2040 MAJOR TRANSPORTATION PLAN Introduction
This 2040 Major Transportation Plan envisions a transportation network that provides for the safe, efficient and reliable movement of people and goods. The transportation system plays a vital role in the area’s economic vitality, quality of life and community identity. The plan recognizes the interdependence of different modes of transportation and the importance of utilizing and planning for each mode of transportation to efficiently employ available transportation dollars and meet the needs of the community.
The 2040 Major Transportation Plan summarizes the analysis and evaluation of existing and future transportation conditions. It includes an evaluation of traffic safety, capacity, and level of service (LOS), continuity, and connectivity of the existing and planned thoroughfare system. This effort informs Chapter 3, Mobility, of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan. Vehicular and bicycle, pedestrian, and public transportation circulation policies related to future growth and land use planning accompany the narrative and provide guidance for future decision making.
The last significant update to the City of Murfreesboro’s Major Thoroughfare Plan occurred in 2003 and contained projections for model year 2025. The base year for these projections was 2000. The City has continued to manage the plan and incorporate minor revisions as specific needs and initiatives have evolved over time.
The 2040 Major Transportation Plan was initiated by the City of Murfreesboro on behalf of its citizens. The Plan was funded and directed by the City of Murfreesboro with the cooperation of the Nashville Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, the Tennessee Department of Transportation and other partner agencies. The plan was completed by Kendig Keast Collaborative and Neel-Schaffer, Inc. in collaboration with the City of Murfreesboro, associated partner agencies and the Murfreesboro community at-large. Vision, Goals, Objectives and Priorities The vision, goals, objectives and priorities described herein will guide future transportation planning efforts in Murfreesboro.
The Vision statement is a distillation of the desires expressed by the community and provides direction to transportation planning efforts. Goal setting identifies specific targets to achieve the vision. Objectives and Priorities are steps for implementation and are quantifiable so progress can be measured. Vision The citizens of Murfreesboro came together with elected officials and key stakeholders to draft a vision for their future. The comprehensive plan identified four main priorities which function as overarching themes for the overall planning strategy.
Priority 1, Safe and Livable Neighborhoods; Priority 2, Strong and Sustainable Financial and Economic Health; Priority 3, Excellent Services with a Focus on Customer Service; and Priority 4, Engaging Our Community.
In support of the overarching themes, the citizens of Murfreesboro desire to construct and maintain a multimodal transportation system that promotes:
› Accessibility › Efficiency › Environmental protection, energy conservation and sustainable development › Local and Regional connectivity, and › Preservation of the existing transportation system
The vision inspired eight main goals. These goals and the objectives needed to obtain them are outlined below.
Goals and
Objectives
Eight transportation goals are listed below. Associated objectives are listed after each goal. Pedestrian Bicycle Transportation Public Roadway GI: Improve efficiency of existing infrastructure a. Utilize access management techniques b. Encourage use of bike facilities and public transportation c. Utilize Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) along primary transportation corridors d. Facilitate coordination between transit systems e. Promote Transit Oriented Development (TOD) G2: Ensure transportation systems are accessible to persons of all socioeconomic classes and physical abilities a. Facilitate the mobility of multigenerational communities including young families and the elderly b. Improve multimodal facility access c. Support public education and outreach d. Ensure students at MTSU have adequate transportation to housing, food, and entertainment venues G3: Implement programs that create predictable, reliable transportation systems to foster business growth and reduce travel time a. Promote consistency between City and County land use planning b. Improve integration with MTSU Bus/ sidewalk/ bike facilities c. Promote mixed-use and re-purposed development d. Provide linkages between existing developments, new developments and economic drivers such as MTSU G4: Support regional goal of reduced emissions and preserve the environment a. Support active transportation options such as biking and walking b. Link business, recreational and residential land uses with the multi-modal network to reduce vehicle miles traveled c. Reduce traffic congestion on major corridors d. Minimize the impact of the transportation system on the human environment and natural resources G5: Maintain health and function of existing community while supporting new development a. Preserve access to historic, environmental, and cultural resources b. Support efforts to retrofit older neighborhoods for multi-modal transportation c. Improve connections between existing City center and future development G6: Support seamless transitions between modes of transportation a. Provide physical connections between modes of transportation b. Improve bicycle and pedestrian connections between land uses G7: Reduce number and severity of traffic incidents and promote network security a. Implement safety measures for elderly pedestrians and drivers b. Utilize access controls c. Improve signalization of intersections for both pedestrians and vehicles
d. Support regular maintenance of roads and facilities e. Continue to provide adequate funding for road maintenance and improvement f. Implement bicycle safety training program for residents g. Ensure timely and reliable access for emergency response vehicles G8: Promote health and livability a. Continue to support greenways implementation efforts b. Educate citizens on the benefits of multi-modal options c. Support efforts to retrofit older neighborhoods for multi-modal transportation
Purpose and Importance of Long Range Planning The long range planning process is an opportunity for the community and public officials to come together to plan for future infrastructure needs. As part of the process, a demographic analysis of the community is performed and future demands on infrastructure are projected. A vision for the community is established through a collaborative public input process and actionable goals and objectives are set. This allows community leaders to allocate funding and resources in a way that best meets the needs of the community.
The federal government codified the need for long range transportation planning in 1962 with the Federal- Aid Highway Act. The Act served as the authorizing legislation for expenditure of surface transportation funds and successive legislation required Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO’s) to develop plans and programs through a continuing, cooperative and comprehensive planning process (3-C). The City of Murfreesboro and Rutherford County are members of the Nashville Area MPO. The City’s 2040 Major Transportation Plan will be utilized by the MPO to establish Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) priorities and funding. Study Area For the purposes of this plan, the study area will include all land where growth is projected in reasonable proximity to or within the Urban Growth Boundary adopted by the City of Murfreesboro. The study area is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Study Area
Figure 1.1: Functional Class MapFigure 1.1: Functional Class Map
Demographic Overview An analysis of demographic data will be provided as part of the network analysis in Tech Memo 2. Inventory information compiled during the existing Murfreesboro 2035 land use analysis will be utilized to update and modify socioeconomic data including population, dwelling units (single family, multifamily, etc.), and employment categories (office, industrial, retail, etc.). Population and employment estimates will be developed for future year forecast (2040) based on the Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) structure and future land use plan. This data will be compiled for each TAZ to generate base year demographic data. Special generators will be developed, as necessary, for unique land use categories. The socioeconomic information will be collected by category and by TAZ based on number of employees, building square footage, number of hospital beds, students, etc. These categories will be developed in sufficient detail based on stratifying similar trip generation characteristics. Aging in place Creating a healthy, well connected community requires special attention to the elderly and families. Each group has specific transportation needs that should be considered as part of this Plan. The Elderly In a City of approximately 116,000 residents (2014), 10% are over the age of 65 and this number is expected to increase. The increase in elderly drivers and pedestrians has implications for safety and operational efficiency. In addition, infrastructure must support the health and independence of the elderly population. In fact, in a survey was conducted as part of the Murfreesboro 2035 Comprehensive Plan and when asked “What service is most needed for seniors?” one of the most popular answers was transportation. This document takes a proactive approach toward designing infrastructure for an aging population.
“Accessibility to and connection with the community [is the service most needed to provide for our seniors]. –MindMixer, Murfreesboro 2035 Online Survey
The elderly face specific mobility obstacles as they age. The USDOT notes the elderly population experience:
› declining vision; › slowed decision-making and reaction times; › exaggerated difficulty when dividing attention between traffic demands and other important sources of information; and › reductions in strength, flexibility, and general fitness.
“Boomers are about to age and have night vision problems or mobility problems which will prevent them from engaging in the community unless there are transportation options”.-Murfreesboro 2035 Online Discussion Forum
In addition to fortifying active transportation choices such as walking, cycling and public transportation, research has identified targeted roadway improvements to address these difficulties. The USDOT provides guidelines prioritizing roadway improvements to address the specific concerns facing those over the age of 65. These guidelines are paraphrased below:
1. Intersections are a crash problem area and are the greatest exposure to risk for pedestrians; 2. Interchanges that require divided attention during merging and lane changing; 3. Roadway segments specifically curves, passing zones, and highway construction/work zones; 4. Highway-rail grade crossings merit consideration as sites where conflicts are rare, and thus unexpected, and where problems of detection (with passive controls) may be exaggerated due to sensory losses with advancing age. Families Murfreesboro has a relatively high percentage of households with children at 33.5%. Active transportation is especially important for families. Providing families opportunities for connected bicycle and pedestrian pathways keeps them healthy and creates a generation of active citizens. In addition, providing safe walkable routes to school can provide many benefits including a decrease in traffic on surface streets during peak volume periods in the mornings and afternoons.
“I want to be able to walk or bike from my home to a park, without getting in a car. I want my child to grow up spending time playing outside, and I want our family to play in safe parks and trails. Sidewalks are important, and I prefer greenways and multi-use paths as shown in Murfreesboro's Greenway Blueway and Bikeway Master Plan. I think every child and adult in Murfreesboro needs access to parks and greenspace.” Angela J. –MindMixer, Murfreesboro 2035 Online Discussion Forum
Structure of Transportation Planning in Rutherford County The federal government requires urbanized areas with a population greater than 50,000 to establish or join a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) in order to receive federal transportation aid. Rutherford County and the City of Murfreesboro joined the Nashville Area MPO on December 16, 1992.
As a member of the Nashville Area MPO, Murfreesboro takes a regional perspective on transportation planning. The Transportation Director in Murfreesboro and the Assistant Transportation Director, serve on the MPO’s technical coordinating committee. Murfreesboro’s Mayor serves on the executive board. The transportation planning process in Murfreesboro is informed by multiple regional transportation plans.
These plans provide hard data concerning transportation topics in the region and are the product of community input. The studies provide valuable insight and serve as the basis for collaborative planning efforts.
Historically, the citizens and public officials of Murfreesboro value the planning process and have successfully allocated funding for City transportation planning studies and transportation infrastructure. As confirmation of this commitment, the City of Murfreesboro has designated local funds in excess of $150 million over the last 20 years toward a variety of roadway, transit and multimodal transportation projects. In addition, Murfreesboro has secured and benefited from over $100 million in federal transportation funds for past and currently planned projects, including some of the following notable projects:
› Middle Tennessee Boulevard Widening - Greenland Drive to Main Street › Old Fort Park & Ride Facility › Closed Circuit Television Installation (Phases One, Two and Three) › Broad Street and Memorial Boulevard Separated Grade Crossing › U.S. 231 and I-24 Interchange Signalization and Lane Additions › Clark Boulevard and Memorial Boulevard Intersection Improvement › New Salem Highway and Bridge Avenue Intersection Improvement › Greenland Drive Widening - Middle Tennessee Boulevard to Champion Way › Bradyville Pike Widening - S.E. Broad Street to Rutherford Boulevard › Thompson Lane Widening - Broad Street to Memorial Boulevard › Cherry Lane Extension - Memorial Boulevard to N.W. Broad Street › New Salem Highway (SR99) Widening - Old Fort Parkway to Veterans Parkway
Technical Memorandum 1: Existing Transportation Conditions
1.1 Overview of Public Involvement Effort Citizen input was critical to the formulation of the 2040 Major Transportation Plan. Citizens and stakeholders not only directed the overarching vision for the future but also provided geographically specific ideas for improvement. Input was gathered through listening sessions, workshops, and through social media.
› A transportation Listening Session was held on December 9, 2014 and was useful in identifying preliminary issues and opportunities at the beginning of plan development. Individuals representing a wide variety of community interests participated in small group discussions at the beginning of the process. A summary of comments is included in Appendix A. Participants included the following persons. Titles reflect the participants’ positions at the time of the meeting.
o Dana Richardson, Transportation Director o Ram Balachandran, City Traffic Engineer o Bill Huddleston, Local Engineer o Chad Gerhke, Airport Manager o Melinda Tate – Greenway Coordinator o Paul Latture, Chamber of Commerce President o Tommy Bragg, Former Mayor o Nellie Patton – Rover
› Joint Workshops were held as part of the Comprehensive Plan process and were essential to broadening the planning conversation and building consensus among community leaders. At the beginning and end of the planning process, the City Council, Planning Commission, and Task Force met together to identify issues and needs, evaluate policies, and prioritize implementation strategies. A mid-point briefing also served as an interim check-in point to ensure consistency with the community’s vision. The vision, objectives and policies included in this plan reflect the overarching vision of the Comprehensive Plan.
o The Joint Workshop took place on Thursday, August 21, 2014 at 6:30 pm. o A Comprehensive Plan Listening Session focused on transportation occurred on December 9, 2014 at 1:30 at City Hall. o A Comprehensive Plan Open House took place on July 21, 2016 at 4:00 pm at the City Hall.
› Two (2) Community Workshops were hosted at to optimize public input. Maps illustrating live/ work patterns are included in Appendix B.
o Community Workshop No. 1 occurred on Wednesday, August 20, 2014 at 6:30 pm, at World Outreach located at 1921 New Salem Rd., Murfreesboro, Tennessee, 37128. o Community Workshop No. 2 occurred on January 27, 2015 at 6:30 pm at Central Magnet School.
› Social Media provided a platform for members of the community to voice specific concerns and collaborate with planners. Citizens participated in online surveys targeting topics of note in the community and were able to post comments in online forums.
› Public Hearing and Adoption documents are included in the 2040 Major Transportation Plan document.
1.2 Existing Planning Documents Documents created by the State of Tennessee, the Nashville Area MPO and the City of Murfreesboro informed the planning process and provided direction for future planning efforts. These documents are the result of in depth professional analyses and community input and are a valuable resource. These documents include:
› The TDOT Tennessee Rail System Plan (2003) determined which rail corridors in Tennessee are most amenable to new intercity passenger rail services. The assessment was based on potential ridership, required capital improvements, operating costs and the availability of existing tracks.
› The Nashville Area MPO 2035 Regional Transportation Plan (2010) provides a vision for the future transportation system plan in the Nashville Area. The Plan contains three main components. The first is to expand mass transit options including Bus Rapid Transit, larger network of buses, expansion of the vanpool program and support for the transportation disadvantaged. The second component is to improve and expand on active transportation choices such and bicycling and walking. The third is to preserve and enhance strategic roadway corridors to maintain safety and long-term viability and to utilize ITS solutions.
› The Nashville Area Regional Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Architecture and the accompanying Nashville Area MPO Regional ITS Deployment Plan provide a framework for implementing ITS projects, encourage interagency cooperation, outline project standards, and serve as long- range planning documents for the region. The Deployment Plan identifies projects for implementation. The ITS Architecture Plan is a requirement of the Federal Highway Association (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to receive funding.
› The Nashville Area MPO FY 2014-2017 Transportation Improvement Project (TIP) (2013) identifies roadway projects for implementation in the short term (4 years). Funding for transportation improvements in the region is allocated based on this document.
› The Nashville Area MPO Nashville Southeast Corridor High- Performance Transit Alternatives Study (2007) provides a cost/benefit analysis of possible high-performance transit alternatives in the region and identifies both short term and long range projects for implementation in the Southeast portion of the
Region including the City of Murfreesboro. The analysis compared I-24 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), I-24 Light Rail, CSX Light Rail, CSX Commuter Rail, Murfreesboro Road Light Rail and Murfreesboro Road BRT alternatives.
› The Nashville Area MPO Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Study (2009) identifies major bicycle and pedestrian corridors in the region and future bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects in the region.
› The Nashville, TN Draft WalknBike Plan (2017) Identifies bike and pedestrian improvements for the City of Nashville and provides a plan for implementation.
› The City of Murfreesboro Gateway Streetscape Master Plan (2010) identifies target areas for future commerce development in Murfreesboro and sets standards for development in key commercial areas such as the I-24 / Medical Center Parkway interchange, the extension of Manson Pike to the west of I-24, Thompson Lane and Wilkinson Pike.
› The City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways and Bikeways Master Plan (2013) outlines future investments in bicycle, pedestrian, and paddle infrastructure in Murfreesboro. As part of the Plan, assets were inventoried, needs and level of service assessments were conducted, key projects were identified and implementation steps outlined. This Plan informs the active transportation assessment and recommendations in this 2040 Major Transportation Plan.
› The previous City of Murfreesboro 2025 Major Thoroughfare Plan (MTP) (2003) provides direction for this current 2040 Major Transportation Plan. The 2025 MTP assessed levels of service on existing roadways and provided estimates of future capacity needs. The 2025 MTP identified needs for new roadway projects and recommendations for improvement of existing facilities.
› The City of Murfreesboro Rover Service Assessment Summary Report (2010) summarizes stakeholder interviews and ridership surveys. The assessment evaluated the needs of current riders, identified opportunities to attract new riders and provided service delivery metrics.
1.3 Existing Conditions Field Review This section includes an overview of existing data and transportation infrastructure in the City of Murfreesboro. It includes a set of guiding principles for roadway preservation and rehabilitation, operational improvements, and capacity improvements. 1.3.1 Functional Classifications The City of Murfreesboro uses four main categories for classifying roadways, Freeways, Arterials, Collectors and Local Streets. Arterials are further divided into two subcategories, Major Arterials and Minor Arterials. Collectors are further divided into four subcategories, Commercial Collectors, Community Collectors, Residential Collectors and Residential Sub-Collectors. These categories were included in the 2025 Major Thoroughfare Plan.
Each roadway type is defined below. Table 1.1 lists the classification of roadways in Murfreesboro. Each roadway is mapped by class in Figure 1.1.
Freeways are high speed roadways with large volumes of interregional and interstate traffic, fully access controlled with no at grade intersections, and limited access served by interchanges that are generally one mile or more apart. Examples of freeways are Interstate 24 and Interstate 840.
Major Arterials are roadways that serve moderate to high traffic volumes (in excess of 7,000 vehicles per day (VPD)) traveling relatively long distances. They preferably provide a low degree of direct access to abutting properties, functioning as a major route between regions and to major employment areas. Major Arterials distribute traffic to freeways and to other Major Arterials as well as provide routes for mass transit. Major Arterials are applicable in commercial, industrial, mixed-use, and residential land categories. Traffic speeds on major arterials are typically 40 MPH and higher; however, in limited circumstances speeds may be as low as 30 MPH. Examples of Major Arterials are Broad Street and Old Fort Parkway.
Minor Arterials are roadways that serve moderate to high traffic volumes, typically in excess of 4,000 VPD. Functioning as a connector between Major Arterials, Collectors and other Minor Arterials, Minor Arterials also provide access to abutting property with some access control. Minor Arterials are applicable in commercial, industrial, mixed-use, and residential land categories. Traffic speeds are typically 35 MPH
and higher, although in residential areas speeds may be as low as 30 MPH. Examples of Minor Arterials are DeJarnette Lane and Warrior Drive.
Commercial Collectors are roadways that serve moderate to high traffic volumes of 3,000 to 10,000 VPD. Providing access to all adjacent properties, Commercial Collectors have less of a regional function than Minor Arterials. Commercial Collectors typically serve medium to high density commercial, mixed-use or industrial areas, which may have high volumes of truck traffic.
