anyways. It's interesting to note, the homes with driveways connecting to Briley on the SE loop are rentals and are in horrible condition. Just take a close up from google maps and see for yourself. TDOT did an excellent job of shielding homes and neighborhoods north of I-40 except the section between I-24 and I-65. TDOT owned the ROW before those homes were built and everybody knew the highway was coming next to their neighborhood so I have no sympathy for them. In fact, I never hear anybody complaining about traffic noise here....just the traffic.
Quote from: SFPredsFan on September 20, 2013, 09:53:32 AM
Uhh, yea..Try navigating these freeways in Nashville everyday then you can tell me about it. The way Nashville is booming with no end in sight I'm trying to offer solutions by going to TDOT directly and meeting with them. This fictional BS is a waste of time and I thought this board was about getting results. Maybe this is the wrong venue to be on to talk about REAL problems and how to get them fixed regarding our gridlock in America. BTW, for every car and truck spewing out their toxic spill stuck going 2 mph stuck in traffic, they could be driving 55+ around my city and I take that personally b/c I have to breath this shit.
Your posts about actual efforts on ideas for renumbering are welcome here. Feedback is feedback, either way you are getting an idea of what the effort has to overcome to succeed. Keep the posts and ideas about Nashville coming, I for one have enjoyed reading them.
Nothing wrong with people taking action...have taken plenty myself over the years. But in my experience, the people tend to have more credibility if they're local to the area, or at least from the same state. We have a large pool of users here on AARoads, but with few exceptions, not a lot of clustering in a given regional or metropolitan area.
And agree with Alex...keep the posts coming.
I used to travel I-24 quite a bit between Nashville and M'Boro. The control cities for westbound TN 840 used to be Franklin and Huntsville. Several years ago, it was changed to just Franklin. Any reason for the change?
Quote from: rickmeck on September 23, 2013, 04:24:13 AM
I used to travel I-24 quite a bit between Nashville and M'Boro. The control cities for westbound TN 840 used to be Franklin and Huntsville. Several years ago, it was changed to just Franklin. Any reason for the change?
It seems a waste of to remove it but it seems TDOT was trying to make 840 just a local route rather than a bypass until the western section was complete all the way to I-40 west to Memphis. That's my guess anyways.
I just got another update from TDOT and it looks like the advisory committee has added several of my suggestions. Some of them were already on the Nashville MPO and/or TDOT's long term plans of 2026 or 2035 but the they will recommend they be added to the 3 years plan which means they hope to have public comment, EIS, ROW, and construction started and/or completed by then. These are the recommendations that were forwarded to me.
The elimination of loop ramps on the east bank of Downtown Nashville to diamond interchanges will happen along with widening I-24 to 8 lanes within existing ROW. Some frontage roads will replace exits altogether and a new ramp from I-24 west to Ellington Parkway northbound towards I-65 will replace the one there now. Several ramps will be obliterated altogether from side streets which will allow better access from Ellington Parkway southbound to downtown and I-24 eastbound. Ellington Parkway will also be widened to 6 lanes with serious consideration of re-shielding it as a X65 Interstate when completed. The loop ramp elimination will allow TDOT to expand I-24 without widening most of existing bridges.
SR155 will be recommended to be widened and rebuilt from I-24 to I-40 with added interchanges and an upgraded I-24/SR155 interchange. Either an even numbered X64 or X24 will be considered for designation after it is completed depending on the number assigned to the SR155 loop north of I-40. I'd say a flyover ramp from SR155 to I-24 east would have to be built and most of those homes with driveways connecting to SR155 would have to go. They're really ghetto rentals anyways.
The Fern Avenue overpass was scheduled to be replaced in 2026 but that project will also be recommended to be moved up and I-24/I-65 concurrence will be widened to 12 lanes from Trinity Lane southbound allowing 3 main line exits lanes in each direction at the I-65/I-24 split. Looks like TDOT will have to widen the Cumberland River Bridge but they had plans to widen I-65 from I-24 to I-40 to 8 lanes anyways. Interesting to note, the only thing putting off that project was funding, but Knoxville canceled the $100+ million James White Parkway project so contracts can be let when they get funds since all EIS and ROW are already done.
I already covered 840 and control city signage a couple of days ago but I brought up the ghost ramp to SR155 east on the ramp from I-65 to Ellington Parkway southbound. I suggested that TDOT complete that ramp and obliterate the clover leaf ramp that has 2 nasty merges with SR155 westbound to I-65 southbound and the ramp from SR155 eastbound to I-65 northbound. I think TDOT just flat out forgot about that ramp or maybe went over budget when they rebuilt that entire I-65/SR155/Ellington Parkway interchange and couldn't complete the ramp. TDOT agreed and said they will let me know soon.
I don't think TODT can get all those projects going within 3 years due to funding but it's good to know it's on the 3 year plan and on their radar. If TDOT can get at least the north loop of SR155 and 840 re-shielded along with adding control city signage I think it would take some pressure off of the downtown loop. TDOT needs to divert as much inbound Nashville thru traffic anyway to avoid the construction zones. Those are always white knucklers for me and even worse when I'm passing through other major cities construction zones.
I think I am going to object to the 840 re-shielding as it will bring increased traffic and noise. It will also cost money to make said signage.
That is an ambitious plan by TDOT. I hope they can do it all, but even just some of it would help. Widening I-24/65 down to the south split north of downtown would help tremendously on its own.
Quotebut Knoxville canceled the $100+ million James White Parkway project so contracts can be let when they get funds since all EIS and ROW are already done.
