U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Tennessee > Cookeville
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-14-2019, 04:15 PM
 
Location: Putnam County, TN
1,056 posts, read 554,611 times
Reputation: 715

Advertisements

TDOT does plan an outside four-lane highway connection to every county seat eventually. I know this for a fact because a TDOT official (a friend of dad's) told us in casual conversation in 2016, and I've since heard about it online numerous times.

The most obvious choices for Gainesboro would be either SR 56 the whole way, or else Tennessee Avenue to SR 290 then going up to SR 56 the rest of the way.


However, I'm opposed to either. SR 290 has a lot of houses close to the road because it was once a smaller highway and later upgraded, and it'd be hard not to displace them on both sides; I could also imagine that if it was SR 290, they probably wouldn't do a 60+ mph speed due to the houses, plus the 290/56 intersection that'd have to be either redone or made to have an odd turning lane pattern.

Also, SR 56 the entire way is only more direct if you're going to Baxter, Silver Point, Smithville, Dowelltown/Liberty, Woodbury, Centertown or Buffalo Valley. All of these are lowly populated areas, and Baxter is the only one that's likely to not be one day (with it being a suburb of Cookeville).

I believe it should be via SR 53 and SR 264... Why? It's as fast as SR 56 (and more direct) if you're going to Nashville or Murfreesboro, both of which are crucial to anchoring Middle Tennessee's economy. Sure, there are many curves on SR 53 and SR 264, as well as a segment of US 70N in between, but it's not like they can't deal with that. They revamped SR 56 bigtime; it wouldn't be far-fetched to simply bypass Elmwood and Chestnut Mound as they did McCoinsville, as well as eliminate some of the curves to be maintained as county roads. Maybe they could even build an interchange where the new route crosses US 70N and/or widen 70N's shoulders from there to Carthage (and even Baxter - a four-lane highway could test the feasibility of Stanton Road, Rock Springs Road and SR 96 to reach the interstate).

Also, while there is no interchange where SR 264 meets I-40, Gordonsville isn't urban, and it's less than 3 miles from Exit 258 (MM 258.4), they could simply build a new interchange at MM 261.4, rebuild SR 264 to meet up with that (or even make that a new state highway number altogether) and connect the other side to SR 141 (which is right there). Unless we're lucky enough that Carthage's urban cluster extends to Gordonsville at the 2020 census, after which it wouldn't violate interstate standards to build a SR 264 interchange at the 260.0 MM...

OR they could even go via SR 262, SR 85 and SR 263, upgrading the Carthage Bypass to 4 lanes and making Carthage's connection at the same time as Gainesboro's.

Besides, I'd be in favor of either of those last two for another reason too. They badly need to either encourage development at Exits 268 and 245, redo the existing Exit 258 and SR 53 around it or build a second Gordonsville (Gordonsville - Granville?) exit. That thing is a huge mess, and it's so hard and dangerous to turn left onto SR 53 there.

Last edited by Sun Belt-lover L.A.M.; 11-14-2019 at 05:22 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-14-2019, 05:11 PM
 
1,067 posts, read 1,378,761 times
Reputation: 911
True...and great points.

TDOT and/or the state has historically stated that every county seat in Tennessee should have a four lane highway, but the four lane would be routed to the nearest interstate in order to spur economic development.

The only reality for a four lane highway out of Gainesboro would be Hwy 56 to I40....why? Because it would be the least expensive project at only twenty miles to an interstate. Tennessee is a pay as you go state when it comes to highway construction....and even though the County Seat doctrine may be on some historic master plan for the state...a four lane from Gainesboro to an interstate will likely not occur even in the next thirty years.

Actually in the last decade or so, related to Corridor J (Appalachian Regional Commission) proposals were considered for a four lane from either Gainesboro to I40 or from Celina to Livingston. Hwy 52 out of Celina to Livingston was chosen as a four lane route to the nearest four lane route, i.e. Hwy 52 now connects to Hwy 111 in Livingston.

Oh...and I did recently see that TDOT is studying plans to "re-do" Exit 258 from I40. ....seems like traffic lights are planned for either side of I40 at the exit and on-ramps....but the following item details:

https://www.carthagecourier.com/2019...-exit-changes/
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2019, 05:31 PM
 
Location: Putnam County, TN
1,056 posts, read 554,611 times
Reputation: 715
Quote:
Originally Posted by tragenvol View Post
True...and great points.