Commercial Collectors function as connecting routes between Local streets and Arterials, or from Local streets to other Collectors. Traffic on a Commercial Collector should operate at speeds of 25-35 MPH. Examples of Commercial Collectors are Stones River Mall Boulevard and Bridge Avenue.
Community Collectors are roadways that serve residential and low to medium-intensity commercial and mixed-use areas, providing access to all adjacent properties. Since the nearby land uses vary, this classification functions as a sort of mixed-use roadway that links homes to shopping, work places, and other daily trip generators. Accordingly, Community Collectors are important routes not only for cars, but also pedestrians and cyclists, and should safely accommodate all modes. Community Collectors function as connecting routes between Local streets and Arterials, or from Local streets to other Collectors. The typical two-lane cross-section serves a low to medium traffic volume of 1,500 to 4,000 VPD. The typical two-lane cross section with median or three-lane cross-section street serves a low to medium traffic volume of 1,500 to 8,000 VPD. Traffic on a Community Collector should operate at speeds of 30-35 MPH, although 40 MPH may be appropriate in limited cases. Examples of Community Collectors are Cason Lane, Battleground Drive and Saint Andrews Drive.
Residential Collectors are roadways that serve residential areas with residences likely on both sides of the roadway. Accordingly, for the safety and quality of life of nearby residents, slow traffic speeds are encouraged and cut-through traffic discouraged. Residential Collectors serve as a connecting route between Local streets and Arterials, or from Local streets to Collectors. Access is provided to all adjacent properties. The typical two-lane cross-section serves a relatively low traffic volume of 500 to 3,000 VPD. In many situations, a two-lane Residential Collector can provide needed capacity and reduce negative impacts on adjacent properties. Traffic on Residential Collectors should operate at speeds of 25-30 MPH. Examples of Residential Collectors are Patriot Drive and Cason Trail.
Residential Sub-Collectors are roadways that serve residential areas with residences likely on both sides of the roadway. Accordingly, it is important to encourage slow traffic speeds and discourage cut-through traffic for the safety and quality of life of nearby residents. In many cases, the Residential Sub-Collector will not be a through street. The Residential Sub-Collector typically has less connectivity and will serve lower traffic volumes than the Residential Collector. Typically, this type of roadway collects traffic from the local streets within a specific neighborhood and distributes that traffic to another higher- level Collector or to an Arterial. Residential Sub-Collectors provide access to all adjacent properties. The typical two-lane cross section serves a relatively low traffic volume of 500 to 2,000 VPD. Traffic on a Residential Collector should operate at speeds of 25-30 MPH. Examples of Residential Sub-Collectors are Brentmeade Drive and Penny Lane.
Local streets are roadways that serve residential areas with residences typically on both sides of the roadway. Accordingly, it is important to encourage slow traffic speeds and discourage cut-through traffic
for the safety and quality of life of adjacent residents. In most cases, a Local street will not be a through street. A Local street primarily serves traffic with an origin or destination on the particular street. A Local street typically has less connectivity characterized by short street segments and will serve lower traffic volumes than a Residential Sub-Collector.
Local streets provide access to all adjacent properties. The typical two-lane cross-section serves a relatively low traffic volume up to 1,500 VPD. Traffic on a Local street should operate at speeds of 20-30 MPH. Examples of Local streets are numerous but are typically residential subdivision streets not listed as any type of collector.
Roadway classifications for existing roadways were determined using the aforementioned qualitative and quantitative criteria. In classifying each roadway within and in proximity to the City, it is realized that most roadways do not necessarily match each quantitative and qualitative criteria associated with the respective classification, therefore, the classifications are assigned based on the closest overall match of the noted criteria while taking into account the context of the area in which they exist. Higher order roadways such as the arterials are primarily intended to accommodate transportation related goals such as moving large volumes of traffic at higher speeds while lower order roadways such as local streets are intended to provide a high quality of life for the adjoining population. The mid order roadways such as the collector system attempt to provide a reasonable balance between transportation related objectives and quality of life.
Roadway classifications for proposed roadways are intended to be assigned while reviewing development master plans to assure that the future transportation and quality of life issues are addressed and properly balanced to adequately serve a particular development while providing compatibility and interconnection to the surrounding roadway network. In meeting both goals, roadway cross-sections have been developed to help assure that the functional roadway design features are compatible and consistent with expected land use.
Table 1.1: Functional Class
NAME ROUTE CLASSIFICATION FROM TO LANES DIVIDED ROW
1 ACADEMY STREET Residential Collector Main Street McKnight Street 2 60
2 AGRIPARK DRIVE Commercial Collector Old Fort Parkway John R. Rice Boulevard 2 60
3 ALEXANDER BOULEVARD Residential Sub Collector Peconic Drive DeJarnette Lane 2 50
4 ALEXANDER BOULEVARD Community Collector DeJarnette Lane North Tennessee Boulevard 2 60
5 ARMSTRONG VALLEY ROAD Residential Collector Study Area Boundary New Salem Highway 2 60
6 ASBURY LANE Residential Collector Asbury Road Medical Center Parkway 2 50
7 ASBURY ROAD Residential Collector Old Nashville Highway Asbury Lane 2 50
8 AZURE WAY Residential Sub Collector Cason Lane Molly Trail 2 50
9 BAIRD LANE Community Collector Main Street Mercury Boulevard 2 60
10 BAIRD LANE, S Community Collector Mercury Boulevard Bradyville Pike 2 60
11 BANNER DRIVE Residential Sub Collector Regenwood Drive Regency Park Drive 2 60
12 BARFIELD CRESCENT ROAD Community Collector Veterans Parkway Study Area Boundary 2 80
13 BARFIELD ROAD Community Collector New Salem Highway Veterans Parkway 2 60
14 BATTLE AVE Community Collector Old Salem Road Main Street 2 60
15 BATTLEGROUND DRIVE Community Collector Sulphur Springs Road Haynes Drive 3 60
16 BATTLEGROUND DRIVE Community Collector Haynes Drive Tomahawk Trace 2 60
17 BATTLEGROUND DRIVE Community Collector Marymount Drive Northfield Boulevard 2 60
18 BATTLEGROUND DRIVE Community Collector Northfield Boulevard Monte Hale Drive 2 50
19 BATTLEGROUND DRIVE Community Collector Monte Hale Drive Clark Boulevard 2 60
20 BELL STREET Residential Collector Spring Street Middle Tennessee Boulevard 2 60
21 BETTY FORD ROAD Community Collector Compton Road Sanford Drive 2 50
22 BETTY FORD ROAD Community Collector Sanford Drive Jefferson Pike 2 40
23 BLACKMAN Minor Arterial I-840 I-24 2 50
24 BLACKMAN ROAD Minor Arterial Veterans Parkway I-840 2 60
25 BLAZE DRIVE Residential Collector Fortress Boulevard Franklin Road 2 50
26 BLAZE DRIVE Community Collector Brinkley Road Fortress Boulevard 3 80
27 BRADBERRY DRIVE Residential Sub Collector Winterberry Drive Northwoods Drive 2 50
28 BRADYVILLE PIKE SR 99 Minor Arterial Broad Street Rutherford Boulevard 3 65
29 BRADYVILLE PIKE SR 99 Minor Arterial Rutherford Boulevard Study Area Boundary 2 60
NAME ROUTE CLASSIFICATION FROM TO LANES DIVIDED ROW
30 BRAXTON BRAGG DRIVE Residential Collector Campfire Drive Gresham Lane 2 60
31 BRECKENRIDGE DRIVE Residential Sub Collector North Thompson Lane Saint Johns Drive 2 55
32 BRENTMEADE DRIVE Residential Sub Collector Memorial Boulevard Madison Avenue 2 50
33 BRIDGE AVENUE Commercial Collector Old Fort Parkway West Main Street 2 60
34 BRINKLEY ROAD Minor Arterial Manson Pike Old Fort Parkway 3 60 35 BROAD STREET, NW US 41/70 Major Arterial Study Area Boundary Thompson Lane 7 Y 150 36 BROAD STREET, NW US 41/70 Major Arterial Thompson Lane Medical Center Parkway 7 Y 150
37 BROAD STREET, NW US 41/70 Major Arterial Medical Center Memorial Boulevard 7 92 Parkway 38 BROAD STREET, NW US 41/70 Major Arterial Memorial Boulevard Maney Avenue 7 92
39 BROAD STREET, SE US 41/70 Major Arterial Maney Ave Mercury Boulevard 4 Varies
40 BROAD STREET, SE US 41, SR 2 Major Arterial Mercury Boulevard Bradyville Highway 3 80
41 BROAD STREET, SE US 41, SR 2 Major Arterial Bradyville Highway Middle Tennessee Boulevard 4 80
42 BROAD STREET, SE US 41, SR 2 Major Arterial Middle Tennessee Irby Lane 2 90 Boulevard 43 BROAD STREET, SE US 41, SR 2 Major Arterial Irby Lane Study Area Boundary 2 80
44 BURNT KNOB ROAD Community Collector Veterans Parkway Blackman Road 2 50
45 BURNT KNOB ROAD Community Collector Veterans Parkway Study Area Boundary 2 50
46 BUTLER DRIVE Minor Arterial Church Street Joe B. Jackson Parkway 3 80
47 BUTLER DRIVE Minor Arterial Joe B. Jackson Elam Road 5 100 Parkway 48 CALUMET TRACE Residential Collector Church Street Council Bluff Parkway 2 60
49 CAMPFIRE DRIVE Residential Collector Braxton Bragg Drive Blaze Drive 2 40
50 CAROLINE DRIVE Community Collector Church Street Termination 2 60
51 CASON LANE Community Collector State Route 96 River Rock Boulevard 4 80
52 CASON LANE Community Collector River Rock Boulevard New Salem Highway 3 75
53 CASON LANE Community Collector New Salem Highway Veterans Parkway 2 80
54 CASON TRAIL Residential Collector River Rock Boulevard St. Andrews Drive 2 55
55 CHERRY LANE Major Arterial Memorial Boulevard Cavalier Drive 4 Y 100
56 CHERRY LANE Major Arterial Cavalier Drive NW Broad Street 5 100
57 CHURCH STREET CBD Main Street Vine Street 2 70
58 CHURCH STREET CBD Vine Street Broad Street 2 72
59 CHURCH STREET US 231, SR Major Arterial Broad Street Middle Tennessee Boulevard 5 80 10
NAME ROUTE CLASSIFICATION FROM TO LANES DIVIDED ROW
60 CHURCH STREET US 231, SR Major Arterial Middle Tennessee Rutherford Boulevard 5 Varies 10 Boulevard 61 CHURCH STREET US 231, SR Major Arterial Rutherford Boulevard Westgate 5 85 10 62 CHURCH STREET US 231, SR Major Arterial Wright Street Butler Drive 5 Y Varies 10 63 CHURCH STREET US 231, SR Major Arterial Butler Drive Veterans Parkway 7 105 10 64 CHURCH STREET US 231, SR Major Arterial Veterans Parkway Study Area Boundary 4 Y Varies 10 65 CHURCH STREET, N Residential Collector East McKnight Street East College Street 2 60
66 CLARK BOULEVARD, EAST Community Collector Broad Street Memorial Boulevard 2 50
67 CLARK BOULEVARD, EAST SR 96 Major Arterial Memorial Boulevard Lascassas Pike 5 80
68 COLLEGE STREET, EAST Commercial Collector Burton Street Front Street 2 60
69 COLLEGE STREET, EAST CBD Front Street Spring Street 2 60
70 COLLEGE STREET, EAST Community Collector Spring Street University Street 2 60
71 COMPTON ROAD SR 268 Major Arterial Memorial Boulevard Lascassas Pike 2 Varies
72 COMPTON ROAD, EAST Minor Arterial Lascassas Pike Briarwood Drive 2 50
73 COUNTRY FARM ROAD Community Collector Joe B Jackson Elam Road 2 60 Parkway 74 DEERFIELD DRIVE Residential Sub Collector John R Rice Boulevard Terminus 2 50
75 DEJARNETTE LANE Minor Arterial Memorial Boulevard Lascassas Pike 5 Varies
76 DILL LANE Residential Sub Collector Sherrill Boulevard Mercury Boulevard 2 Varies
77 DILTON MANKIN ROAD Community Collector Broad Street Lytle Creek Road 2 50
78 DOUBLE SPRINGS ROAD Community Collector John Bragg Highway Veals Road 2 50
79 ELAM ROAD Community Collector Joe B Jackson East Farm Country Road 2 50 Parkway 80 ELAM ROAD Community Collector Manchester Pike Joe B Jackson Parkway 2 50
81 EMERY ROAD Community Collector Compton Road Lascassas Pike 2 40
82 FLAT ROCK ROAD Community Collector Halls Hill Pike Old Woodbury Highway 2 50
83 FLORENCE ROAD Minor Arterial Manson Pike Singer Road 3 60
84 FLORENCE ROAD Minor Arterial Singer Road NW Broad Street 2 Varies
85 FLORENCE ROAD Minor Arterial NW Broad Street Sulphur Springs Road 2 50
86 FORTRESS BOULEVARD Major Arterial I-24 Blaze Drive 5 100
87 FORTRESS BOULEVARD Minor Arterial Blaze Drive Franklin Road 5 100
88 FRONT STREET, NORTH CBD W Lytle Street NW Broad Street 2 40
NAME ROUTE CLASSIFICATION FROM TO LANES DIVIDED ROW
89 GARRISON COVE Residential Sub Collector Lascassas Pike Dead End 2 50
90 GATEWAY BOULEVARD Commercial Collector North Thompson Lane Medical Center Parkway 3 60
91 GEORGE FRANKLIN ROAD Minor Arterial Florence Road I-840 2 50
92 GOLD VALLEY DRIVE Community Collector Lascassas Pike Rutherford Boulevard 2 65
93 GOLD VALLEY DRIVE Residential Collector Rutherford Boulevard Woods Edge Drive 2 60
94 GOLD VALLEY DRIVE Residential Sub Collector Woods Edge Drive Dead End 2 50
95 GREENLAND DRIVE Commercial Collector Highland Avenue Middle Tennessee Boulevard 2 60
96 GREENLAND DRIVE Minor Arterial Middle Tennessee Champion Way 5 104 Boulevard 97 GREENLAND DRIVE Minor Arterial Champion Way Rutherford Boulevard 3 60
98 GRESHAM LANE Community Collector John R. Rice Old Fort Parkway 2 60 Boulevard 99 HALLS HILL PIKE Minor Arterial Rutherford Boulevard Adams Lane 3 60
100 HAMILTON DRIVE Community Collector Northfield Boulevard NW Broad Street 2 50
101 HAMILTON DRIVE Community Collector NW Broad Street West College Street 2 30
102 HAYNES DRIVE Minor Arterial Thompson Lane Memorial Boulevard 2 60
103 HAYNES HAVEN LANE Residential Sub Collector Memorial Boulevard James Drive 2 60
104 HAZLEWOOD STREET Commercial Collector North Tennessee Lascassas Pike 2 50 Boulevard 105 HAZLEWOOD STREET Commercial Collector Lascassas Pike Old Lascassas Road 3 60
106 HIGHLAND AVE Residential Collector Northfield Boulevard Clark Boulevard 2 60
107 HIGHLAND AVENUE Commercial Collector Clark Boulevard Roberts Street 2 60
108 HIGHLAND AVENUE Commercial Collector Roberts Street Lytle Street 2 50
109 HIGHLAND AVENUE Commercial Collector Lytle Street Vine Street 2 40
110 HIGHLAND AVENUE Community Collector Vine Street Mercury Boulevard 2 40
111 HORD ROAD Residential Collector Old Nashville Highway Asbury Road 2 30
112 HOUSTON DRIVE Residential Collector Rushwood Drive Middle Tennessee Boulevard 2 60
113 HOWELL DRIVE Residential Sub Collector Osborne Lane Peconic Place 2 50 114 I-840 I-840 Expressway/ Freeway Study Area Boundary Study Area Boundary (South) 4 Y Varies (North) 115 INDIAN PARK ROAD Community Collector Sewanee Place South Church Street 2 60
116 INNSBROOKE BOULEVARD Commercial Collector South Church Street Comer Drive 2 Y 90 117 INTERSTATE 24 I-24 Expressway/ Freeway North Study Area South Church Street 8 Y Varies Boundary
NAME ROUTE CLASSIFICATION FROM TO LANES DIVIDED ROW
118 INTERSTATE 24 Expressway/ Freeway South Church Street South Study Area Boundary 4 Y Varies
119 IRBY LANE Residential Collector Broad Street Bradyville Pike 2 50
120 IRONGATE BOULEVARD Residential Collector Sulphur Springs Road Winthorne Lane 2 50
121 IRONGATE BOULEVARD Commercial Collector Winthorne Lane Memorial Boulevard 3 Varies
122 JAMES DRIVE Residential Sub Collector Haynes Haven Lane W Northfield Boulevard 2 50
123 JEFFERSON PIKE SR 266 Minor Arterial Lebanon Pike Lascassas Pike 2 60
124 JEFFERSON PIKE, WEST SR 266 Minor Arterial I-840 Lebanon Pike 2 55
125 JOE B. JACKSON PARKWAY Major Arterial SE Broad Street I-24 5 100
126 JOE B. JACKSON PARKWAY Major Arterial I-24 CSX Railroad 5 100
127 JOE B. JACKSON PARKWAY Major Arterial CSX Railroad Bob Baskin Drive 3 70
128 JOE B. JACKSON PARKWAY Major Arterial Bob Baskin Drive South Church Street 5 90 129 JOHN BRAGG HIGHWAY US 70, SR 1 Major Arterial Rutherford Boulevard Study Area Boundary 4 Y Varies
130 JOHN RICE BOULEVARD Commercial Collector Old Fort Parkway Doe Drive 3 60
131 JOHN RICE BOULEVARD Major Arterial Doe Drive Fortress Boulevard 5 100
132 JONES BOULEVARD Community Collector Northfield Boulevard Ridgely Road 3 60
133 KENSINGTON DRIVE Community Collector SE Broad Street Rutherford Boulevard 2 50
134 KENSINGTON DRIVE Residential Sub Collector Rutherford Boulevard Dead End 2 50
135 KINGDOM DRIVE Residential Sub Collector Rucker Lane Veterans Parkway 3 60
136 KINGS HIGHWAY Community Collector Old Salem Road Old Fort Parkway 2 60
137 KINGWOOD LANE Major Arterial Franklin Road Windrow Road 2 50
138 LASCASSAS PIKE SR 96 Major Arterial Middle Tennessee Study Area Boundary 2 120 Boulevard 139 LEANNA ROAD Community Collector Thompson Lane Swamp Leanna Road 2 40
140 LILLARD ROAD Residential Sub Collector Halls Hill Pike Twin Oaks Drive 2 60
141 LOKEY AVENUE Community Collector Memorial Boulevard Maple Street 2 50
142 LYTLE STREET Commercial Collector Broad Street Front Street 3 60
143 LYTLE STREET CBD Front Street Church Street 3 60
144 LYTLE STREET Residential Collector Church Street Middle Tennessee Boulevard 2 60
145 MADISON AVENUE Residential Sub Collector Compton Road Dead End 2 50
146 MAIN STREET Commercial Collector New Salem Highway Broad Street 2 Varies
147 MAIN STREET Minor Arterial Broad Street Rutherford Boulevard 2 Varies
