Re-shielding existing routes for a Bypass and Spur freeways in Nashville

[Avalanchez71]

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. 

[SFPredsFan]

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.

[froggie]

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.

[SFPredsFan]

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.

[codyg1985]

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 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 advertising the route as a bypass.

[SFPredsFan]

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.

[Avalanchez71]

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?

[rte66man]

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

[31E]

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.

[Rover_0]

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?

[SFPredsFan]

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.

[SFPredsFan]

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.

[Avalanchez71]

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.

[froggie]

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.

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"...

[SFPredsFan]

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.   

[froggie]

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.

[SFPredsFan]

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?

[froggie]

Control city signage requires FHWA approval if it's along an Interstate.  AASHTO doesn't have final approval for new Interstates...FHWA does.

[hbelkins]

especially if she's a spokesperson/media relations and not an engineer or planner.

Hey, I resemble that remark. 

[Revive 755]

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.

[froggie]

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.

[31E]

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 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).

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.

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?

[SFPredsFan]

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.   

[codyg1985]

^ 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.

[jpi]

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.