Nashville, the second least walkable city in the US.

[JMT]

Originally Posted by supernerdgirl

Yeah, and the state probably wouldn't try to do anything about it either.

Actually the state has tried. I don't know how earnestly, but it has tried.

Several years ago they held a series of meetings along the I-40 corridor to talk about building high-speed rail between Memphis and Knoxville.

There's also a movement by the Atlanta Regional Commission to connect Atlanta's bloated airport with Chattanooga's underused airport. At 200mph, North Atlanta residents could actually get to Chattanooga's airport quicker than they could drive to Atlanta's.

TDOT also submitted a proposal in 2003 to the Federal Railroad Administration for a high-speed train from Nashville to Chattanooga to Atlanta.

So the proposals are out there, but I'm not sure why none of them was included in Obama's stimulus package.

[JakilaTheHun]

Originally Posted by yank283

Well, this is a highly subjective poll...there are parts of Nashville that are very walkable...obviously West End and the Belmont area because of the schools, Downtown (needs more retail), many parts of East Nashville, & Salemtown (& Edgehill)? Davidson County is so large (square milage), of course it's going to score low if you include all the communities outside the core. I'm sure Atlanta would be on the list if all those suburbs similar to Nashville surrounding the city where not their own incorporated towns.

Yeah ... Atlanta is one of the least walkable places I've ever been. It's been awhile since I visited Nashville, so I couldn't compare the two very well, but I'm not sure how Atlanta doesn't beat many of these other cities (like Charlotte). The only reason I can think of for that is exactly what you said --- they are only considering the incorporated parts of these cities.

[JakilaTheHun]

Originally Posted by CMartel2

Chicago has a population density of 12,489 per square mile.
Nashville has a population density of 1,248.

You see the difference? It doesn't make much sense for Nashville to invest in a subway system/train system like Chicago has. The city is about 10 times less dense than Chicago. When it comes to making train stops, where would you put them? Can you really think of enough routes to make it worthwhile

You could argue that it would make things more dense to build these subway systems, but at what cost? And is that what Nashville really wants/needs to be? In my eyes, a great part of the character of the city is the rolling hills, the trees, the green. You don't have that in dense urban cores.

This is a good argument, but also take a look at why cities like Chicago and NYC are more dense than Nashville to begin with --- just as building interstates tends to attract housing and businesses right along the exits, building public rail systems tend to attract housing and businesses right near the stations.

I'd disagree on the "character issue". Those things are more likely to be destroyed by sprawl and infinitely-expanding-outward development patterns than by upward building in the city's core. If most of our cities had been upwards to begin with, we'd still have a ton of beautiful land surrounding them rather than the vast suburban wastelands we have now.

I've also noticed a distinct tendency when dealing with anti-public transportation arguments to completely ignore the costs associated with highway construction/maintenance, expansion of government services (much cheaper for police and fire to serve compact area), environmental impact costs, costs associated with automobile transportation, etc.

Over the long-term, public transportation and upward building is much more economically efficient for society. The reason we get outward development patterns is mostly because the government subsidizes most of the costs associated with driving and because our jurisdictions are screwed up, with the cities trying to tax the hell out of people, while moving outwards allows people to escape those taxes.

[yank283]

Originally Posted by JakilaTheHun

This is a good argument, but also take a look at why cities like Chicago and NYC are more dense than Nashville to begin with --- just as building interstates tends to attract housing and businesses right along the exits, building public rail systems tend to attract housing and businesses right near the stations.

I'd disagree on the "character issue". Those things are more likely to be destroyed by sprawl and infinitely-expanding-outward development patterns than by upward building in the city's core. If most of our cities had been upwards to begin with, we'd still have a ton of beautiful land surrounding them rather than the vast suburban wastelands we have now.

I've also noticed a distinct tendency when dealing with anti-public transportation arguments to completely ignore the costs associated with highway construction/maintenance, expansion of government services (much cheaper for police and fire to serve compact area), environmental impact costs, costs associated with automobile transportation, etc.

Over the long-term, public transportation and upward building is much more economically efficient for society. The reason we get outward development patterns is mostly because the government subsidizes most of the costs associated with driving and because our jurisdictions are screwed up, with the cities trying to tax the hell out of people, while moving outwards allows people to escape those taxes.

Build more dense residential near the core and they will come. Especially when energy prices start soaring again, for good. Great points. I would also add that there's the perception of crime and poor public education (whether true in all metro areas or not, crime stats and school testing seem to get lumped together and generalized in Davidson Co) that keeps people moving out to the suburbs and perputuates a sort of defacto segregation here. Look at the Bells Bend proposal. Basically it's creating a new downtown area to compete with Williamson County - within Davidson County. One that's shiny and new without the need of section 8 housing, welfare agencies, and, I'm sure, a distinct lack of homeless people wandering around. I guess you could call it "city sprawl".

[mad fiddler]

Originally Posted by yank283

EXACTLY. Build it and they will come. Especially when energy prices start soaring again, for good.

Yes. Because if a city waits until it needs mass transit, it'll be too late.

[TNRyan23]

Originally Posted by kingchef

austin is already complains because it has no interstate system east-west connecting it to other parts of the state.

There really is nothing east or west of Austin that they can't get to by traveling an 1 1/2 hours south to San Antonio and catching I-10. It would make no sense to put in an east/west Interstate through Austin.

[kingchef]

Originally Posted by TNRyan23

There really is nothing east or west of Austin that they can't get to by traveling an 1 1/2 hours south to San Antonio and catching I-10. It would make no sense to put in an east/west Interstate through Austin.

austin city leaders do not agree w/ you. see their plans for greater austin and you will see why, as a capital city, it wants a corridor for this direction. as a southeast state capital city, who considers itself to have an extensive competitive edge over other southeast state capitals, the recommendation is made to austin in order to keep its edge over other cities of the region.

[TNRyan23]

Originally Posted by kingchef

austin city leaders do not agree w/ you. see their plans for greater austin and you will see why, as a capital city, it wants a corridor for this direction. as a southeast state capital city, who considers itself to have an extensive competitive edge over other southeast state capitals, the recommendation is made to austin in order to keep its edge over other cities of the region.

They've wanted it for a long time. Doesn't mean it'll happen. Austin needs to worry about its own infrastructure THAT is what needs work. Their road system sucks.

[supernerdgirl]

Originally Posted by JMT

Actually the state has tried. I don't know how earnestly, but it has tried.

Several years ago they held a series of meetings along the I-40 corridor to talk about building high-speed rail between Memphis and Knoxville.

There's also a movement by the Atlanta Regional Commission to connect Atlanta's bloated airport with Chattanooga's underused airport. At 200mph, North Atlanta residents could actually get to Chattanooga's airport quicker than they could drive to Atlanta's.

TDOT also submitted a proposal in 2003 to the Federal Railroad Administration for a high-speed train from Nashville to Chattanooga to Atlanta.

So the proposals are out there, but I'm not sure why none of them was included in Obama's stimulus package.

I guess I do recall that now.

I think it might not be included because as far as I know, Tennessee doesn't have a very visible advocacy for the HSR. On the other hand, Chicago has a group that's been around for 15-ish years that's been advocating for this (Midwest High Speed Rail Association), and it seems to finally be happening.