148 MALL CIRCLE DRIVE Commercial Collector Old Fort Parkway Stones River Mall Boulevard 4 70
NAME ROUTE CLASSIFICATION FROM TO LANES DIVIDED ROW
149 MANEY AVENUE Residential Collector Bell Street Broad Street 2 50
150 MANSON PIKE Major Arterial Blackman Road Fortress Boulevard 2 Varies
151 MAPLE STREET, NORTH CBD Vine Street Lytle Street 2 Varies
152 MAPLE STREET, NORTH Community Collector Lytle Street Memorial Boulevard 2 Varies
153 MEDICAL CENTER PARKWAY Major Arterial I-24 Warren Street 4 Y 145
154 MEDICAL CENTER PARKWAY Major Arterial Warren Street Memorial Boulevard 4 Y 90
155 MEMORIAL BOULEVARD US 231, SR Major Arterial Broad Street St. Clair Street 5 Varies 10 156 MEMORIAL BOULEVARD US 231, SR Major Arterial St. Clair Street Byrd Avenue 5 92 10 157 MEMORIAL BOULEVARD US 231, SR Major Arterial Byrd Avenue MTCS Drive 5 Varies 10 158 MEMORIAL BOULEVARD US 231, SR Major Arterial MTCS Drive Thompson Lane 5 100 10 159 MEMORIAL BOULEVARD US 231, SR Major Arterial Thompson Lane Study Area Boundary 2 Varies 10 160 MERCURY BOULEVARD US 70, SR 1 Major Arterial Broad Street Rutherford Boulevard 4 Y Varies
161 MIDDLE TENNESSEE BOULEVARD Major Arterial Lascassas Pike Greenland Drive 5 80
162 MIDDLE TENNESSEE BOULEVARD Major Arterial Greenland Drive Main Street 4 Y 90
163 MIDDLE TENNESSEE BOULEVARD Major Arterial Main Street Mercury Boulevard 4 Y 100
164 MIDDLE TENNESSEE BOULEVARD Major Arterial Mercury Boulevard South Church Street 5 90
165 MIDDLE TENNESSEE BOULEVARD Major Arterial South Church Street New Salem Highway 5 100
166 MINERVA DRIVE Community Collector Jupiter Place Foxdale Drive 2 60
167 MINERVA DRIVE Community Collector Jupiter Place Main Street 2 Varies
168 MINERVA DRIVE Residential Sub Collector Bradyville Pike Terminus 2 60
169 MISSION RIDGE DRIVE Residential Sub Collector DeJarnette Lane Marian Lane 2 50
170 MOORELAND LANE Residential Collector Rucker Lane Kingdom Drive 2 50
171 NEW SALEM HIGHWAY SR 99 Major Arterial Old Fort Parkway Middle Tennessee Boulevard 5 115
172 NEW SALEM HIGHWAY SR 99 Major Arterial Middle Tennessee Warrior Drive 5 Varies Boulevard 173 NEW SALEM HIGHWAY SR 99 Major Arterial Warrior Drive Veterans Parkway 5 115
174 NEW SALEM HIGHWAY SR 99 Major Arterial Veterans Parkway Study Area Boundary 2 120
175 NORTHFIELD BOULEVARD Major Arterial Broad Street Lascassas Pike 4 Y 100
176 NORTHWOODS DRIVE Residential Sub Collector Bradberry Drive DeJarnette Lane 2 50
177 OLD FORT PARKWAY SR 96 Major Arterial Veterans Parkway Cason Lane 5 110
NAME ROUTE CLASSIFICATION FROM TO LANES DIVIDED ROW 178 OLD FORT PARKWAY SR 96 Major Arterial Cason Lane Thompson Lane 4 Y Varies 179 OLD FORT PARKWAY SR 96 Major Arterial Thompson Lane Broad Street 4 Y Varies
180 OLD FORT PARKWAY/ FRANKLIN SR 96 Major Arterial Study Area Boundary Veterans Parkway 2 70 ROAD 181 OLD LASCASSAS ROAD Community Collector North Rutherford Greenland Drive 3 65 Boulevard 182 OLD NASHVILLE HIGHWAY Minor Arterial Study Area Boundary Thompson Lane 2 60
183 OLD SALEM PIKE Residential Collector New Salem Highway New Salem Highway 2 60
184 OLD SALEM ROAD Commercial Collector Middle Tennessee Castle Street 2 Varies Boulevard 185 OSBORNE LANE Community Collector Memorial Boulevard Emery Road 3 60
186 PARK AVENUE Commercial Collector Old Salem Road Middle Tennessee Boulevard 2 60
187 PARKVIEW TERRACE Community Collector Bradyville Pike SE Broad Street 2 60
188 PATRIOT DRIVE Residential Collector Lascassas Pike Pitts Lane 2 80
189 PECONIC PLACE Residential Sub Collector Alexander Boulevard Howell Drive 2 50
190 PENNY LANE Residential Sub Collector Compton Road Rocking Horse Lane 2 50
191 PERLINO DRIVE Residential Sub Collector Saint Andrews Drive Rucker Lane 2 50
192 PITTS LANE Community Collector DeJarnette Lane Northfield Boulevard 3 60
193 PITTS LANE/ WENLON ROAD Community Collector Northfield Boulevard North Tennessee Boulevard 2 60
194 RACQUET CLUB DRIVE Residential Collector Cason Lane River Rock Road 2 60
195 RED MILE ROAD/ NICKAJACK ROAD Residential Collector Broad Street Bradyville Pike 2 50
196 REGAL DRIVE Residential Collector Memorial Boulevard Regency Park Drive 2 50
197 REGENCY PARK DRIVE Residential Collector Haynes Drive Kings Ridge 2 50
198 REGENCY PARK DRIVE Residential Collector Kings Ridge Thompson Lane 3 60
199 REGENWOOD DRIVE Residential Collector Haynes Drive Sulphur Springs Road 3 60
200 REGENWOOD DRIVE Residential Collector Sulphur Springs Road Existing Terminus 2 50
201 RIDGELY ROAD Commercial Collector Broad Street Memorial Boulevard 2 60
202 RIVER ROAD BOULEVARD Community Collector Cason Lane New Salem Highway 2 60
203 RIVER ROCK BOULEVARD Community Collector Racquet Club Drive Cason Trail 2 80
204 RIVER ROCK BOULEVARD Community Collector Cason Trail Racquet Club Drive 2 60
205 RIVERVIEW DRIVE/ ROYAL DRIVE Residential Collector Thompson Lane Battleground Drive 2 60
206 ROBERT ROSE DRIVE Commercial Collector Stones River Mall Medical Center Parkway 3 60 Boulevard 207 ROCKING HORSE LANE Residential Sub Collector Penny Lane Osborne Lane 2 50
NAME ROUTE CLASSIFICATION FROM TO LANES DIVIDED ROW
208 RUCKER LANE Minor Arterial Franklin Road Veterans Parkway 3 60
209 RUSHWOOD DRIVE Residential Collector South Church Street Houston Drive 2 60
210 RUTHERFORD BOULEVARD Major Arterial Lascassas Pike Main Street 4 Y 100
211 RUTHERFORD BOULEVARD Major Arterial Main Street Bradyville Highway 4 Y 110
212 RUTHERFORD BOULEVARD Major Arterial Bradyville Highway Ransom Drive 4 Y 100
213 RUTHERFORD BOULEVARD Major Arterial Ransom Drive Broad Street 5 Varies
214 RUTHERFORD BOULEVARD Major Arterial Broad Street Church Street 5 105
215 RUTLEDGE WAY Commercial Collector Middle Tennessee Existing Terminus 2 75 Boulevard 216 SADDLEBROOK DRIVE Residential Sub Collector Independence Way W Northfield Boulevard 2 55
217 SAINT ANDREWS DRIVE Community Collector Old Fort Parkway Roscommon Drive 3 60
218 SAINT ANDREWS DRIVE Community Collector Roscommon Drive Deerview Drive 2 60
219 SAINT ANDREWS DRIVE Community Collector Deerview Drive Veterans Parkway 3 60
220 SAINT CLAIR STREET Community Collector Memorial Boulevard Walnut Street 3 60
221 SANFORD DRIVE Community Collector Compton Road Betty Ford Road 2 60
222 SAVANNAH RIDGE Residential Sub Collector S Church Street Beaufort Street 2 50
223 SHAGBARK TRAIL Residential Sub Collector Winterberry Drive Northwoods Cove 2 50
224 SHERRILL BOULEVARD Residential Sub Collector Minerva Drive Dill Lane 2 60
225 SHORES ROAD Residential Collector Veterans Parkway Study Area Boundary 2 60
226 SIEGEL ROAD Community Collector Thompson Lane Sulphur Springs Road 3 60
227 SOUTHGATE BOULEVARD Commercial Collector Warrior Drive Existing Terminus 2 60
228 SOUTHRIDGE BOULEVARD Residential Collector Veterans Parkway Existing Terminus 2 60
229 SPRING STREET CBD College Street State Street 2 60
230 SPRING STREET Residential Collector McKnight Drive College Street 2 60
231 STONES RIVER MALL BOULEVARD Commercial Collector Old Fort Parkway Robert Rose Drive 3 50
232 SULPHUR SPRINGS ROAD Community Collector Leanna Road Cherry Lane Extension 2 50
233 SULPHUR SPRINGS ROAD Community Collector Cherry Lane Extension Thompson Lane 5 100
234 SULPHUR SPRINGS ROAD Community Collector Thompson Lane Regenwood Drive 3 60
235 SULPHUR SPRINGS ROAD Community Collector Haynes Drive Northfield Boulevard 3 60
236 SULPHUR SPRINGS ROAD Community Collector Northfield Boulevard Memorial Boulevard 3 60
237 SULPHUR SPRINGS ROAD Minor Arterial Florence Road I-840 3 60
238 SWAMP LEANNA ROAD/ CENTRAL VALLEY ROAD Major Arterial Lebanon Pike I-840 2 50
NAME ROUTE CLASSIFICATION FROM TO LANES DIVIDED ROW
239 TEDDER BOULEVARD Residential Sub Collector Haynes Drive Tomahawk Trace 2 50
240 TENNESSEE BOULEVARD, NORTH Community Collector Alexander Boulevard Wenlon Drive 2 60
241 TENNESSEE BOULEVARD, NORTH Community Collector Wenlon Drive Clark Boulevard 2 50
242 THOMPSON LANE SR 268 Major Arterial Memorial Boulevard Broad Street 5 120
243 THOMPSON LANE Major Arterial Broad Street Old Nashville Highway 5 Varies
244 THOMPSON LANE Major Arterial Old Nashville Highway Gateway Boulevard 5 100
245 THOMPSON LANE Major Arterial Gateway Boulevard Old Fort Parkway 5 90
246 TOMAHAWK TRACE Residential Sub Collector Haynes Drive Sulphur Springs Road 2 60
247 TWIN OAK DRIVE Residential Sub Collector Halls Hill Road Main Street 2 50
248 TWIN OAK DRIVE Commercial Collector Halls Hill Road Lascassas Pike 2 40
249 UNIVERSITY STREET, N Residential Collector Greenland Drive East Main Street 2 50
250 UNIVERSITY STREET, S Residential Collector East Main Street East Castle Street 2 45
251 VEALS ROAD Community Collector Bradyville Pike Mount Herman Road 2 Y 50
252 VETERANS PARKWAY Major Arterial Burnt Knob Road SR 96/ Franklin Road 5 90
253 VETERANS PARKWAY Major Arterial SR 96 Kingdom Drive 5 100
254 VETERANS PARKWAY Major Arterial Kingdom Drive St. Andrews 4 Y 100
255 VETERANS PARKWAY Major Arterial St. Andrews Lone Oak Drive 5 100
256 VETERANS PARKWAY Major Arterial Lone Oak Drive South Church Street 5 80
257 VINE STREET CBD Broad Street Spring Street 2 60
258 VINE STREET, E Community Collector South Spring Street South Highland Ave 2 40
259 WARRIOR DRIVE Minor Arterial New Salem Road Church Street 2 90
260 WENDELWOOD DRIVE Commercial Collector Haynes Drive Irongate Boulevard 3 50
261 WEST COLLEGE STREET Minor Arterial Medical Center Thompson Lane 2 50 Parkway 262 WILKINSON PIKE Community Collector Thompson Lane Greshampark Drive 3 60
263 WINDEMERE DRIVE Residential Collector River Rock Boulevard Termination 2 50
264 WINDROW ROAD Residential Collector Old Salem Pike Study Area Boundary 2 50
265 WINTERBERRY DRIVE Residential Sub Collector Alexander Boulevard Bradberry Drive 2 50
266 WOODBURY PIKE, OLD Minor Arterial Rutherford Boulevard Study Area Boundary 2 Varies
267 WOODS EDGE DRIVE Residential Collector Gold Valley Drive Halls Hill Pike 2 60
268 YEARGAN ROAD Residential Collector Armstrong Valley Veterans Parkway 2 40 Road
Figure 1.1: Functional Class Map
1.3.2 Intelligent Transportation
Systems (ITS)
Intelligent transportation systems use technology to monitor, analyze and operate transportation network components to increase efficiency and improve safety. Examples of ITS include adaptive signal control technology (ASCT), variable speed limits, road weather information systems, ramp metering systems, closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras, and dynamic message signs. Utilization of ITS in Murfreesboro allows the City to react quickly to unforeseen traffic delays such as crashes or extreme weather conditions and gives the City the ability efficiently assess and make changes to signal timing to improve the flow of traffic.
As of 2017, the City of Murfreesboro operates and maintains one hundred and forty-seven signalized intersections. Eighty-seven (87) signalized intersections or approximately 60% are interconnected and accessible from the City's Traffic Operations Center located at City Hall. An on-street CCTV camera system with 32 individual cameras coupled with the interconnection of the traffic signals, primarily along the arterial portion of the City's roadway system, provides the ability to remotely identify traffic problems, make signal timing modifications, and view the operational results of the timing changes.
A study of I-24 completed by TDOT in 2014 recommends several ITS roadway improvements between Davidson and Rutherford Counties. The recommendations are currently being planned and funded. Recommendations include establishing communication connections between TDOT ITS to allow sharing of video feeds, traffic conditions and incident locations; the installation of ramp metering on specified I-24 exits; and installation of ITS on US 41/US70S/SR-1 (Murfreesboro Rd/Lowery St/NW Broad St) between the I-440 interchange and SR10 to mitigate diverted traffic from I-24. These and other improvements would provide enhanced public notification of incidents and other adverse traffic conditions and support mitigation of congestion caused when traffic diverts from I-24 to SR-1/ Murfreesboro Pike during times of high traffic volume. 1.3.3 Annual Average Daily Traffic The traffic demand model utilizes annual average daily traffic (AADT) counts summarizing the number of vehicles traveling past a particular point on a roadway over a 24 hour period. Annual average daily traffic counts from the model baseline year of 2014 were used for model calibration. AADT from the 2014 traffic model is summarized in Figure 1.2. This data will be updated to reflect 2040 E+C model outputs in Tech Memo 2.
Figure 1.2: City AADT
Alternative Transportation Modes While the vehicle is the primary mode of transportation in Murfreesboro, alternative modes of transportation decrease the load on infrastructure, reduce emissions, and increase livability. Alternative transportation modes include pedestrian facilities, bicycling facilities and public transportation facilities. To optimize ease of utilization, alternative transportation networks should be interconnected and integrated with vehicular thoroughfares. In the plan for Murfreesboro, importance was placed on linking modes of transportation as one comprehensive system.
In 2013, the City of Murfreesboro adopted the “Greenways, Blueways and Bikeways Master Plan”. The plan contains a comprehensive inventory of existing resources, professional analysis of resource gaps and direction for the allocation of resources. The plan was a coordinated effort between City departments and is the product of community input and targeted data driven analyses, and therefore is the guiding document for future bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure efforts. This multi-modal transportation plan will utilize the “Greenways, Blueways and Bikeways Master Plan” and integrate it into future plans for the multi-modal transportation network.
1.3.4 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities “Every day, I see more and more people in Murfreesboro walking. Up and down the streets, crossing the streets, riding their bikes. With our temperate weather, we could be a year-round walkable community if we had the infrastructure, like sidewalks and more bike paths, plus an expanded public transit system. [Entry level employees] need public transportation. MTSU students, especially international ones, need public transportation. ..… Tennesseans have one of the worst obesity problems---this is the intersection of better health, economic expansion, putting people to work and connecting with MTSU.” Terri S. – MindMixer, Murfreesboro 2035 Online Discussion Forum
Modes of active transportation are part of the overall transportation network. Bicycling and walking as modes of transportation or as recreational activities are beneficial to the community in many ways including diverting traffic from existing roadways, facilitating the mobility of multigenerational communities and those without access to an automobile, providing a rich environment for business development, supporting the environment, and promoting health and livability. Bicycling and walking promotes a sense of community and as a result, Murfreesboro feels safer and friendlier to citizens and visitors. Active transportation choices are not only good for residents, but also can attract businesses, workers, and tourism. A visible bicycling and walking culture builds on the reputation of Murfreesboro within the region as a livable community and attractive place to do business. In an online poll conducted as part of the Murfreesboro 2035 Comprehensive Plan found the most important “Neighborhood Features in Other Cities” are “trails for walking, jogging, skating and bicycling.” Active transportation choices are crucial to cities with large university campuses such as MTSU. Students may rely on these modes for their transportation needs both on and off-campus.
Promoting a culture of active transportation in Murfreesboro will require an effort to educate residents on the benefits and processes of utilizing bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The “Greenways, Blueways and Bikeways Master Plan” suggests a three tiered approach to promote use of the systems: 1) provide facilities, 2) build supporting policies, 3) educate and encourage the public regarding transportation choices.
The goals and objectives identified through the “Greenways, Blueways and Bikeways Master Plan” support and elucidate the goals and objectives of this multi-modal transportation plan.
The first two primary objectives of the “Greenways, Blueways and Bikeways Master Plan” are to:
1) Promote the increased usage of existing greenways and blueways and the construction of new greenways and blueways access points by identifying personal and community needs and benefits relating to quality of life, health, economics, and sustainability. 2) Present strategies leading toward a transformational attitude of Murfreesboro’s residents and workers in which active transportation (transportation by walking or bicycle) is regarded as a viable travel option for all.
To achieve these goals, a comprehensive inventory of bicycle and pedestrian facilities was compiled, Level of Service analyses were conducted and target areas for improvement were identified. A summary of the report is included herein. For the full study, please refer to the digital copy available on the City’s website.
