tn_roadie

I'm in Nashville Tennessee which is currently considering a public vote on a $5.4 billion transit project. It will create 5 light rail lines (the first) and 4 rapid bus corridors. The plan is done pretty well except it only mentions bike lanes and sidewalks in passing and says it will improve them but makes no explicit promises about implementation.

I was wondering how similar cities have implemented these kind of projects and how they impacted bicycle infrastructure. Nashville is rated a bronze (lowest) level BFC by the League. We have lots of miles of white lines they call bike lanes but not so much in the way of separated cycle tracks. We do have a decent greenway system.

The city is making very slow progress but at the current rate will never catch up to places like Portland or Minneapolis. I visited both last year and was very impressed. I assume the creation of bike infrastructure took place slowly over the years but I was wondering if any city made a "great leap forward" after a large investment like this? If so how did it come about and what were the politics?

Lets Move Nashville

genec

What I saw in San Diego during a large change and buildout of the 5-805 interchange was quite disappointing... there appeared to be no surface route bicycle planning... bike lanes were added as an afterthought. This was most obvious where a new ramp was created and a BL routed bikes onto the freeway.

I contacted the site engineer, and with the help of the local bike advocacy group, had this corrected... but it was obvious that no planning had gone into cycling needs.

On the otherhand, a new east/west freeway resulted in a whole new bike path with new bridges, and high speed ramps... this showed me the highway department (CALTRANS) could design proper bike infrastructure... if motivated and funded. The state was motivated by the fact that this new freeway had been a farm highway often used by cyclists as the only connector between communities in the area. Making it a limited access freeway, otherwise cut off cycling access... so the path was needed.

But generally it appears that cycling as transportation is an afterthought in most transportation projects... often added patchwork, "where it will fit."

genec

Oh, keep in mind, most projects getting started have been in planning for years, if not a decade or longer... plenty of time to consider, get funding for, and add cycling specific infrastructure... if the thought occurred to the planning bodies.

debade

Having spent some time (a couple of days) biking in Nashville, it is clear to me (as you point out) some group is paying attention to biking. If I were in your shoes, I would try to get in touch with the community and city folk that have worked on the biking projects. At the same time, I might search to see if Nashville has a Complete Streets ordinance. If so, it could be a tool to encourage a deeper look at the plan. Finally, your state advocacy group should be involved. Perhaps, they might be located in Nashville.

I also biked a bit in Memphis and Chattanooga. It would seem that the TN DOT has a good handle on the needs of cyclists. Getting to know them and their consultants might shed some light.

As for missed opportunities to improve biking with related project work, I am guessing more opportunities are squandered than improved. While progress has been made with biking infrastructure, I think most of the time, it is not high on the list.

flangehead

I'll recount the recent experience of a friend of mine on a Texas DOT project.

There is a clear, easy opportunity to provide a MUP under a multilane highway. These big interstates are like rivers; they are big barriers to walking and cycling and any opportunity to get a "bridge" is golden.

My friend engaged them and thought he had them sold on the segment.

The road project is now under construction and they did not include the MUP. And once a contract is let, getting a change is like pulling teeth.

Lesson learned was you have to stay engaged with them. It's easy for the designers to promise something then leave it out of the bid package.

prathmann

If you attend any of the public planning hearings I'd ask about the specific plans to carry bicycles (either regular or folding) on the planned transit systems, particularly the light rail. Bicycles on transit can provide an excellent way to bridge the 'last few miles' gap between home or work and the nearest transit station.

Our experience in the SF Bay area has been gradually evolving. Our rail/subway system (BART) initially only allowed bicycles in the back half of the last car during non-commute hours. Years later they allowed bikes on all but the first car but still only during non-commute times. And recently they've started to allow bikes on at all times and the new train cars will have bike racks inside. The CalTrain system has also been gradually increasing the number of bicycles that can be carried but there are still problems with cyclists not being able to board some trains due to the lack of bike space.

Rollfast

I've never moved myself with a pickup truck.