TDOT and/or the state has historically stated that every county seat in Tennessee should have a four lane highway, but the four lane would be routed to the nearest interstate in order to spur economic development.

The only reality for a four lane highway out of Gainesboro would be Hwy 56 to I40....why? Because it would be the least expensive project at only twenty miles to an interstate. Tennessee is a pay as you go state when it comes to highway construction....and even though the County Seat doctrine may be on some historic master plan for the state...a four lane from Gainesboro to an interstate will likely not occur even in the next thirty years.

Actually in the last decade or so, related to Corridor J (Appalachian Regional Commission) proposals were considered for a four lane from either Gainesboro to I40 or from Celina to Livingston. Hwy 52 out of Celina to Livingston was chosen as a four lane route to the nearest four lane route, i.e. Hwy 52 now connects to Hwy 111 in Livingston.

Oh...and I did recently see that TDOT is studying plans to "re-do" Exit 258 from I40. ....seems like traffic lights are planned for either side of I40 at the exit and on-ramps....but the following item details:

https://www.carthagecourier.com/2019...-exit-changes/
You do have some points, and I agree that SR 56 is the most likely despite being indirect for reaching populated areas. I was just stating what I think SHOULD be done.

And it's not like it won't happen for sure; they chose US 70 as the four-lane from Smithville to I-40 despite it being much more expensive than SR 56 (or even SR 96, with or without SR 264) would be likely to be. Plus, a more direct route to Nashville and Murfreesboro would probably boost the economy more than one to Cookeville or an indirect route, and dealing with 53/264 or 85/262/263 could boost the economy for the county in general too with lake development able to happen right by the county's largest highway. We really have no way of knowing for sure which of the four routes they have in mind, or if they may even have a crazy fifth route in mind.

But whatever they do, I imagine it being very expensive (but worth it). They'd have to either cut through a lot of urban area, a lot of hills or a lesser amount of both, depending on which route they choose.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-15-2019, 06:12 AM
 
278 posts, read 215,441 times
Reputation: 549
Quote:
Originally Posted by tragenvol View Post
True...and great points.

TDOT and/or the state has historically stated that every county seat in Tennessee should have a four lane highway, but the four lane would be routed to the nearest interstate in order to spur economic development.

The only reality for a four lane highway out of Gainesboro would be Hwy 56 to I40....why? Because it would be the least expensive project at only twenty miles to an interstate. Tennessee is a pay as you go state when it comes to highway construction....and even though the County Seat doctrine may be on some historic master plan for the state...a four lane from Gainesboro to an interstate will likely not occur even in the next thirty years.

Actually in the last decade or so, related to Corridor J (Appalachian Regional Commission) proposals were considered for a four lane from either Gainesboro to I40 or from Celina to Livingston. Hwy 52 out of Celina to Livingston was chosen as a four lane route to the nearest four lane route, i.e. Hwy 52 now connects to Hwy 111 in Livingston.

Oh...and I did recently see that TDOT is studying plans to "re-do" Exit 258 from I40. ....seems like traffic lights are planned for either side of I40 at the exit and on-ramps....but the following item details:

https://www.carthagecourier.com/2019...-exit-changes/

They need to fix the surface of I-40 at this interchange before they do anything there. It's awful.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-15-2019, 11:59 AM
 
1,067 posts, read 1,378,761 times
Reputation: 911
Indeed...the overpass there is in poor shape.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-15-2019, 04:30 PM
 
Location: Putnam County, TN
1,056 posts, read 554,611 times
Reputation: 715
Quote:
Originally Posted by justindb29 View Post
They need to fix the surface of I-40 at this interchange before they do anything there. It's awful.
They'll have to tear down and replace the bridge anyways. Five lanes won't fit under the existing bridge.

Anyways, back to topic please. What route do you think it should follow, and why?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2019, 12:07 PM
 
1,067 posts, read 1,378,761 times
Reputation: 911
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun Belt-lover L.A.M. View Post
You do have some points, and I agree that SR 56 is the most likely despite being indirect for reaching populated areas. I was just stating what I think SHOULD be done.
Umderstood., but the "County Seat Doctrine's" intent isn't to funnel access to bigger population areas. The intent is to provide more access to the interstate system in order to stimulate economic development to inaccessible areas, i.e. industrial development and/or relocation.

The most expeditious as wells as less costly route to the interstate from Gainesboro is Hwy 56 to I40.

Who knows....the current Governor and his administration have focused on rural development...so maybe it is more possible now than ever before.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Tennessee > Cookeville
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2023, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top