Types of Facilities Bicycle and pedestrian paths were identified as one of the following five types. The paths are differentiated by paving type, size, location and purpose.
Greenway: A typical 10’ – 16’ wide paved off -street path generally following an established water course and having few or no at-grade crossings of roadways. Murfreesboro’s existing greenway facilities are examples.
Greenway Connector: A paved off-street path that usually serves to connect specific properties to a greenway. Usually planned on public or institutional properties an 8’-12’ width is expected. At-grade crossings will be required, and must be designed appropriately as the project is implemented.
Multi-use Path: A paved off-street path typically constructed within the right-of-way of a roadway, this 8’-12’ paved path is ideally separated from the edge of the road by at least 5’. Where curb-and gutter is used and right-if way is constrained, the path may be constructed without a buffer to resemble a wide sidewalk. At-grade street crossings (signalized and unsignalized) are common.
Bike Lane: A signed, dedicated lane for cyclists on the roadway having a minimum width of 4’. Modifications to the traditional bike lane including buffered bike lanes and cycle tracks should be considered in the project’s design phase.
Bike Route: A signed route (sometimes including pavement markings) for bicycle use but with no dedicated infrastructure. Examples may be roads with wide shoulders, striped shared lanes (“sharrows”), or low-speed, low volume streets.
Greenways The City of Murfreesboro operates 14 miles of paved asphalt trails with 11 trailheads (Table 1.2). The trails are located along Stones River and Lytle Creek and from approximately one mile north of Broad Street to Barfield road just east of Highway 99. The greenway serves as a transportation route to several points of interest including the Stones River Battlefield, Old Fort Park, schools, residential areas and commercial areas including downtown Murfreesboro.
Trailheads are located at:
› Thompson Lane › Broad Street › General Bragg › West College › Redoubt Brannan › Manson Pike › Fortress Rosecrans › Overall Street › Cannonsburgh › Old Fort Park › Cason Trail
Table 1.2: Greenway Lengths
Greenways Length (miles) Stones River Greenway 3.0 Lytle Creek Greenway 1.5 Gateway Trail 3.0 Stones River Greenway Extension 6.5 Total 14.0
Bicycle Facilities As part of the “Greenways, Blueways and Bikeways Master Plan”, bicycling conditions along roadways were inventoried and assessed including number of lanes roadway speed, traffic volume, pavement width, sidewalks and bicycle accommodations. Bikeways along local streets were omitted due to the scope of the assessment. The study inventoried 311 miles of roadway in total with 21.7 miles of bike lanes and 7.0 miles of signed bike routes within the Urban Growth boundary.
The Figure 1.3 identifies all existing and imminent greenways and bikeways as of 2014. An inventory of facilities is included in Table 1.3. The assessment of roadways is addressed in section 1.4.2 of this document.
Figure 1.3: Murfreesboro Bicycle Facilities
Table 1.3: Murfreesboro Bicycle Facilities
Pedestrian Facilities The “Blueways, Greenways and Bikeways Master Plan” analysis of pedestrian facilities included 330 miles of classified roadways. Of those roadways, 96 miles (29%) had sidewalks and 219 miles (66%) of roadways had adequate pedestrian facilities. The analysis indicates that while only 29% of roadways have sidewalks, additional roadways were considered walkable. The assessment is discussed in section 1.4.2 of this document.
“The sidewalks are a City-wide issue because of the lack of pedestrian crosswalks and signals.” | By Justice M. Murfreesboro 2035 online discussion forum
As an ongoing effort to address this issue, the City of Murfreesboro is currently undertaking an effort to increase the number of pedestrian signals at signalized intersections. When the effort began, only 26% of signalized intersections contained pedestrian signals. Within a few months, this has already increased to almost 30%. A 2014 detailed inventory of existing pedestrian signals is included herein (Table 1.4).
Table 1.4: Supporting policies
2015 Zoning Ordinance Existing zoning regulation supports the construction of multimodal facilities by:
› allowing an increase in density for certain multi-family zoning districts with construction of walking, jogging, or bicycle trails constructed with a minimum width of four feet and with a permanent hard surface and/or construction of bicycle racks with a design shown on the plan and acceptable to the Director (Section 14A.E.1.k and Section 14A.E.1.l). and
› permitting the planning commission to condition approval or projects on “the construction of improvements such as street widening, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks to existing contiguous streets and or the provision of connections to community greenways, bicycle paths or routes, or pedestrian ways” (Section 13.B.4). Subdivision Regulations The Murfreesboro Subdivision Regulations, adopted in 2009, contain standards for the division and development of property. The regulations require developers constructing along substandard roadways to “provide and dedicate the necessary rights-of-way to achieve the required roadway improvements and to design and construct the improvements necessary to achieve a standard condition including curbs and gutters, sidewalks, excavation, fill embankment, base stone, asphalt, storm drainage, bicycle lanes, and roadway markings". The 2040 Major Transportation Plan classifies each roadway and can be utilized to identify substandard roadways in conjunction with the Street Design Specifications adopted by the City of Murfreesboro. Sidewalks are required along both sides of public streets in all subdivisions and are required to conform to the requirements of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) and implementing regulations. Street Design Specifications The Street Design Specifications, adopted in 2009, provide detailed cross-sections and instructions for implementation regarding the number of lanes, lane widths, grass strips, bike lanes and sidewalks for each roadway classification. The standards are applied to any new construction or modifications of existing infrastructure. Future streets and roadways must adhere to the following multimodal guidelines:
› Sidewalks must be least four (4) feet in width for local streets and five (5) feet for all other streets. › In general, all new traffic signals at intersections with sidewalks and/or pedestrian activity shall be designed to accommodate pedestrians. › Bike lanes or shared streets, are required wherever previously identified within the Bicycle Master Plan. Specifications for each are included in the standards. 1.3.5 Public Transportation
Transit System Basics There are four public transit providers operating within the City of Murfreesboro.
The City of Murfreesboro provides the Rover service within City boundaries.
The Regional Transit Authority (RTA) provides commuter bus service from Murfreesboro to downtown Nashville. The RTA operates both an express and non-express service between Nashville and Murfreesboro.
Middle Tennessee State University (MTSU) operates a public transportation system on and around the MTSU campus for students of the University.
Mid-Cumberland Human Resource Agency (MCHRA) Public Transit provides paratransit (demand responsive) services for persons with disabilities.
Ridership data for the two largest service providers, ROVER and RTA, demonstrates an increase in demand for services from 2008 to 2014. Rover ridership has more than doubled since 2008 from 118,659 riders to 265,345 riders. RTA ridership has also doubled from 76,321 riders to 143,132 riders. MCHRA ridership has remained steady over the same period and MTSU ridership data was not available.
All years are fiscal years (July1- June 30)
Rover The Rover system began providing services to the residents of Murfreesboro in 2007 with 7 fixed routes. The system as it exists at the time this document was drafted, 2015, are shown in Figure 1.4. The routes are radial, originating and transferring from a central terminal, the Rover Transit Center. There are no crosstown routes at this time. A new central terminal will replace the existing transit center and will provide additional amenities and connectivity for riders. Service runs weekdays 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. with 45 minute headways on each route. In addition to stopping at transit shelters, the Rover vehicles will make “courtesy” stops along fixed routes when a rider flags down the driver. Vehicles are wheelchair accessible and have bike racks. Paratransit (demand responsive) services for persons with disabilities are provided by Mid-Cumberland Human Resource Agency (MCHRA) Public Transit vehicles. Figure 1.4: Rover Routes Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA)/ Regional Transit Authority (RTA) The Regional Transit Authority (RTA) provides bus services that complement the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) bus services operating in and around Nashville. The RTA offers both an express and non-express service between Nashville and Murfreesboro.
The express service is primarily an employment based accommodation that provides weekday express trips directly between three designated park & ride lots in Murfreesboro and downtown Nashville via I-24. The express service provides three am trips from Murfreesboro to Nashville between approximately 5:15am and 8:00am. The express service also provides three afternoon return trips from Nashville to Murfreesboro between approximately 3:45pm to 6:20pm. The base fare is $4.25.
The RTA additionally offers seventeen “Relax and Ride” non-express commuter service trips to transport citizens from Murfreesboro, Smyrna and LaVergne to Nashville and provides reverse commute trips from Nashville to Rutherford County via US 41/70 and picks up passengers at designated stops along the route. The service operates throughout each weekday from approximately 5:00am to 8:00pm. The base fare is $4.25.
Funding for both the express and non-express services is derived from a variety of federal, state, and local funding sources. Park and Ride Three park and ride lots currently exist in Murfreesboro. These lots serve the express commuter route, 84X offered by the RTA. Locations include North Boulevard Church of Christ, Middle Tennessee State University and Old Fort Park. MTSU Service The Raider Xpress shuttle service operates on and around the Middle Tennessee State University Campus (Figure 1.6). The service is available to faculty, students and visitors to the University and operates only when classes are in session. The purpose of the service is to alleviate traffic congestion around campus.
MTSU is working with the City to plan for installing a traffic signal at the intersection of Lytle and Middle Tennessee Boulevard. Upon the extension of Lytle Street into campus, this intersection will serve as the future entrance to a network of gated and dedicated bus lanes on MTSU’s campus. MTSU has stated that they will allow Rover to use these lanes. Figure 1.6: MTSU Service
1.3.6 Rail No commuter rail system or high speed rail system currently operates within the region surrounding the City of Murfreesboro. Nashville RTA operates the Music City Star commuter train which runs east to west from downtown Nashville to Lebanon. No extension of the service to Murfreesboro is planned at this time. An existing CSX freight rail line operates along the corridor from Nashville to Chattanooga passing through Murfreesboro. The line experiences a relatively high volume of freight traffic, but does not carry passengers at this time. 1.3.7 Importance of Density and Transportation Density should be included as part of a transportation infrastructure strategy to efficiently utilize transportation funds, promote economic growth, serve populations without access to a vehicle, and create a cohesive community.
Transportation networks function most efficiently when linking dense mixed use and pedestrian friendly nodes. Public transportation linking these nodes can improve ridership and cost-effectiveness. Land use planning strategies encouraging Transit Oriented Development (TOD) principles such as compact residential and commercial development, a variety of housing choices, affordable housing for all, employment centers and mixed uses support public transportation.
Effective strategies can include:
› Establishment of transit-supportive density goals- residential densities of a higher number of jobs per acre as well as employment centers supporting a target number of jobs per acre can be employed to foster the growth of transportation nodes. › Optimize Land Uses within transit walksheds - most riders will walk up to ¼ mile to access public transportation. Density should be encouraged within walksheds. › Encourage growth of employment centers and ensure transit access to employment centers. › Plan for pedestrian friendly mixed-use around planned transit center.
1.3.8 Transportation Accessibility Transportation programs, policies, and activities must support transportation that is available and accessible to all citizens of Murfreesboro. This plan gives special attention to populations that are at risk
of environmental justice issues such as the elderly, minority populations, people with disabilities, people in poverty and households without a vehicle. Federal law requires the Nashville Area MPO to address the implications of all transportation plan activities as part of the transportation planning process. The 2040 MTP will direct transportation infrastructure efforts for the City and will be utilized by the Nashville Area MPO as part of regional transportation planning efforts.
Two main Federal regulations promote accessibility. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states “No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance”. Title VI addresses not only intentional discrimination, but also unjustified disparate impact discrimination. Federal funds cannot be administered where any policy or project that will have an unjustified disproportionate negative effect on protected groups.
The American with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) prohibits discrimination and ensures equal access for persons with disabilities. Some examples of the ADA in action are the requirement to provide curb ramps when streets, roads or highways are altered through resurfacing and the requirement to provide public transportation services to persons with disabilities. 1.4 Assessment Preparation of the Major Transportation Plan included assessment of the information collected during the public participation process, review of existing planning documents and field review observations. 1.4.1 Road Network Assessment
Assessment of Traffic Volumes/ Level of Service (LOS) The assessment of traffic volumes includes a connectivity analysis of travel patterns, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), travel times and/or trip length and level of service (LOS). Level of Service (LOS) The volume to capacity (V/C) ratios compare roadway demand or volume against roadway supply or capacity. The level of service (LOS) is determined using the V/C ratio. A V/C ratio less than 1.0 indicates that a roadway is operating relatively smoothly and corresponds to a LOS of A, B, C, or D as described in Table 1.5. Any V/C ratio greater than 1.00 indicates congestion and recurring delays.
Table 1.5 Level of Service (LOS) Descriptions:
LOS A B C D E F V/C RATIO 0- 0.2 0.21 - 0.40 0.41 - 0.65 0.66 - 1.0 1.01- 1.1 > 1.1 is used to define forced or breakdown flows. This condition exists is in the range of represents high- represents wherever the stable flow, but density, but still operating amount of traffic marks the stable, flow. conditions at or approaching a represents free beginning of the Speed and is in the range of near the capacity point exceeds flow. Individual range of flow in freedom to stable flow, but level. All speeds the amount, users are which the maneuver are the presence of are reduced to a which can virtually operation of severely Description other users in low, but traverse the unaffected by individual users restricted, and the traffic stream relatively uniform point. Queues the presence of becomes the driver begins to be value. Ability to form behind others in the significantly experiences a noticeable. maneuver within such locations. traffic stream. affected by generally poor the traffic stream Operations interactions with level of comfort is extremely within the queue others in the and difficult. are traffic stream. convenience. characterized by stop-and-go waves, and they are extremely unstable. The following figures provide graphical illustrations of these performance indicators (LOS and VMT). Figures are based on the 2014 E+C network for the City plan. These figures will be updated to reflect 2040 E+C model outputs in Tech Memo 2.
Figure 1.7: Urban Growth Boundary LOS
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) The AADT rate is multiplied by the length of road segment to calculate the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for roadway. The VMT can then be aggregated for the community. The base 2014 VMT for Murfreesboro was 8,870,670. The VMT are projected to be 17,212,070 in 2040 on the existing network assuming all current committed projects are completed. If all recommended and committed projects are completed, the VMT are projected to increase to 17,165,929. These scenarios are provided in Table 1.6 below.
Table 1.6 Murfreesboro VMT
Scenario VMT 2014 Base Year 8,870,670 2040 E+C 17,212,070 2040 All Projects 17,165,929 Signalization Effective use of signalization can increase the efficiency of the transportation network, improve safety and reduce carbon emissions and gasoline consumption. Improvements to signalization can often mitigate or offset costly road expansion projects.
Traffic signal systems utilizing ITS technologies coordinate timing plans using a centralized computer network. Signal coordination and optimization allows the systems to improve the Level of Service (LOS) by maximizing the flow of traffic, reducing congestion and travel time while increasing travel speeds. Signal optimization circulates the highest volume of traffic through an intersection within the total cycle length. Signal optimization balances the flow of high volume arterial and lower volume side street traffic. Adaptive signals respond to traffic conditions by periodically recalibrating signal timing based on real-time traffic data. Continued targeted signalization improvements in Murfreesboro will maximize the flow of traffic on existing thoroughfares.
ITS technology has the ability to assign signal priority to both emergency vehicles and public transit vehicles. Signal priority gives emergency vehicles priority or the right of way reducing travel times to incidents. Signal priority can be used as part of bus rapid transit (BRT) or on other transit vehicles allowing public transportation vehicles to move along busy corridors with minimal impediment and to stop for passenger boarding/ alighting after passing through a signalized intersection.
Relationship with Land Use To foster a sustainable community, planners should take into consideration the effect of projected transportation improvements on future land use patterns as transportation improvements spur economic growth and development, and influence housing choices. Additionally, effective land use policy can ease the strain of additional traffic as an area develops. Transportation and land use participate in a reciprocal relationship as shown in the “Transportation-Land Use Cycle” diagram. Activity related to land uses generates the need for transportation infrastructure and good transportation supports increases in land use activities. Transportation modeling efforts undertaken as part of this multi-modal plan measure existing traffic flow patterns and attempt to model future transportation needs based on projected land uses.
Adequate land use policies and controls can prevent congestion along arterials, increase levels of service, reduce difficult left turns and improve sight clearance at corners. When combined successfully, these policies and controls can reduce the need for costly retrofitting measures. As areas grow, traffic will increase and improvements may be needed. Access management is just one of these policies and is discussed in detail in the following section.
Land use policies codified within City ordinances and specifically the Land Development Code can promote connections between land uses and ensure access management during the development review process. Access Management Access management is an operational tool used to manage roadway mobility and accessibility. Typically, access management defines how and to what extent roadway users gain ingress and egress between intersections and driveways. Generally, a higher degree of access management enhances mobility by preserving the operating efficiencies of the primary roadway. Examples of access management techniques include the following:
› median treatment and openings › turn or movement restrictions › minimum intersection and driveway spacing › shared driveway access › traffic signal spacing
Strategic use of access management benefits many aspects of the transportation system: safe and efficient operation of the road network, preservation of roadway functionality, and reduced frequency of crashes.
The TDOT 2015 Manual for Constructing Driveways on State Highways gives specific guidelines for the construction of access points along state highways. The Access Design portion within the Manual highlights specific control dimensions that must be followed to insure the safety of the public. For example, driveway spacing must be held at a 40’ minimum between adjacent driveways on a state route along with a corner clearance of 100 to 200 feet depending on the classification of the intersecting roadway. These guidelines are highlighted within Section 5 of the Manual for Constructing Driveways on State Highways. Local governments may enact additional standards and the more restrictive standard will apply.
The practice of access management is very established and many resources exist for implementation. The Institute of Transportation Engineers offers a Manual for Access Management and the Transportation Research Board offers Access Management Application Guidelines.
The Center for Transportation Research and Education and Design at Iowa State University and the Center for Transportation research at the University of Texas, Austin both offer free access management toolkits and implementation guidance.
The City of Murfreesboro has implemented many aspects of access management within its existing street network, with Medical Center Parkway and the planned modifications to Middle Tennessee Boulevard being examples. The 2040 Major Transportation Plan will continue to emphasize access management initiatives as a part of the City’s future road network projects. Mobility vs. Accessibility The transportation system plays an important role in providing users mobility and accessibility. The roadway network includes a hierarchy of elements exhibiting varying levels of functionality. This includes the dual, and sometimes competing, aspects of mobility and accessibility. Some roadway facilities serve a primary role of moving people and goods over longer distances. Other roads have fundamental purpose of providing access to destinations. The overall system performs most efficiently when these elements are strategically planned and designed with these designations in mind. This approach, in part, relates to the classification of the street network, i.e. freeways, arterials, SOURCE: FHWA collectors, etc. Preparation of Murfreesboro’s 2040 Major Transportation Plan considered these concepts. The process of developing recommendations included maintaining the functional integrity of the road network. This involved identifying opportunities for new roadway links and modification of existing roadways to enhance the system’s mobility and accessibility attributes. Multimodal Streets Planning for multimodal connectivity requires attention to a variety of transportation infrastructure alternatives. The Complete Streets movement provides a template for implementing this practice in a community. Streets are no longer just for moving vehicular traffic, they also should accommodate pedestrians and bicycle traffic. Transportation goals have expanded to reducing the need for costly roadway expansion projects, accommodating aging in place, improving public health, and reducing emissions. Inclusion of bicycle, pedestrian and public transportation is integral to achievement of these goals. Federal and state guidelines have emphasized the need to accommodate all modes of transportation in construction and reconstruction and funding may depend on a sensitivity to all modes.