You alluded to this in your last paragraph, but I don't think $100 million is enough to do what TDOT proposes. Not even close. The 155 improvements alone could easily eat up that $100 million. Unless they magically found funding elsewhere (always possible, but likely came from more projects besides Knoxville), you may also likely see some of that come back off the 3-year plan. Federal law requires the 3-year plan (known in most places at the STIP, or Surface Transportation Improvement Program) to be fiscally constrained. In other words, if they don't have the money in place to do the project, the project does not go on the list.
I also find it somewhat surprising that they're proposing all this widening since, a couple years ago, the TDOT Commissioner announced that "road widening" would no longer be a primary consideration.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on September 25, 2013, 07:28:29 PM
I think I am going to object to the 840 re-shielding as it will bring increased traffic and noise. It will also cost money to make said signage.
Your kidding right? You must live in Williamson County. It's already completed and was built for a bypass of Nashville. Freeways are built for traffic and that brings some noise, so get over it. Years of delays from Gene Cotton and his NIMBY's cost $10's of millions in extra dollars for 840 that accomplished nothing suing to stop it. If you've got a problem with cost contact him. And replacing state shields to Interstate shields has to amount to 1% of the cost to build the freeway. Maybe less than 1%.
I always did think it was stupid to sign 840 as a state highway until the entire loop was completed just like SR385 around Memphis. But I think TDOT was trying to get around doing a complete EIS which had something to do with signing them as state freeways. TDOT should go ahead and put the I-269 shields up now and just put local access only on the signage. When it's completed down to I-55 in MS then TDOT can add control cities to Jackson, MS and Nashville.
Quote from: froggie on September 26, 2013, 01:08:42 AM
You alluded to this in your last paragraph, but I don't think $100 million is enough to do what TDOT proposes. Not even close. The 155 improvements alone could easily eat up that $100 million.
I also find it somewhat surprising that they're proposing all this widening since, a couple years ago, the TDOT Commissioner announced that "road widening" would no longer be a primary consideration.
I think he was referring to already widened roads not the substandard ones that haven't been widened in decades. That might have been the previous TDOT commissioner also. People are already requesting I-24 be widened again to M-Boro but that's NOT going to happen. I-40 east to Lebanon is about to be expanded and TDOT just let the contract to expand I-65 south to 840. I-65 desperately needs to be expanded to the KY border also. Most of substandard inner city freeways haven't been touched in decades in Nashville and Chattanooga and some haven't been touched since they were built back in the 60's. Nashville has 6 Interstates that are all 8, 10, or 12 lanes feeding into the 6 lane downtown loop. Thanks to TDOT, it only took 20 years but Knoxville has finished their freeway construction for our life times anyways other than far west I-40/75.
And your right, $100 mil will about cover the SR155 SE rebuild. The rest has been budgeted at about $150 million over 3 years which is very realistic with a $831 million dollar/year road construction budget. The 5.7 mile I-40/I-240 east Memphis project was just awarded for $109 million, but that is a big ass complex project. I think the real savings will be eliminating the loop ramps to allow I-24 to use the existing bridges for widening it to 8 lanes. Only 1 or 2 bridges will have to be widened from the I-24/65 split to exit 49. Widening Ellington to 6 lanes will be last on the list but the substandard ramps at the south end can be reconfigured and obliterated pretty easily.
I have to say, as much as people complain about DOT's around the country, TDOT has to be the model of efficiency. Tennessee is a pay go state and we owe absolutely nothing on our roads. I think several studies said that TDOT gets the biggest bang for the buck in America since there are no bonds with interest to pay off. The roads here are in a hell of a lot better shape in Tennessee than most states I've traveled especially in the Northeast.
Tennessee doesn't have to deal with the freeze-thaw cycle that the Northeast does, however. Or have nearly as extensive snow-removal for the winter. Both are significant factors when comparing the two.
I received a reply from TDOT regarding the stub/ghost ramp from I-65 south to SR155 east that someone mentioned earlier in this thread. According to TDOT, it is wasn't intended to be completed within the budget plans when the SR155/I-65/Ellington Parkway interchange was rebuilt, but the stub ramp was built as a future ramp extension when funds become available. I asked the question at a TDOT meeting for the I-24 corridor study that will be finished later this month. This is the text of the e-mail.
http://goo.gl/maps/0FNlG
Mr. Cole
I have researched the Briley Parkway stub ramp at the Ellington Parkway junction. You are correct that this proposed ramp would replace the existing loop ramp from I-65 south to Briley Parkway. I travel the exiting loop ramp weekly and I am very familiar with this movement. The extension of the stub ramp was not part of the initial project due to the cost of it mostly being on structure. The highway funding budget is considered on a yearly basis. There are currently $ 8.4 billion dollars of projects in the project development process with an annual funding source of approximately $ 500 million. We have monitored the existing loop ramp for operations and safety and will continue to do so. Thank you for your comments and we will consider them as we proceed with our corridor studies. If you have any questions, please contact me.
Thanks
Steve
Steve Allen
Director
Strategic Transportation Investments Division
Tennessee Department of Transportation
505 Deaderick St. Suite 1000
Nashville, TN 37243
To the OP: I was in Nashville on Dec. 27th., for the first time in ten years, on my way to Lynchburg. I-24 has become an absolute nightmare. I wish I would have known about some of the alternate routes that have been discussed in this thread. Downtown Nashville needs some relief. I hope you are successful in getting the changes you would like to see implemented.
:nod:
Tell me about it. 6+ hours a day M-F, I-24 from Sam Ridley Parkway in Rutherford County all the way to the I-24/I-65 split north of downtown Nashville is a parking lot. I-40 and I-65, except for the downtown loop, don't seem to be as bad as I-24 though. A couple of weeks ago, there were a few accidents at just the wrong places on I-40, I-24, I-65, and I-440 in Metro Nashville and the entire city was gridlocked until almost 11pm. I work next to I-24 and I saw the same trucks/cars sitting for an hour at a time that just didn't move.