CliffordK

Let me say a little about Portland. I'm not really from Portland, but I was up there in the mid 90's, had about a ten year hiatus, then go up there a few times a year now.

It looks like they started construction of the light rail in 1982, and got the first branch opened in 1986. It was pretty new, and they were still lengthening it across town when I was up there. Since then they've been adding a lot of track.

Bike infrastructure was pretty spotty in the mid 90's. There were good bike lanes along part of Beaverton Hillsdale Hwy, but none on another section of the road (still lacking today). I used to do some commuting to SE Portland. It was a mad sprint across the Sellwood Bridge. 2 lanes, and LOTS of traffic. Since then they've rebuilt the whole bridge, but I think it is still 2 lanes, but has a wonderful new bike path along the bridge. It sill puzzles me what all their work was about replacing the bridge, other than the added sidewalk/bike path.

When I was there, the Springwater Trail was a wonderful trail, but unfortunately it had no connections to anything. So, sometime in the last decade or so, they've expanded it across McLoughlin Blvd, and worked on connections on both ends... as well as I think a relatively new path parallel to the I-205 freeway.

I think sharrows are a relatively new addition, although I hadn't ridden much in the NE Portland earlier where they seem to like to paint them now. I hit Ankeny street occasionally now (not in the 90's). It appears as if someone had the bright idea of putting in speed bumps every block... then came back and ground them all away, and put sharrows and some bike specific routing. It works pretty nice. All the cars stay one block to the north on Burnside.

I think there were paths on the Steel bridge earlier, but they've added a new low elevation path across it which is also a nice addition.

Anyway, what I think the city has done is taken a bunch of chunks of bike infrastructure, and really started interconnecting them, and adding a few new trails in logical places such as along waterfronts, rails to trails, and along freeways. And, of course, new arterial road projects generally get bike paths.

There are some plastic post isolated paths downtown (as well as shared walkways), but most of the paths are just paint on the ground.

Part of the light rail also included a bridge across the Willamette river, which was also given bike paths. Essentially they take every opportunity to build new bike paths.

On my last trip up there, I managed to hit the Ross Island Bridge (26). I must admit, it wasn't particularly bike friendly. And, unfortunately once I committed to it, it was difficult to change course.

As far as light rails, that is one thing you need to watch, and perhaps talk to the traffic engineers. Light rails + bicycles can be rough. They've put a maze of new tracks in Downtown Portland, and some places can be downright treacherous.

Here was a bike path I found in Portland the last time I was up there.



The problem is that the start to the path was unnecessarily squeezed close to the light rail. Had I been just riding my bike, I'd have just cut down the gutter and been happy, but I was towing my trailer which put the bike wheels uncomfortably close to the rails.

There was a post a while ago about another city that had an acute angle of light rails cutting through a roundabout, creating a dangerous course for bikes.

https://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-...icyclists.html

Anyway, just be aware that bicycles + train tracks create unique issues for bikes that might hardly be noticed by car drivers.

One thing that I will mention is that Eugene (which is a much smaller city) has an excellent riverfront pathway system, which includes both bike paths and separate sawdust running trails. Work on the system was really ramped up in the 70's. One of the thing the City did was to take every opportunity possible to add bicycle only bridges across the river, in some cases before connections were finished on the ends. So, if they needed a sewer pipe across the river, we got a bike bridge + sewer pipe. Now 50 years later, we have I believe 5 bicycle only bridges across the Willamette, and one bicycle only bridge across the McKenzie. Plus a few shorter bridges across creeks and canals. They've also extended the paths on both sides of the river over the years.

scott967

Here we have what was advertised as a $5 billion transit rail project, now estimated at $10 billion. My idea is to dump the rail and use the ROW as a dedicated cycle route (won't happen). You need to get past the glossy website and find out exactly what the planning and approval steps are, both state and city. Things like NEPA EIS requirements. Where there are public input / comment requirements, that's where the public and advocacy needs to get done, with a push on the politicians to push the bureaucrats who sign off on the plans. Much noise will be made about "stakeholders" but that's mostly more noise than anything else.

scott s.
.