According to the National Complete Streets Coalition, typical elements that make up a complete street include sidewalks, bicycle lanes (or wide, paved shoulders), shared-use paths, designated bus lanes, safe and accessible transit stops, and frequent and safe crossings for pedestrians, including median islands, accessible pedestrian signals, and curb extensions. The Coalition provides model ordinances for the inclusion of these principles.
Similarly, an article published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) noted some common features of successful community design for active transportation that includes:
bus shelters benches bicycle racks on buses and at destinations continuous and enhanced sidewalks and bike lanes enhanced paving dedicated greenways shade human-scale street lighting and signage outdoor cafes longer crossing signals prominent and well-lit stairways enhanced wheelchair access bike-friendly street grates landscaping street art plazas roundabouts pedestrian buffers crosswalks refuge islands bulb outs neck-downs small corner radii other traffic calming techniques and building façade enhancements
(Active Living by Design National Program Office UNC, A New Role for Public Health in Transportation Creating and Supporting Community Models for Active Transportation) Life Cycle of a Street According to the US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the lifecycle of a street comprised of asphalt pavement is typically 15 to 20 years. However, pavement quality deterioration accelerates after the first 10 years of pavement life. In the first ten years, pavement quality deteriorates only approximately 40%. Over the next 3 years, pavement quality drops another 40% and is more susceptible to traffic loading, water intrusion and the freeze-thaw cycle (the cause of most pot- holes) (U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, Selecting a Preventive Maintenance Treatment for Flexible Pavements, August 2000). It has been estimated that rehabilitation of deteriorated pavement costs roughly 4 times every dollar spent on preventative maintenance.
For this reason, this plan recommends maintenance of roadways within this timeframe. This is in line with TDOT’s “fix-it-first” strategy of maintaining existing roadways. A balanced approach which develops a pavement management system and budget that addresses needs over this timeframe is recommended. Planning for Healthy Communities The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Urban Land Institute (ULI) are just a couple of the organizations whom offer guidance on building health goals into transportation infrastructure. This plan recommends the incorporation of these basic principles in plan implementation.
The CDC Community Preventive Services Task Force (CPSTF) found that physical activity increased among individuals with new or improved projects or policies combining transportation (e.g. pedestrian or cycling paths) with land use and design components (e.g. access to public parks). The CPSTF also found that combinations of activity-supportive built environment characteristics were associated with higher levels of transportation-related physical activity, recreational physical activity, and total walking among exposed individuals. (CPSTF, Physical Activity: Built Environment Approaches Combining Transportation System Interventions with Land Use and Environmental Design, 2017) Built environment intervention approaches include:
The elements of this Plan seek to support linkages between transportation improvement recommendations and existing and future land use components found in the Murfreesboro 2035 Comprehensive Plan.
The Urban Land Institute (ULI) Healthy Corridors Initiative takes a holistic approach to creating transportation corridors that invite healthy living behaviors like active transportation. The Healthy Corridor Typology included herein suggests some ways in which healthy living strategies can be incorporated into transportation planning efforts (ULI, Building Healthy Corridors, 2017)
The Healthy Corridor Typology 1.4.2 Active Transportation Bicycle/Pedestrian Demand An analysis of the bicycling and pedestrian demand based on each parcel’s demographic information and proximity to other land uses generated the following Bike/Ped Demand Intensity map (Figure 1.11).
The analysis showed a high demand for bike/ pedestrian facilities in and around the central business district (CBD) in Murfreesboro. The demand map shows a moderate-high level of demand around the MTSU campus in the northwest part of the City, around the intersection of Veterans Parkway and Church Street, along Cason Lane, and surrounding the CBD.
These areas should be targeted for improvements. The demand in an area will inform prioritization of improvements. Suggested improvements will be based upon those recommended in the “Greenways, Blueways and Bikeways Master Plan”.
Citizens reiterated this desire in the online discussion forum when they requested more and safer bicycle routes around the campus and from the campus to major destination points within the City (Appendix C).
Walking or cycling trips were estimated based on household count, employment characteristics, and the shortest distance to the nearest school, recreational facility, retail area, and transit stop. Information regarding proximity to employment in the study area and whether any substantial public parking exists was considered. Figure 1.11: Bike/ Ped Demand--“Greenways, Blueways and Bikeways Master Plan” (2013)
Pedestrian Assessment Current sidewalk policies for future development will ensure sidewalks are constructed as part of new development. Public input revealed a desire for sidewalk infrastructure near transit shelters and bus routes, more sidewalks in existing neighborhoods, and better pedestrian amenities such as signalized intersections, crosswalks, and ADA compliant sidewalks in existing dense areas. The need for increased pedestrian amenities was demonstrated in the assessments contained within the “Greenways, Blueways and Bikeways Master Plan” study.
The “Greenways, Blueways and Bikeways Master Plan” analysis of pedestrian facilities included 330 miles of classified roadways. Of those roadways, 96 miles (29%) had sidewalks and an engineering analysis of Pedestrian Level of Service (PLOS) revealed 219 miles (66%) of roadways with adequate (grade A, B or C) pedestrian facilities (Figure 1.12).
An analysis of the facilities revealed the following strengths and opportunities
› Sidewalks are most prevalent in the downtown area. New and recently improved streets are likely to have sidewalks. Some existing high volume thoroughfares such as Broad Street, Thompson Lane and Old Fort Parkway do not. › Sidewalks are required as part of any new development in Murfreesboro. Sidewalk retrofits in older areas are recommended to capitalize on investments in the greenway and complete non- motorized travel networks.
The Murfreesboro 2035 online discussion forum comments illustrated a desire for more sidewalks in Murfreesboro. Three main areas were targeted 1) downtown Murfreesboro 2) routes from MTSU campus and 3) South Church Street especially along the Rover route. Additionally, when asked what can be done to improve neighborhoods, sidewalks and walkability were frequently requested. A full list of comments is available in Appendix C.
While there is no formal definition of “within walking distance”, one-quarter mile is the generally accepted distance. Pedestrians surveyed in Murfreesboro are likely to walk up to one-half mile (10 minutes) to get to their destination (Murfreesboro 2035 online survey). This indicates an active population and indicates a need for sidewalks in the areas surrounding major destination points in Murfreesboro. The survey questions and answers are included in Appendix C.
A gap analysis of the existing sidewalk inventory and prioritization is needed for existing sidewalks in Murfreesboro. Existing sidewalk policies contained within the Subdivision Regulations and Street Design Specifications require construction of sidewalks as part of new development and some redevelopments. The Greenways, Blueways and Bikeways Master Plan identifies areas for pedestrian improvements and provides a plan for the continued establishment of these type facilities. Figure 1.12: Existing Pedestrian Level of Service- “Greenways, Blueways and Bikeways Master Plan” (2013) Sidewalk Construction Capabilities Placing sidewalks along existing corridors can present its own set of challenges. Steep slopes, limited right-of-way space, existing utilities, and landscaping elements are anticipated to be encountered with any upgrade project and infill construction can exacerbate strain on limited financial resources.
Bicycle Assessment Existing policies support bicycle lane implementation as roads are constructed or reconstructed. Additional policies encouraging the construction of bicycle amenities can foster the development of the bicycling culture in Murfreesboro. The Murfreesboro 2035 online discussion forum comments identify areas for improvement. The Bicycling Level of Service (BLOS) assessment conducted as part of the “Greenways, Blueways and Bikeways Master Plan” identified the strengths and weaknesses of the existing bicycle infrastructure and opportunities for improvement.
A Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS) assessment was conducted and each roadway was given a score ranging from A to F (Figure 1.13). The BLOS assessment determined the “suitability” of streets based on roadway conditions such as number of lanes, roadway speed, traffic volume, pavement width, shoulder width, etc. The assessment revealed the following strengths and opportunities:
› Improved access controls limiting driveways and intersections would benefit cyclists along major thoroughfares. › The BLOS inside the Urban Growth Boundary is not substantially different from the BLOS inside Murfreesboro City Limits. This is attributed to current shoulder requirements for rural roads and reveals the potential for improved bike facilities as areas are urbanized. › The study area contains streets favorable to cycling with wide lanes and low vehicular operating speeds. Bicycling facilities could be easily improved with formal signage and bicycle lane striping. › Recent roadway improvements are amenable to bike lanes in the future and could provide bike accommodations over long distances.
The Murfreesboro 2035 online discussion forum comments revealed a desire for safer bike lanes on major roadways and around the MTSU campus. Commenters also requested more connections to greenways. A full list of comments is available in Appendix C.
Policies encouraging the provision of bicycle amenities can support the development of cycling culture in Murfreesboro. Provision of bicycle parking at destinations along bike routes and greenways will encourage bicycling habits and provide a secure location for storage of bicycles. In addition, it reduces the need for parking spaces and paved areas. Policies could include an option to provide bicycle parking in lieu of vehicle parking spaces, a requirement for bicycle parking, or the addition of bicycle parking at government facilities.
Additional bicycle parking at transit stops and park and ride locations will encourage both modes of transportation. One type of bicycle parking to consider is a bike bank. A bike bank is a space where the user secures the frame and both wheels of the bicycle with their own lock. Bike lockers can also accommodate daily commuters’ needs. The City may also want to consider implementation of a bicycle share program wherein bicycles can be rented at docking stations at select areas around the City, especially in the CBD or other densley populated or developed areas. Figure 1.13: Existing Bicycle Level of Service- “Greenways, Blueways and Bikeways Master Plan” (2013)
1.4.3 Public Transportation Assessment According to a 2010 ridership survey, three routes, Mercury, Highland and Medical Center are increasing in ridership while ridership on other routes is stable. The service assessment indicated that a majority of passengers use Rover to travel to and from work. Passengers who utilize the service do so frequently and most do not have a car available. The survey and interview data showed a desire for the following improvements:
› Offer evening service until 9:00 p.m. › Offer weekend service › Install shelters and benches › Install sidewalks to increase access to transit shelters › Extend routes further west on Old Fort Parkway › Extend routes to Cason Lane › Extend routes south on Church Street › Add service on MTSU campus
Several of these recommendations have been implemented.
Recent improvements to Rover and RTA should provide some relief to passengers commuting to downtown Nashville.
The Murfreesboro 2035 online discussion forum comments relayed a desire for expanded public transit options in general. Commenters lauded the implementation of the current Rover system and requested extended nighttime and weekend hours to accommodate non-traditional work schedules and sidewalk improvements at and around bus routes. More connections to the RTA systems and the MTSU campus were also suggested. A full list of comments is available in Appendix C.
Transportation improvements should include efforts to integrate the public transportation systems such as more connections between MTSU, RTA, and Rover routes and a unified currency system between providers. Identification of potential new transit corridors and potential multi-modal corridors “… few things would have as widespread, positive impact on our City as the development of a comprehensive, convenient mass transit option to Nashville. I spend 500 hours a year on I-24, and that is usually getting in FRONT of rush "hour" traffic. I can only imagine the economic impact that would result from increased productivity if I and tens of thousands of other residents were able to spend less time in traffic.” Stephen S.
Areas with transit supportive density and high concentrations of poverty should be given priority when considering transit route extensions and multi-modal improvements. These areas are mapped in figure 1.14.
The map shows a need for service based on concentration of poverty and transit supportive density around the southern portion of the Memorial and Gateway routes. An extension of the Highland route to provide coverage to additional high-poverty areas should also be considered. Finally, future discussions for route extensions should include the southwest portion of the City with transit supportive density. Areas within the ¼ mile walkshed of the Rover system and areas with high concentrations of poverty should be given priority for sidewalk and other multi-modal improvements. Figure 1.14: 1.4.4 Rail/Commuter Rail Previous assessments of commuter rail service options in the City of Murfreesboro have revealed that although the community has shown interest in commuter rail service, the cost of implementation is prohibitive at this time. The City of Murfreesboro’s and the Nashville Area MPO’s continued efforts to fortify public bus transportation can ameliorate much of the existing need for public transportation options. If high-speed rail becomes a tenable option in the region, the Louisville-Chattanooga corridor operated by CSX may be further developed.
Although a moderate level of infrastructure improvements including adding new passing sidings or lengthening existing sidings would facilitate the addition of commuter rail service, the existing freight rail line operating through Murfreesboro sustains a relatively high level of freight traffic. (Nashville Area MPO Nashville SE Corridor High-Performance Transit Alternatives Study (2007)) This makes the addition of commuter rail service challenging. The Nashville Area MPO’s Southeast Corridor High-Performance Transit Alternatives Study (2007) found that the construction of rail lines to transport citizens to and from downtown Murfreesboro would come with a prohibitive cost because the volume of passengers projected could be supported using Bus Rapid Transit Lite (BRTL).
The Tennessee Rail System Plan (2003) anticipates that rail travel time along this corridor will be competitive with the automobile and notes that the Louisville-to-Chattanooga corridor may be favorable to high speed rail service and is worthy of designation as an official High Speed Rail Corridor. This finding should be revisited as future Rail System Plans reevaluate high-speed rail options. Local planning efforts conducted by the City of Murfreesboro should consider and support links and connections with future regional transportation solutions, like BRT or commuter rail.
1.4.5 Multi-modal Assessment
A cursory analysis of the physical relationship of the proposed greenways and blueways in the Greenways, Blueways and Bikeways Master Plan and the current Rover Routes (Figure 1.15) illustrates opportunities for improving connections between trailheads and Rover Routes and major greenway connectors and Rover Routes. The map shows trailheads within a “walking distance” of ¼ mile of Rover Routes. Route extensions or deviations to Rover routes to access trails could be seasonal in nature and operate only during peak trail usage periods in the summer months.
An overlay of the Bike/Ped Demand analysis completed as part of the Greenways, Blueways and Bikeways analysis with Rover shows a moderate-high demand for bike and pedestrian infrastructure in the northeast and northwest of the study area coupled with a lack of connection to the Rover Transportation system (Figure 1.16). However, the analysis of transit supportive density and concentration of poverty above the County average completed in section 1.4.3 of this document suggests that these areas should be a secondary consideration for Rover route extensions. Figure 1.15:
Figure 1.16:
Technical Memorandum 2: Travel Demand Model Documentation
This Section includes a brief description of the procedures used in the creation of the Murfreesboro Travel Demand Model. It also includes a description of the development of updated demographics, travel estimates, calibration and validation of the model, development of forecast demographics and their relationship to land use, the growth of the transportation network, and testing of future traffic needs and alternative projects. 2.1 Model Overview The Murfreesboro Travel Demand Model is derived from the model created for the Nashville Area Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (MPO) 2040 Regional Transportation Plan1. The MPO model covers several counties, including Rutherford County where the City of Murfreesboro is located. The Murfreesboro Travel Demand Model, which is made up of the entirety of Rutherford County, was developed using the input datasets extracted by conducting a subarea analysis of the MPO model. To the extent possible, the developed model uses the same structure and information of the Nashville model but runs as an independent model with trip generation, trip distribution and traffic assignment procedures
The Murfreesboro model traffic analysis zone (TAZ) structure was altered from the MPO model by splitting TAZs in order to better reflect land use and travel patterns within the study area. The model network was also updated to reflect the change in TAZs and add connectivity where needed. Due to the change in the TAZs, the socio-economic data in the model was also updated. The updates to the socio- economic data were conducted by Kendig Keast Collaborative. Table 2.1 displays the key study area socio-economic data.
The Murfreesboro model external-internal and external-external trips are derived from the subarea analysis of the MPO model to keep the two models consistent with one another in terms of inter-regional travel. Internal-internal trip rates and behaviors are the same as those of the MPO model, but reflect the updated TAZ structure and demographics developed for this study.
Table 2.1: Study Area Socio-economic Data, Base Year 2014
Variable Description Total OCCDU Occupied Dwelling Units 119,689 TOT_EMP Total Employment 153,780 RET_EMP Retail Employment 29,269 2.2 Model Validation The purpose of model validation is to make the adjustments necessary to replicate base-year traffic conditions as closely as possible. In practice, this means making link assignment volumes approximate actual traffic counts within acceptable limits of deviation. The validation process is intended to ensure that the model is performing within the limits that define acceptable ranges of deviation from observed “real-world” values.
Validation of the Murfreesboro Travel Demand Model proceeded from consideration of its area wide performance to the relative distribution of traffic by roadway functional classification and annual average daily traffic (AADT) range. In the final stage of the validation process, the accuracy of the model with respect to specific routes and roadway groups was analyzed. At each level, an appropriate degree of
1 http://nashvillempo.org/docs/2040RTP/Adopted/2040RTP.pdf
accuracy was defined in terms of the maximum tolerable deviation from base-year vehicular volumes (i.e., estimated annual average daily traffic) and Root Mean Square Error (RMSE).
Overall, the cumulative model volume for all network links associated with TDOT traffic count locations (3,793,967 vehicles) differed from total model estimated AADT (3,816,531 vehicles) by 0.6 percent compared to an allowable error limit of five percent.
Validation results by AADT group and functional class are shown in Table 2.2 and Table 2.3 respectively.
Table 2.2: Validation of Base-Year Model by AADT Group
Total Model % Dev % % RMSE AADT Range Total Count1 Volume2 Limit3 Dev Limit4 % RMSE AADT < 5,000 265,215 345,775 +/- 50.0 30.4 115.8 83.8 5,000<= AADT < 10,000 442,629 423,645 +/- 25.0 -4.3 43.1 37.9 10,000<= AADT < 20,000 744,221 699,456 +/- 20.0 -6.0 28.3 20.8 20,000<= AADT < 40,000 1,375,439 1,351,158 +/- 15.0 -1.8 25.4 15.9 AADT>=40,000 966,463 995,474 +/- 12.0 3.0 30.3 12.9 Total 3,793,967 3,816,531 +/- 5.0 0.6 40.0 25.7 Source: Minimum Travel Demand Model Calibration and Validation Guidelines for State of Tennessee, 2013; NSI, 2017
Table 2.3: Validation of Base-Year Model by Roadway Functional Class
Functional Class Total Count1 Total Model Volume2 % Dev Limit3 % Dev INTERSTATES 952,004 1,004,775 +/- 7.0 5.5 PRINCIPAL ARTERIALS 1,164,675 1,184,303 +/- 10.0 1.7 MINOR ARTERIALS 1,038,506 976,279 +/- 15.0 -6.0 COLLECTORS/LOCAL 638,782 650,154 +/- 25.0 1.8 Total 3,793,967 3,816,531 +/- 5.0 0.6 Source: Minimum Travel Demand Model Calibration and Validation Guidelines for State of Tennessee, 2013; NSI, 2017
(1) Total Count represents the sum of average daily traffic estimates for all TDOT count locations (area wide), all count locations on principal arterials, all locations on minor arterials, all on major/minor collectors. (2) Total Model Volume is the sum of model-generated traffic volumes for all network links associated with TDOT count locations (area wide), all links associated with count locations on principal arterials, all links associated with locations on minor arterials, and all links associated with count locations on collectors. (3) % Dev Limit is the maximum acceptable plus/minus percentage deviation from estimated base-year (2014) annual average daily traffic (AADT) based on counts conducted by TDOT. (4) % RMSE Limit is the maximum acceptable magnitude of the error relative to that of the counts conducted by TDOT.
The validation effort concluded that the Murfreesboro study area travel demand forecasting model performs well within the established limits of acceptable deviation from base-year traffic counts.
2.3 Future Land Use and Transportation Network In order to model future transportation needs, forecast socio-economic data and known imminent future transportation projects needed to be developed. The original forecast data for the horizon year, 2040, was derived from the MPO model. Using aerial imagery and the land use and comprehensive plans developed by the City of Murfreesboro, Kendig Keast Collaborative developed the updated horizon year socio-economic data and adjusted the data for the City of Murfreesboro as necessary. Table 2.4 displays the horizon year study area socio-economic data.
Table 2.4: Study Area Socio-economic Data, Horizon Year 2040
Variable Description Total OCCDU Occupied Dwelling Units 254,789 TOT_EMP Total Employment 269,152 RET_EMP Retail Employment 57,309
Improvements to the transportation network also affect travel demand. In addition to the socio-economic forecasts, transportation projects that have committed funding or have been constructed since 2014 were noted. These projects were then added to the model network to create a 2040 Existing Plus Committed (E+C) Network. These committed projects are displayed in Table 2.5 and shown in Figure 2.1.
Using this network and the forecast socio-economic data, model runs for the horizon year without any further transportation improvements were conducted. Figure 2.2 displays the model volume/capacity ratios for the horizon year, showing where congestion will occur without any future transportation projects beyond the projects listed in Table 2.5.
Table 2.5: Committed Projects
Project ID Project Name Project Limits Project Description 1 SR 99 (New Salem Hwy) Old Fort Pkwy to Cason Lane Widen to 5 Lanes 2 SR 99 (New Salem Hwy) Cason Lane to Veterans Pkwy Widen to 5 Lanes 4 Cherry Ln Ext NW Broad St to Sulphur Springs New 5 Lane, Interchange Rd 5 Cherry Ln Ext Siegel Park to Sulphur Springs New 5 Lane Rd 6 Memorial Blvd NW Broad St Grade Separation 7 SR 96 Overall Creek to Veterans Pkwy Widen to 5 Lanes 10 Brinkley Road SR 96 to Manson Pike Widen to 3 Lanes 11 Singer Road NW Broad St to Florence Rd Widen to 3 Lanes
13 Rucker Lane SR 96 to Veterans Pkwy Widen to 3 Lanes 14 Bradyville Pike SE Broad St to Rutherford Blvd Widen to 3 Lanes 15 Middle Tennessee Blvd Greenland Dr to Main St Center Turn Lane 16 Jones Blvd Ridgely Road to Northfield Blvd Widen to 3 Lanes 17 Wilkinson Pike Thompson Ln to Medical Center Widen to 3 Lanes Pkwy 19 Joe B Jackson Pkwy I-24 to US 231 New 5 Lane,Widen to 3 Lanes 21 St. Andrews Dr SR 99 to Veterans Pkwy Widen to 3 Lanes 22 John R. Rice Blvd North end of 5 lane to SR 96 Widen to 3 Lanes 24 Veterans Pkwy Barfield Rd to St Andrews Dr Widen to 5 Lanes 25 Thompson Lane NW Broad Street to Memorial Widen to 5 Lanes Blvd 26 Butler Drive Church Street to Elam Road Widen to 3/5 Lanes & realignment 27 Sulphur Springs Road Cherry Ln Ext Project to Widen to 3 Lanes Thompson Ln 28 Sulphur Springs Road Thompson Ln to Regenwood Dr Widen to 3 Lanes 30 Kingdom Drive Ext Veterans Pkwy to Rucker Ln Widen to 3 Lanes,New 3 Lane 33 Perlino Drive Ext Perlino dead end to Higdon Dr Widen to 3 Lanes,New 3 dead end Lane 34 St. Clair St Memorial Blvd to Walnut St Widen to 3 Lanes 36 Sulphur Springs Road Northfield Blvd to Memorial Blvd Widen to 3 Lanes
Figure 2.1: Existing Plus Committed Projects
Figure 2.2: Existing Plus Committed Network, 2040 Volume/Capacity
2.4 Test Projects and Analysis An analysis was conducted on various test projects identified in the MPO Regional Transportation Plan as well as those identified by the City of Murfreesboro staff and consultant. The test projects for the study are shown in Table 2.6 and displayed in Figure 2.3. At the request of the City’s staff, a model scenario was created using the horizon year demographics and the test projects added to the E+C Network. Figure 2.4 displays the model volume/capacity ratios for the test project model run.
Table 2.6: Test Projects
TEST PROJECT NAME PROJECT LIMITS PROJECT DESCRIPTION NUMBER 1 Barfield Road Widening SR 99 to Veterans Pkwy Widen to 3 Lanes 2 Elam Rd Widening Joe B Jackson to Elam Mill Rd Widen to 3 Lanes 3 US 41 Widening Joe B Jackson to Elam Rd Widen to 3 Lanes 4 Halls Hill Pike Widening Adams Ln to Joe B Jackson Widen to 3 Lanes Pkwy 5 Joe B Jackson Parkway Halls Hill Pike to US 70 Widen to 3 Lanes Extension 6 E Compton Rd Widening New Lascassas Hwy (SR 96) to Widen to 3 lanes Briarwood Dr 7 Old Woodbury Hwy Rutherford Blvd to Richland Widen to 3 Lanes Widening Richardson Rd 8 Dilton Mankin Road US 41 to Wilson Overall Rd Widen to 3 Lanes Widening 9 Florence Rd Widening Sulphur Springs to NW Broad Widen to 3 Lanes St 10 Leanna Rd Widening Thompson to Leanna Swamp Widen to 3 Lanes Rd 11 Joe B Jackson Parkway Lascassas Hwy to Halls Hill New 3 Lane Extension Pike 12 New North/South Road Thompson to Cherry Ln New 3 Lane Extension 13 Salem Cove Ln Extension Salem Cove Termini to Rucker Extend Salem Cove Ln as 3 Lane Rd Ln 14 Sulphur Springs Rd Alford to Leanna Swamp Rd Extend Sulphur Springs Rd Extension 15 Osborne Lane Extension Osborne at Emery to New Extend as 3 Lane Rd Lascassas 16 Manson Pike Widening Fortress to Veterans Pkwy Widen to 5 Lanes 17 SR 99 Widening Veterans to Proposed SW Widen to 5 Lanes Murfreesboro Bypass 18 New Lascassas HWY (SR Compton to Jefferson Pk Widen to 5 Lanes 96) Widening 19 SE Broad (US 41) Maney to Rutherford Blvd Widen to 5 Lanes Widening 20 Compton Road Widening Memorial to Lascassas Pike Widen to 5 Lanes (SR 96) 21 SE Broad Widening Rutherford to Joe B Jackson Widen to 5 Lanes Pkwy 22 Joe B Jackson Pkwy US 70 to US 41 New 5 Lane Rd Extension
TEST PROJECT NAME PROJECT LIMITS PROJECT DESCRIPTION NUMBER 23 New Lascassas Hwy (SR Clark to DeJarnette Ln Widen to 5 Lanes 96) Widening 24 New Lascassas Hwy (SR DeJarnette to Compton Rd Widen to 5 Lanes 960 Widening) 25 Jefferson Pike Widening US 231 to Lascassas Hwy (SR Widen to 5 Lanes 96) 26 Sulphur Springs Road I-840 to NW Broad St Widen / Extend to 5 Lanes Widening 27 Leanna Swamp Rd US 231 to I-840 Interchange Widen to 5 Lanes Widening 28 Memorial Blvd Widening Thompson to Jefferson Pk Widen to 5 Lanes 29 Jefferson Pike Widening Lebanon Hwy to I-840 Widen to 5 Lanes 30 Old Fort Pkwy Widening I-24 to NW Broad Widen to 6 Lanes 31 Broad Street Widening Medical Center Parkway to I- Widen to 7 Lanes 840 32 I-24 Widening S Church to Joe B. Jackson Widen to 8 Lanes Pkwy 33 Clark Boulevard Clark at Broad to W. College St Extend as 3 Lanes with bridge over Extension Stones River 34 Windrow Rd Widening Kingwood Lane to Veterans Widen to 3 Lanes Parkway 35 Veterans and Blackman Blackman Rd to Veterans Pkwy Widen to 3 Lanes Road Network 36 Kingwood Lane Widening Windrow Rd to SR 96 Widen to 3 Lanes 37 Old Nashville Hwy Cherry Ln Ext. Project to Widen to 3 Lanes Widening Northfield Extension 38 Asbury Roadway New Roadway to Old Nashville Widen to 3 Lanes Connector System Hwy 39 Old Salem Rd Widening SR 99 to Veterans Pkwy Widen to 3 Lanes 40 Asbury Roadway Florence Road to New Construct new 3 Lane Rd with bridge Connector System Roadway over I-24 41 Warrior Drive Widening US 231 to SR 99 Widen to 3 Lanes 42 Old Salem Widening Castle Street to Middle TN Blvd Widen to 3 Lanes 43 CBD Connector Route Old Salem to Vine St Realign and connect Vine & Front St Project 3 Ln 44 West College St Widening Northfield Blvd Extension Widen to 3 Lanes Project to MCP 45 Haynes Drive Widening Memorial to Thompson Ln Construct new 3 Lane Rd 46 Battleground Drive Clark to Tomahawk Trace Widen to 3 Lanes with bridge over Widening Sinking Creek 47 Clark Blvd Widening Memorial to NW Broad St Widen to 3 Lanes 48 Bradyville Pike Widening Rutherford Blvd to Joe B. Widen to 3 Lanes Jackson Parkway 49 Elam Rd Widening US 41 to 1,600' North of Joe B. Widen to 3 Lanes Jackson Parkway 50 Rutherford to Elam Rutherford Blvd to Elam Rd Extend as new 3 Lane Rd Connector St 51 Irby Ln Extension US 41 to Elam Rd Extend as new 3 Lane 52 Wenlon Drive Widening Northfield to N. Tennessee Blvd Widen to 3 Lanes 53 Asbury Roadway Medical Center Parkway to Construct new 3 Lane Rd Connector System Asbury Ln 54 Asbury Roadway Manson to New Roadway New 3 Lane Connector System 55 Robert Rose Connector Robert Rose to Gateway Blvd New 3 Lane
TEST PROJECT NAME PROJECT LIMITS PROJECT DESCRIPTION NUMBER 56 Rutherford Blvd Extension Rutherford to Warrior Dr Extend as new 3 Ln Rd with bridge over I-24 57 Rutledge Blvd Extension Middle TN Blvd to Rutherford Extend / Reconstruct as 3 Lane Rd Extension 58 Elam Farms Parkway Ext Joe B. Jackson Pkwy to US 41 New 3 Lane 59 I-840 Connector Rd I-840 to Leanna Central Valley New 3 Lane Rd 60 Barfield Crescent & 231 S US 231 to Webb Rd New 3 Lane Connector Rd 61 Haven St Extension Rutherford Blvd to Double Construct new Ext as 3 Lane Rd Springs Road 62 River Rock & SR 99 River Rock to New Salem Hwy Construct new 3 Lane Rd with bridge Connector Rd over I-24 63 Kingwood Lane Extension Kingwood Lane to Veterans Extend as new 3 Lane Project Parkway 64 Asbury Roadway Wilkinson Pike to Asbury Ln New 3 Lane Connector System 65 Main St Widening Middle TN Blvd to Rutherford Widen to 3 Lanes Blvd 66 Rutherford and Broad SE Broad to Rutherford Blvd New 3 Lane Connector Rd 67 East Main and Bradyville Old Woodbury Hwy to SR 99 Construct new 3 Lane Rd Connector 68 Molloy Lane Realignment Molloy Lane to Bridge Ave Realignment and Widening 69 SR 96 Widening Coleman Hill Rd to I-840 Widen to 4 Lanes 70 SW Murfreesboro Bypass US 231 to I-840@ Almaville Rd New 4 Lane Median Divided Road 71 SR 96 Widening Veterans Pkwy to Coleman Hill Widen to 5 Lanes Rd 72 Veterans and Blackman Burnt Knob to Old Nashville Veterans Pkwy Ext & I-24 Interchange Road Network Hwy 73 Veterans and Blackman Manson and Blackman to Blackman Rd Widen and I-24 Road Network Florence Rd Interchange 74 Old Nashville Hwy Chicken Pike to Cherry Ln Ext Widen to 5 Lanes Widening Project 75 Northfield Blvd Extension Northfield at Broad to Extend as 5 Lane Rd with bridge over Thompson Ln Stones River 76 Cherry Lane Extension Broad @ Cherry Ln to Florence Extend as 5 Ln Rd with bridge Rd overpass of Broad and CSX 77 Blackman Rd Widening Manson/ Burnt Knob Rd to Widen to 3 Lanes Veterans Pkwy 78 Broad and Thompson N/A Build new SPUI Separated Grade
Figure 2.3: Test Projects
Figure 2.4: E+C Network with Test Projects, 2040 Level of Service
Technical Memorandum 3: Updated Thoroughfare Plan
3.1 Plan Recommendations Plan recommendations are based on the assessments performed in Tech Memo 2 and the assessments performed in the Murfreesboro 2035 Comprehensive Plan document. Recommendations for each method of transportation are presented as well as recommendations for improving multimodal interconnections. Recommendations directly follow the Goals and Objectives stated in Tech Memo 1. The recommendations are broken down into strategies and actions. Strategies are overarching plans of action for the implementation of objectives. Actions are direct steps that should be taken to implement plan objectives. 3.1.1 Pedestrian Recommendations Strategy: Identify and prioritize sidewalk improvement projects.
Actions:
A gap analysis of sidewalk facilities in existing high traffic areas should be completed as part of an updated Greenways, Blueways and Bikeways Master Plan. This plan should include an assessment of ADA facilities. A sidewalk inventory and a “Bike/Ped Demand Map” were completed on major roads identified by the Greenways, Blueways and Bikeways Plan. The plan recommended a matrix for project prioritization. The matrix for prioritization should be formalized and a map identifying areas for implementation should be created. The Nashville “WalknBike” plan provides an illustrative example. In the “WalknBike” plan, priorities are assigned based on a number of attributes and implementation projects are categorized by 1) Destination + Access Projects 2) School Connection Projects 3) Pedestrian Fatality Related Projects and 4) Sidewalk Gap Projects. Areas identified for growth in the 2035 Comprehensive Plan as well as Future school sites would be integrated into the analysis. Prioritize filling gaps in existing system along arterial and collector roadways in areas 1) Environmental Justice (EJ) areas with low socioeconomic status (SES) and sensitive populations 2) adjacent to public transportation route 3) prioritize connections between residential, commercial and institutional land use nodes. Support efforts to retrofit older neighborhoods for multimodal transportation. Sidewalk retrofits in older areas are recommended to capitalize on investments in the greenway and complete non- motorized travel networks. Based on public input, support sidewalks near 1) downtown Murfreesboro 2) routes from MTSU campus and 3) South Church Street especially along the Rover route. Improve sidewalk systems adjacent to Rover transit shelters.
Strategy: Improve bicycle and pedestrian connections between high density areas.
Consider “fee-in-lieu” payments to infrastructure fund. Consider implementation of policy requiring design and construction of new transportation infrastructure to accommodate future demand for bicycling and walking even if demand is not currently present. This policy should apply to travel both along and across the roadway. Include pedestrian facilities requirement for large parking areas within the Zoning Ordinance.
Strategy: Continue current efforts to improve pedestrian amenities.
Continue pedestrian signalization improvement project. Efforts to include signalization in high- traffic areas and concurrently improving ADA accessibility are already showing success in Murfreesboro. Continued implementation of planned improvements is recommended. 3.1.2 Bicycle Recommendations Strategy: Support infrastructure, policy, and education recommendations included in the Greenways, Blueways and Bikeways Master Plan. Actions: Future updates to Greenways, Blueways and Bikeways Master Plan could include a typical cross section for roadways that includes bike facilities.
Strategy: Improve safety of cyclists.
Actions: Implement access management policies limiting driveways and intersections to promote the safety of cyclists. The Murfreesboro 2035 online discussion forum comments revealed a desire for safer bike lanes on major roadways and around the MTSU campus.
Strategy: Support cycling culture in Murfreesboro.
Actions: Policies encouraging the provision of bicycle amenities can support the development of cycling culture in Murfreesboro. Provision of bicycle parking at destinations along bike routes and greenways will encourage bicycling habits and provide a secure location for storage of bicycles. In addition, it reduces the need for parking spaces and paved areas. Policies could include an option for bicycle parking in lieu of parking spaces, a requirement for bicycle parking, or the addition of bicycle parking at government facilities. Identify “champions” of bicycle, pedestrian and public transportation and encourage them to be present at public meetings. Increase awareness of Tennessee’s three-foot law requiring that vehicles share the road with cyclists including providing at least three feet of separation when passing cyclists. 3.1.3 Transit Recommendations Strategy: Facilitate coordination between transit systems.
Actions: Evaluate costs of shared common currency between transit systems. Provide more connections between MTSU, MTA/RTA and Rover routes. Improve integration with MTSU Bus/ sidewalk/ bike lanes. Support policies that promote a robust regional system with smooth transitions from local to regional services.
Strategy: Update Rover system plan based on future need.
Actions: Evaluate potential modification to the fixed route transit network based on addition of new roads as recommended in the 2040 Major Thoroughfare Plan. Plan for future systems analysis of Rover network as the system grows and ridership increases. Use systems analysis to secure funding and extend Rover network as funding becomes available. Consider extensions of the Southern portion of the Memorial and Gateway route and the Highland route to provide coverage to a high-poverty area. Future discussions for route extensions should include the southwest portion of the City with transit supportive density. Areas within the ¼ mile walkshed of the Rover system and areas with high concentrations of poverty should be given priority for sidewalk and multimodal improvements. Consider extending hours of existing Rover bus services to cover weekends and evenings.
Strategy: Increase ridership.
Actions: Initiate ridership education program. Increase promotion of public transit programs through traditional and non-traditional media outlets. Encourage ridership specifically targeted to elderly populations.
Strategy: Support economic drivers in the community.
Actions: Ensure students at MTSU have adequate transportation to housing, food, and entertainment venues. Promote and support job access between employers and potential employees. 3.1.4 Multimodal Recommendations Strategy: Support Transit Oriented Development (TOD) strategies.
Actions: Consider updating zoning ordinance to require bicycle and pedestrian access to trailheads through future developments. Require developers to include pedestrian, bicycle, and transit-supportive improvements within proposed developments and adjacent rights-of-way. Provide additional bicycle parking at transit stops and park and ride locations. Consider bike bank, bike lockers, and bike share programs. Update subdivision guidelines to reflect “Complete Streets” design philosophies. Require developers to include pedestrian, bicycle, and transit-supportive improvements within proposed developments and adjacent rights-of-way.
Strategy: Coordinate multimodal planning strategies. Actions: Gather spatial data on locations of existing and proposed greenways, blueways and bikeways and use in conjunction with proposed Gap analysis and prioritization of sidewalk infrastructure and updated Rover routes and thoroughfare plan to identify areas for multimodal infrastructure improvements. Create corresponding policy requiring identified street, bicycle, and pedestrian connections be considered and constructed where feasible.
Strategy: Include consideration of trailheads, greenway connectors and bike routes in future Rover Route Extensions.
Actions: Create GIS layer of existing and proposed greenways, blueways, and bikeways facilities to improve multi-modal planning capabilities. Complete formal analysis of adjacency of multi-modal options in future update to Greenways, Blueways and Bikeways Master Plan to improve connections between methods of transportation. Involve Rover staff in creation of future update to Greenways, Blueways and Bikeways Master Plan. Consider seasonal Rover route deviations to trails.
Strategy: Include multi-modal facilities at key locations.
Actions: Establish additional dedicated park and ride lots. Provide information on location of nearby bus routes at trailheads. Continue to install bike racks on Rover buses. Improve sidewalks and amenities near Rover transit shelters and bus routes. 3.1.5 Roadway Recommendations Major Themes There are three (3) major themes that convey a broad philosophical underpinning of many of the roadway projects that are recommended in the roadway network portion of the 2040 Major Transportation plan. These themes are as follows:
1) Improve connections between NE, SW & Central Murfreesboro – While Murfreesboro has been the beneficiary of both man-made and natural features that have been instrumental in the growth of the City, some of these features have also become an impediment to maintaining an efficiently functional transportation system. The CSXT railroad, Stones River, and I-24 have become physical barriers that generally run parallel to one another and have divided the eastern and western portions of Murfreesboro. As the growth of Murfreesboro continues, these barriers must be forded in order to enable additional roadway connections that minimize concentrations of traffic on existing roadways and their intersections and facilitate increased distribution of traffic. 2) Create additional corridor capacity from SE to NW – As Murfreesboro, neighboring cities, and the region as a whole continue to grow, the viability and efficiency of the regional roadway connections between the varying origins and destinations have continued to deteriorate with the rise in population, roadway volumes, and resultant increase in travel time. The corridor that is the focus of this plan is the corridor between Murfreesboro to the southeast and Nashville to the Northwest and the cities in between. The “corridor” is not a specific facility such as I-24 only but are all parallel roadway facilities that provide connection between the southeast and northwest including Broad Street (US 41/70), Old Nashville Highway, and I-24. 3) Enhance roadway network connectivity – The connectivity of the different classified roadways is an effort to provide better distribution of traffic along all facilities. The overall goal is to provide a multitude of viable travel paths between differing but complimentary land uses such as areas of concentrated households and retail or employment centers. Enhanced roadway network connectivity provides the ability to more effectively distribute traffic over a variety of facilities thus minimizing high concentrations of traffic on minimal roadways and associated intersections between land uses. Enhanced connectivity also aids in the reduction of travel time and distances between land uses.
The goal of enhanced connectivity and distribution should be balanced against quality of life issues that may be experienced when an unwarranted volume or particular type of traffic is redirected through residential or other incompatible land uses. As an example, while it may be desirable to interconnect residential neighborhoods and provide multiple connection points to the higher classified roadway system, it may be equally undesirable to provide a direct connection between two high volume arterials through a purely residential neighborhood which may result in greatly increased traffic volumes, speed and incompatible vehicle types such as large trucks. A more in- depth discussion on the relationship between mobility and accessibility is discussed in Section 1.4.1 of this document. An illustration of these three major themes follows:
The Roadway Recommendations are broken down into strategies and actions like the previous sections, but also contain the approved thoroughfare plan and recommended roadway improvements. Strategies and Actions
Strategy: Promote Transit Oriented Development (TOD) design principles and policies.
Actions: Promote infill development. Promote consistency between city and county land use planning. Promote mixed-use and re-purposed development. Provide linkages between existing developments, new developments, and economic drivers such as MTSU.
Strategy: Utilize access management techniques.
Actions: Adopt access management policy. The policy should require access management review as part of all new development. The policy should also require access management as part of any roadway maintenance or improvement project.
Strategy: Utilize Transportation Demand Management (TDM).
Actions: Support implementation of ITS on I-24 within the study area as identified in the TDOT I-24 study including establishing communications connections between TDOT ITS to allow sharing of video feeds, traffic conditions and incident locations; the installation of ramp metering on specified I-24 exits; and installation of ITS on US 41/70/SR-1 (Murfreesboro Rd/Lowery St/NW Broad St) between the I-440 interchange and SR 10 to mitigate diverted traffic from I-24. Coordinate signalization where possible to reduce delays and accommodate traffic flow in lieu of infrastructure expansions.
Strategy: Employ transportation design elements that support all residents including the elderly, disabled, and young families.
Actions: Consider infrastructure design for elderly drivers in future construction projects. Take a “Complete Streets” approach to infrastructure design. Updated Thoroughfare Plan
Modeling of demographic information from a new land use plan and future roadway oriented transportation needs assessment conducted as a part of this study effort led to the creation of a new thoroughfare plan for the City of Murfreesboro. Modeling of the 2040 Existing + Committed street network demonstrated a need for additional roadway capacity and new linkages to areas of economic and population growth. This network is depicted in Figure 3.1. Individual road segment recommendations are listed in Tables 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3. Detailed project sheets include planning level cost estimates, proximity to greenways and bikeways, roadway classifications and other information are included in Appendix D. The updated and adopted 2040 Major Thoroughfare Plan is included in Appendix E.
The identified roadway improvements are separated by implementation time frames within the twenty five year planning horizon of 2040 as segmented below:
Short Term Improvements (STI) are generally imminently needed projects that are slated to be initiated within the first nine (9) years (between 2016 and 2024) of the plan.
Mid-Term Improvements (MTI) are projected needed projects based on anticipated growth over the next eight (8) years (between 2025 and 2032) of the plan.
Long Term Improvements (LTI) are additional projected needed projects based on anticipated growth over the next eight (8) years (between 2033 and 2040) of the plan and are more speculative in nature due to the long period in the future and associated growth and development assumptions.
Cross Sections
Cross sections for roadway classifications are found in the City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications document last adopted in 2009.
Figure 3.1:
Table 3.1: Recommended Short Term Improvement Projects
2040 MTP PROJECT NAME PROJECT DESCRIPTION TERMINI TOTAL COST PRIORITY # STI # 1 Robert Rose Connector Construct new 3 lane road Robert Rose to Gateway Blvd. $1,871,360 STI # 2 Clark Boulevard Widening Widen to 3 lanes Memorial to NW Broad St. $7,376,200 STI # 3 Haynes Drive Widening Construct new 3 lane road Memorial to Thompson Ln. $9,446,330 STI # 4 Northfield Boulevard Extension Extend as 5 lane road w/ bridge Northfield at Broad to Thompson $25,155,300 Lane STI # 5 Clark Boulevard Extension Extend as 3 lane road w/ bridge Clark at Broad to West College St. $12,856,095 STI # 6 River Rock & SR 99 Connector Road Construct new 3 lane road w/ I-24 bridge River Rock to New Salem Hwy. $34,282,750 (SR 99) STI # 7 Molloy Lane Realignment & Widening Realign Molloy Between Molloy & Bridge Molloy to Bridge Ave. $4,059,580 Ave. STI # 8 Cherry Lane Extension Extend as 5 lane road w/ bridge and Broad @ Cherry Ln. to Florence $53,282,270 overpass Rd. STI # 9 SE Broad (US 41) Widening Widen to 5 lanes Maney to Rutherford Blvd. $11,722,620 STI # 10 Broad Street Widening Widen to 7 lanes MCP to I-840 $35,574,740 STI # 11 New Lascassas Hwy. (SR 96) Widen to 5 lanes Clark to DeJarnette Ln. $14,923,860 Widening STI # 12 Main Street Widening Widen to 3 lanes MT Blvd. to Rutherford Blvd. $3,908,010 STI # 13 Warrior Drive Widening Widen to 3 lanes US 231 to SR 99 $5,944,520 STI # 14 Rutherford & Broad Connector Road Construct new 3 lane road SE Broad to Rutherford Boulevard $4,696,130 STI # 15 Rutherford Blvd Extension Extend as new 3 lane road w/ I-24 bridge Rutherford to Warrior Dr. $22,854,700 STI # 16 Rutledge Boulevard Extension Extend/reconstruct as 3 lane road Middle TN to Rutherford Extension $5,134,850 STI # 17 Elam Farms Pkwy. Extension Extend as new 3 lane road Elam Farms Pkwy. termini to US $2,029,430 41 STI # 18 Broad & Thompson Separated Grade Build SPUI at Broad & Thompson N/A $58,180,020 STI # 19 Salem Cove Lane Extension Extend Salem Cove Lane as 3 lane road Salem Cove termini to Rucker Ln. $4,188,360 STI # 20 Barfield Road Widening Widen to 3 lanes SR 99 to Veterans Pkwy. $11,467,720 STI # 21 New North/South Road Construct new 3 lane road Thompson to Cherry Ln. Extension $4,125,890 STI # 22 Memorial Blvd. Widening Widen to 5 lanes Thompson to Jefferson Pk. $15,567,080 STI # 23 Leanna Road Widening Widen to 3 lanes Thompson to Leanna Swamp Rd. $7,640,340 STI # 24 Compton Road Widening Widen to 5 lanes Memorial to Lascassas Pike $16,048,350 STI # 25 SE Broad (US 41) Widening Widen to 5 lanes Rutherford to Joe B. Jackson $15,910,260 Pkwy. TOTALS………………….. $388,246,765
Table 3.2: Recommended Mid Term Improvement Projects 2040 MTP PROJECT NAME PROJECT DESCRIPTION TERMINI TOTAL COST PRIORITY # MTI # 1 SR 96 Widening Widen to 4/5 lanes Veterans Pkwy. to I-840 $27,460,500 MTI # 2 West College St. Widening Widen to 3 lanes Northfield Blvd. Ext. Project to MCP $2,809,440 MTI # 3 Battleground Drive Widening Widen to 3 lanes w/ Sinking Creek bridge Clark to Tomahawk Trace $10,427,750 MTI # 4 Wenlon Drive Widening Widen to 3 lanes Northfield to N. Tennessee Blvd. $3,105,790 MTI # 5 Rutherford to Elam Connector Street Extend as new 3 lane road Rutherford Blvd. to Elam Road $5,620,540 MTI # 6 Asbury Roadway Connector System Construct new 3 lane road MCP to Asbury Ln. $6,804,510 MTI # 7 Asbury Roadway Connector System Construct new 3 lane road w/ I-24 bridge Florence Road to Project # 4b $24,967,880 MTI # 8 Asbury Roadway Connector System Widen to 3 lanes Project # 4a to Old Nashville Hwy. $4,620,700 MTI # 9 Asbury Roadway Connector System Construct new 3 lane road Manson to Project # 4a $1,474,450 MTI # 10 Veterans & Blackman Road network Veterans Pkwy extension & I-24 Burnt Knob to Old Nashville Hwy. $61,817,210 interchange MTI # 11 Veterans & Blackman Road network Blackman Road widening & I-24 Manson & Blackman to Florence Rd. $46,874,570 interchange MTI # 12 Veterans & Blackman Road network Widen to 3 lanes Blackman Road to Veterans Pkwy $3,548,440 MTI # 13 Old Nashville Hwy Widening Widen to 3 lanes Cherry Ln. Ext. Project to N'field Ext. $12,294,580 MTI # 14 Old Nashville Hwy Widening Widen to 5 lanes Chicken Pk to Cherry Ln. Ext. $14,956,530 MTI # 15 Old Fort Pkwy. Widening Widen to 6 lanes I-24 to NW Broad St. $9,387,910 MTI # 16 New Lascassas Hwy. Widening Widen to 5 lanes DeJarnette to Compton Rd. $10,595,960 MTI # 17 Sulphur Springs Rd. Extension Extend Sulphur Springs Rd. Alford to Leanna Swamp Rd. $5,913,490 MTI # 18 Haven Street Extension Construct new extension as 3 lane road Rutherford to Double Springs Rd $5,248,460 MTI # 19 East Main & Bradyville Connector Construct new 3 lane road Old Woodbury Hwy to SR 99 $9,498,070 MTI # 20 Bradyville Pike Widening Widen to 3 lanes Rutherford to Joe B. Jackson Pkwy. $9,699,590 MTI # 21 Kingwood Lane Extension Project Extend as new 3 lane road Kingwood Lane to Veterans Pkwy. $1,994,250 MTI # 22 Irby Lane Extension Extend as new 3 lane road US 41 to Elam Road $1,856,090 MTI # 23 Elam Road Widening Widen to 3 lanes US 41 to 1,600' north of Joe B. $5,244,760 Jackson MTI # 24 I-24 Widening Widen to 8 lanes S. Church to Joe B. Jackson Pkwy. $18,891,480 MTI # 25 CBD Connector Route Project Realign and Connect Vine & Front St. Old Salem to Vine Street $5,669,150 MTI # 26 Blackman Road Widening Widen to 3 lanes Manson/Burnt Knob to Veterans $3,730,880 Pkwy. TOTALS………………….. $314,512,980
Table 3.3: Recommended Long Term Improvement Projects
2040 MTP PROJECT NAME PROJECT DESCRIPTION TERMINI TOTAL COST PRIORITY # LTI # 1 Old Salem Widening Widen to 3 lanes Castle Street to MT Blvd. $2,928,640 LTI # 2 Manson Pike Widening Widen to 5 lanes Fortress to Veterans Pkwy. $11,944,940 LTI # 3 Osborne Lane Extension Extend Osborne Lane as 3 lane road Osborne at Emery to New $1,181,160 Lascassas LTI # 4 SW Bypass Road New 4 lane median divided road US 231 to I-840 @ Almaville Rd. $59,574,840 LTI # 5 Leanna Swamp Road Widening Widen to 5 lanes US 231 to I-840 Interchange $21,003,970 LTI # 6 Joe B. Jackson Parkway Extension Construct new 5 lane road US 70 to US 41 $24,465,410 LTI # 7 US 41 Widening Widen to 3 lanes Joe B. Jackson to Elam Road $4,223,010 LTI # 8 Jefferson Pike Widening Widen to 5 lanes US 231 to Lascassas Hwy (SR 96) $26,351,590 LTI # 9 New Lascassas Hwy. (SR 96) Widen to 5 lanes Compton to Jefferson Pk. $19,890,310 Widening LTI # 10 Jefferson Pike Widening Widen to 5 lanes Lebanon Hwy to I-840 $32,473,190 LTI # 11 SR 99 Widening Widen to 5 lanes Veterans to Proposed SW M'boro $28,568,100 Bypass Road LTI # 12 Barfield Crescent & 231 S. Connector Extend as new 3 lane road US 231 to Webb Rd. $6,907,430 LTI # 13 Dilton Mankin Road Widening Widen to 3 lanes US 41 to Wilson Overall Rd. $7,806,630 LTI # 14 Sulphur Springs Rd. Widening Widen/Extend to 5 lanes I-840 to NW Broad St. $14,297,060 LTI # 15 Elam Road Widening Widen to 3 lanes Joe B. Jackson to Elam Mill Road $5,053,480 LTI # 16 I-840 Connector Road Construct new 3 lane road to new int. I-840 to Leanna Central Valley Rd. $6,350,120 LTI # 17 Joe B. Jackson Parkway Extension Widen Richland Richardson Road Halls Hill Pike to US 70 $16,501,270 LTI # 18 Old Woodbury Hwy. Widening Widen to 3 lanes Rutherford Blvd.to Richland $8,259,710 Richardson Rd. LTI # 19 Joe B. Jackson Parkway Extension Construct new 3 lane road Lascassas Hwy to Halls Hill Pk. $18,718,480 LTI # 20 Florence Road Widening Widen to 3 lanes Sulphur Springs to NW Broad St. $5,148,230 LTI # 21 E. Compton Road Widening Widen to 3 lanes New Lascassas Hwy (SR 96) to $3,929,830 Briarwood Dr. LTI # 22 Kingwood Lane Widening Widen to 3 lanes Windrow Road to SR 96 $8,386,570 LTI # 23 Windrow Road Widening Widen to 3 lanes Kingwood Lane to Veterans Pkwy. $5,470,630 LTI # 24 Old Salem Road Widening Widen to 3 lanes SR 99 to Veterans Pkwy. $4,518,680 LTI # 25 Halls Hill Pike Widening Widen to 3 lanes Adams Lane to Joe B. Jackson $9,273,400 Pkwy. TOTALS………………….. $353,226,680
Consistency with Future Land Use Plan and City Growth Policies
The recommendations in this Plan are consistent with the Future Land Use Plan and City Growth Policies. The year 2040 conditions used to evaluate recommended transportation network alternatives were based on future demographics, future transportation demand and the Future Land Use Plan contained within the Murfreesboro 2035 Comprehensive Plan. Close coordination with the City of Murfreesboro and the stakeholder group ensures that this Plan follows all City growth policies and respects the Growth Plan adopted under Tennessee Public Chapter 1101 as illustrated in by the urban growth boundary shown in Figure 1 of this document.
Technical Memorandum 4: Project Prioritization and Funding 4.1.1 Implementation and Funding Funding of the recommended projects will require a combination of federal, state and local funds. Table 3.3 denotes some of the current funding sources that are available. Project sheets in Appendix D identify potential general funding categories for each proposed project. It should be noted that federal and state funds generally require a matching ratio to be provided by the local government. Other than the options below and local funds, funding of the recommended improvements would fall to regular TDOT project funding sources for any projects on state routes. The City may need to leverage private dollars in public- private partnerships as projects are constructed along the roadway. Some project improvements can be considered for inclusion in larger roadway maintenance projects to maximize the impact of limited funds.
The previous Transportation Improvement Plan for the Nashville Area MPO (2014-2017) adopted a “fix-it- first” mentality whereby the initial focus of funding should always be maintenance or improvement of existing facilities. The plan also places focus on projects that create a “sense of place”, create walkable communities, and are sensitive to the environment.
The 2017 passage of the “Improving Manufacturing, Public Roads and Opportunities for a Vibrant Economy Act” or IMPROVE Act by the Tennessee Legislature will provide increased funding levels for roadway projects in the near future. This program leverages an increase in gas taxes to address a backlog in roadway projects. The legislation is estimated to provide $250 million to the state Department of Transportation, $70 million to counties and $35 million to cities.
The Greenways, Blueways and Bikeways Master Plan provides a discussion of funding for projects proposed in the Plan. The STP (now STBG) funding is a significant possible funding source for plan implementation. These funds are administered by the Nashville Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). The 2040 Regional Transportation Plan established a strategy to utilize 15% of the Urban Surface Transportation Program (U-STP) for projects which encourage the development of active transportation choices and walkable communities.
Table 3.3: Funding Sources
National Highway Provides funding for major roads including the Interstate 80% Federal Performance Program System, a large percentage of urban and rural principal (NHPP) arterials, the Strategic Defense Highway Network 20% Non‐ (STRAHNET), and strategic highway connectors. Federal
Surface Provides funding for roads functionally classified as rural 80% Federal Transportation Block major collector and above. Funds may be utilized on Grant (STBG) projects in Rural Areas, Urbanized Areas, Small Urban 20% Non‐ Areas, Enhancement, Safety and Rail‐Highway Federal Crossings. Also funds bridge replacement & rehabilitation
on non‐federal aid routes (activities previously under the BRR local program).
Transportation Combines former funding programs for Enhancements, 80% Federal Alternatives Program Safe Routes to Schools, Scenic Byways, and (set aside of STP) Recreational Trails. Eligible activities include bicycle and 20% Non‐ pedestrian facilities, sidewalks near elementary and Federal middle schools, main street and boulevard projects, and
environmental mitigation to address impacts of the transportation system.
Highway Safety Provides funds to make improvements to high hazard 90% Federal Improvement Program locations on eligible roadways, including highway‐rail (HSIP) grade crossings. Projects are selected based on crash 10% Non‐ rate and crash frequency. Federal
TDOT Spot Safety Provides funds for projects on state routes or 90-100% Improvement Program intersections with state routes. Include funds to install a Federal (SIP) traffic signal on a state route, fix a sight-distance problem on or near a state route, add a turning lane or lanes with 0-10% Non- or without signals on a state route, install school flashing Federal signals on a state route, or install a flashing beacon on a
state route. Emphasis is placed on cities and towns with a population of less than 5000.
Congestion Mitigation Provides funds in non-attainment or maintenance areas 80-100% Air Quality for projects that improve air quality and congestion. Federal Improvement Program Includes funds for transit equipment and infrastructure, (CMAQ) ITS projects, park and ride facilities, and roadway operational efficiency projects that do not add capacity.
Local Interstate State statutory program (T.C.A. 54-5-501) that provides 50% State Connector Program funds that facilitates appropriate ingress and egress (LIC) between the interstate highway facility and a major roadway of important benefit to a locality.
Project Prioritization
In the current Nashville Area MPO 2040 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and 2017-2020 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), the MPO developed a formal evaluation and scoring system to determine project prioritization for federal funding dollars. The MPO based the scoring system on federally-defined planning guidance and local input. The project evaluation is based on the following factors:
System Preservation & Enhancement, Quality Growth, Sustainable Land Development, & Economic Prosperity, Expansion of Multi-Modal Options, Roadway Congestion Management, Safety & Security, Freight & Goods Movement, Health & Environment, and Project Support & History.
Specific evaluation criterion are included with each factor in Appendix E of the 2040 RTP and Appendix C of the 2017-2020 TIP.
In order to align closely with funding goals, these criterion were used to generally evaluate the proposed projects and determine project implementation timeframe.
Appendix A: Stakeholder Comments
Table 1.6 Stakeholder meeting comments
Summary Of Stakeholder Public Input New construction has impact on growth and City must find resources to build transit infrastructure Lack of sidewalks and sidewalk maintenance in unincorporated areas of Rutherford County Difficult to retrofit existing roadways connect nodes identified in The Greenways, Blueways and Bikeways Master Plan Difficult to get bike lane projects approved when retrofitting of existing roadway is needed Need for transportation for student population to first tier services (e.g. grocery stores and laundromats) and entertainment Need for increase in marketing for public transportation Need for more sidewalks along Rover routes Need for amenities for elderly along Rover routes Need for increased Rover amenities along established corridors Increase public involvement efforts Capacity has led previous projects/ current thoroughfare should include other justifications for improvements More choices needed in public transportation Can functional class of road be modified to allow for more bike lanes Need more public advocacy for bike/ ped Need more public advocacy for public transit Lack of funding for expansion of thoroughfare systems- funding currently goes to maintenance Dedicated transit helps with urban infill and is an economic trigger Transportation needs to be improved to attract businesses Transportation should support infill Transportation should support livability Transportation should support commerce, access to airports, alternate routes, good highway access Need to make City attractive to younger generations by providing more pedestrian amenities including paved multi-use paths with some separation from street to ensure safety Need more advocacy for bike facilities Integrate health lifestyle Raise awareness for healthy lifestyles Need more sidewalks in older neighborhoods to encourage healthy lifestyles Need more education on importance of multimodal transportation in older communities More concentration on multimodal in Blackman/ Salem neighborhoods Make older neighborhoods more attractive Need for mapping of bike routes in older neighborhood/ should map bike routes even when no bike lane present Bike lanes compete with on-street parking
Appendix B: Live Work Maps
Figure 1.15 Community Workshops Live Work Map 1
live
work
Figure 1.16 Community Workshops Live Work Map 2
live
work
Appendix C: MindMixer Public Input
Table 1.7 Public Comment MindMixer
TOPIC: Street and Intersection Improvements Idea Title South Church Street There are projects in the works to address the huge growth we've seen South of I-24 on South Church St, HWY 231 but it's nearly too little too late. I do believe when Veterans Pkwy opens up another exit to I-24 then we will see real relief but in the meantime the city has approved another Wal-Mart which will bring a host of other Idea Detail businesses in right behind them. The traffic congestion is so bad on that South side that I fear we might need to be planning the next improvements to infrastructure over there before we even complete the ones currently under construction.
Comment 1 They haven't opened the Veteran's connection to Joe B Jackson yet. Once it opens, it will have a significant, positive impact on traffic on Church. | By Stephen S
I heard for years that Veteran's (formerly Barfield) and Joe B. would relieve Church St. I do not feel Veteran's has had any impact on Church volume. I feel this corridor Comment 2 has become "oh there's nothing we can do about it" - I even hear agents commenting they steer clients away from the area due to congestion. What can be done? | By Lisa W Comment 3 Improve Barfield Road and 99 to 7 lanes (up to the state). That would relieve some pressure off South Church. | By Jeff R
Idea Title I24 & South Church Idea Detail The exit is poorly designed. I'm not sure it can be corrected!!
Comment 1 I thought TDOT was supposed to change this exit just like the one at Old Fort Parkway. | By John E
So many times I have tried to solve this in my head (as I sit and wait for a tractor-trailer to cross 3 lanes from exit 81-A). One safety improvement is to terminate the entrance/exit to the side road just off the exit (a right hand turn into hotel/ATM/Mexican restaurant). Everyone should use the turn signal at Warrior Dr. (CVS) to reach/ leave that business park (or any of those businesses...Taco Bell, etc.). When north bound drivers try to turn across 3 lanes of traffic to reach that side road...SO Comment 2 dangerous. Or they get trapped in the turn lane by a semi. The thought of having a soon-to-be teenage driver coming through that area every day is the ONLY reason I consider moving north. Something needs to be done at this exit. It is a residential access exit/ road and the semi-trucks are clogging the flow and causing wrecks. | By Lisa W Idea Title Rucker between 96 and Old Salem Rd. Idea Detail With the new neighborhoods being constructed here, traffic is getting dangerous with the very narrow road and steep drop offs with no turn lane.
Comment 1 Very dangerous with more motorist every day as more homes built | By Henry H
Idea Title Cason Lane/ Old Fort Idea Detail Seriously, this intersection is miserable.
I don't know who thought it was a good idea to pack all of those houses and apartment in that dense little area, and then surround them with a couple of small choke Comment 1 points to get in and out through. | By Nick F
Idea Title Highland Avenue needs sidewalks to downtown. We are missing a great connection between North Highland and downtown because of the lack of sidewalks. I think there are probably other areas that need this as Idea Detail well, but since I live in this area, I see it the most.
Idea Title widen Thompson lane Idea Detail Awful bottle neck on the bridge. Imagine a Thompson Lane that was 4 lanes wide from broad to memorial!
Idea Title Overhead signage for upcoming turn lanes. The arrows painted on the pavement often cannot be seen until it's too late to get into the correct lane when there is heavy traffic. Medical Center Pkwy. approaching Idea Detail the traffic light at Memorial is one example.
Idea Title Thompson Ln. from Memorial to Broad needs widening to 4 lanes This section of roadway backs up in a bottleneck from Broad St. and North Thompson lanes four lane roadways, weening down to two lanes at the Greenway Trailhead, Idea Detail and from the three schools traffic at the east end of Thompson lane. With Joe Aydelott now selling his property, maybe now someone will look at this extremely needed project... The projected new five lane roadway from Cherry lane to Broad street will not solve the above described traffic congestion...
Idea Title Old Fort Pkwy (Hwy 96) from I-24 to N. Thompson Ln. That stretch of Old Fort Parkway is terrible. Traffic exiting I-24W going on 96E toward N. Thompson all want to turn left on N. Thompson. So those cars have to merge Idea Detail across all lanes of traffic and there are too many cars going through the intersection already. The interstate exit needs to be changed, the roadway changed, or traffic rerouted. Idea Title Bradyville Rd, Hwy 99 (New Salem) & Hwy 41 (Manchester Pike) The residents of the Bradyville Rd corridor are STILL waiting for improvements that were needed 25+ years ago and promised more than six years ago.
Idea Detail Hwy 99 and Hwy 41 already see significant traffic backups. And both areas are set to see hundreds and hundreds of new homes, numerous businesses and even future high schools be built. Widen these roads now, BEFORE the impending building boom.
Idea Title Crosswalks on Memorial, and sidewalks on Clark Blvd Memorial is a major artery, mostly surrounded by residential areas, in need of sidewalks and crosswalks to enable pedestrian access to all of the local commerce. Idea Detail Clark Blvd is another major connector with no sidewalks, forcing pedestrians (with strollers or on scooters) to walk/ride on the road.
Idea Title Switch to roundabouts Idea Detail Roundabouts are 60% more efficient, in terms of traffic flow, than lights or signs.
They will learn. It's taken almost a year, but people in Nashville are getting the hang of the new round-about on Korean Veterans. And it's a poorly designed one with a Comment 1 confusing traffic pattern... | By Nick F
They will learn. It's taken almost a year, but people in Nashville are getting the hang of the new round-about on Korean Veterans. And it's a poorly designed one with a Comment 2 confusing traffic pattern. One lane on part, | By Nick F
Comment 3 Yeah. But local drivers don't understand the concept of "merging". | By Stephen S
Idea Title Widening New Salem between I-24 and Cason Lane Idea Detail New Salem gets incredibly congested at rush hour times. One extra lane on each side would relieve much frustration and create a much more efficient commute.
Idea Title Broad Street
Broad Street is very busy, and often has pedestrians and bikers crossing multiple lanes. Better pedestrian crossings and alternate routes for pedestrians and bikers Idea Detail are essential.
Idea Title Clark Boulevard between Memorial and MTSU needs sidewalks. Idea Detail There is no shoulder and no sidewalk, and pedestrians use this road.
Idea Title Thompson Lane from Broad St. to Memorial. This road needs to be widened to get all the traffic through in a timely manner. There are many new houses/apartments and developments in the Siegel area bringing Idea Detail in more residents and this road is a nightmare in the morning and late afternoon with traffic.
Comment 1 Needs a traffic light at Leanna and Thompson Lane | By Beth H
Idea Title Warrior/Butler & S. Church Idea Detail School and truck stop traffic overload the intersection
Comment 1 Trucks are always trying to turn on/off S. Church to the Pilot station or on/off Butler to General Mills. Makes it very dangerous. | By Keith R
Comment 2 This is a dangerous, overcrowded intersection off of I24. | By Gwen B
Idea Title Lascassas Highway at the intersection with Rutherford Blvd. This intersection is a recipe for daily wrecks, with left turn traffic coming from Northfield especially vulnerable. Many sudden stops due to left turns into fast food, beer Idea Detail stores, discount tobacco etc. create many wrecks. I don't have a ready answer except to beg that no more retail/strip centers be developed along Lascassas.
Idea Title North Thompson Lane Idea Detail Please widen Thompson Lane from Broad St. to Compton. I believe if it were a four lane road it would relieve the traffic congestion on north Memorial Blvd.
Idea Title NW Broad traffic It is very difficult and dangerous to turn left out of many businesses on NW Broad (specific example, Bill Taylor Karate/Country Club area, especially during peak traffic times). A design I find very efficient is in the Smyrna area around Academy Sports, with access roads running parallel to Sam Ridley Pkwy. These access roads connect Idea Detail with streets that have traffic light access to Sam Ridley, making entering and exiting these businesses easier, safer and with much less congestion. I realize those businesses are set farther off the road than the ones on NW Broad, but I am hopeful that there are options to make these current local traffic situations safer and that we can consider access roads when designing and developing new projects in Murfreesboro.
Idea Title S. Church St. at I-24 interchange (both directions) While driving to work, I use S. Rutherford Blvd. and turn left onto S. Church St. I always sit at this intersection for 3 or more light cycles. I believe, if possible, S. Idea Detail Rutherford should have a direct exit to I-24. Instead of turning left on S. Church, drivers would go straight and would be able to get on I-24 west bound only.
The Rutherford/Church light is ridiculous at 6:00 am. There should be TWICE as many cycles or time for the left turn from Rutherford as that is the ONLY real source of traffic at that time of morning. Dozens of cars back up to head to the interstate while 4-5 cars pass through on Church in either direction. Comment 1
In the afternoon, drivers are out of luck. There is simply nowhere for the traffic to go heading on S. Church. | By Stephen S
Idea Title South Church Idea Detail A better connector road from South Church to Old Fort Parkway closer into town without having to get on the interstate.
Idea Title Brinkley & Veterans Parkway Look at traffic light turning left out of either side is becoming more and more difficult/dangerous. Will only become worse with continued residential development, multi Idea Detail family, and commercial.
Veterans Parkway runs along Barfield Crescent Park it crosses several highways including 231 where it needs sidewalks and pedestrian signals so that families can walk Comment 1 from the surrounding neighborhoods to the park. As well as Volunteer Rd toward the Shelbyville Hwy. | By Evalynn S
Comment 2 Do those two streets intersect? | By Stephen S Idea Title Robert Rose from Old Fort to Thompson Lane Idea Detail Needs to have more lanes and be standard throughout. It's hard and dangerous to cross back and forth. Idea Title Thompson Lane--the Demolition Derby part before the bridge Idea Detail Why oh why didn't they do the bridge work and widen it all the way between Broad and Memorial?
Comment 1 Because it was too expensive of a project. | By Lisa W Idea Title Haynes Idea Detail Bike lanes and sidewalks are needed. Idea Title Broad and Thompson Lane Intersection Two lanes of traffic turn from Broad street to Thompson Lane. Those two lanes of traffic are heavy with traffic. Then that heavy traffic attempts to merge into one lane Idea Detail of traffic. Most of Thompson Lane until Haynes turn off has more traffic than one lane can handle. There also needs to be a turning lane at the Greenway entrance. Idea Title Broad Street And Old Fort/Memorial Intersection. Idea Detail I realize that improvements are currently being made to this intersection, so that is wonderful! The faster the better! Idea Title Haynes Drive, Brinkley, Rucker Widen Haynes to 3 lanes with strategic right turn lanes. Brinkley and Rucker should also be 3 lanes. This gives the most impact with least impact to land owners. The city should also build a connector from Brinkley to Veterans Parkway north of the Cloisters and south of Berkshire through the undeveloped land with connections to Idea Detail both subdivisions. Also, consider a nonresidential street between HW99 and Veterans Pky between Veterans Pky and Barfield Road. The other option is to improve Barfield Road. Idea Title Haynes Drive east of Lebanon Road Idea Detail Haynes Drive from Lebanon Hwy to Sulphur Springs is too narrow - no area at all to walk here! Idea Title Memorial Blvd and DeJarnette Intersection At the intersection of Memorial Blvd and DeJarnette, there's a right-hand turning lane with a white line telling drivers they aren't allowed to change lanes. It's supposed to speed up traffic flow by making it so no one has to stop but there are times when I've seen someone come to a complete stop in that lane, despite that there's no Idea Detail stop or yield sign and times when I've seen a left hand turning driver, swoop over and make an illegal lane change. Maybe the white line should be extended and a big GO sign should be installed, haha!
Idea Title Memorial Boulevard, Broad Street, Highway 96, Thompson Lane, Idea Detail Widen and make pedestrian friendly. Idea Title North Thompson at Old Fort Idea Detail Traffic turning both directions from N Thompson onto Old Fort can bottleneck pretty badly at certain times of the day. Idea Title West Clark Blvd Idea Detail The two deep curves in West Clark Blvd should be straightened and sidewalks should be added so it is safe for parents to walk their children to school. Idea Title Traffic light timing Idea Detail Traffic lights need to be synchronized to help the flow of traffic Idea Title South Church Street Kroger Idea Detail If you try to make a left out of the Kroger on South Church Street near Starbucks it’s almost impossible to turn and is very dangerous.
Comment 1 Thankfully, the planning of that Kroger called for an exit to Innsbrooke Blvd and the light there at Church. | By Stephen S
Idea Title Widen Old Fort Old fork Parkway is a huge bottleneck especially on Fridays and weekends! It could easily be expanded to 3 lanes on each side from Broad to I-24. Install a road from Idea Detail the service road by Northern tool, Gold's gym etc. to Old Fort Parkway. There is already a signal at Old Fort and Stones river Mall Rd. Too many more suggestions for mention here. Would be more than willing to discuss with appropriate people.
Idea Title Hwy 96 East and Middle TN Blvd Idea Detail Hwy 96 East and Middle TN Blvd along with TN Blvd need a Big Change to make an easier flow of traffic and reduce a red lights.. A roundabout would a be a big help!
TOPIC: Bikeway Network Idea Title We need to closely examine all routes adjacent to MTSU. Routes adjacent to MTSU, the high schools and junior highs, the large employers, and then connect those bike lanes and bike facilities to transit. The wins are many: better health, people can get around more easily to work, to the grocery store, to doctor appointments, to shopping, becoming known as a city that is friendly to Idea Detail employees, etc. There is also a huge intangible benefit to seeing people outdoors, walking and talking and going back and forth from point A to point B, and making things happen. The type of environment is an ongoing visual of a bustling, hustling, happening place. And with our often-moderate weather, this can happen nearly all year round. I think this is a huge "must" for a college town.
Idea Title City-wide Idea Detail There has to be connectivity in order to be effective. The City's Greenway Blueway and Bikeway Plan showed great opportunities to make that happen.
Idea Title Church, Broad, Old Fort Idea Detail It is very hard and unsafe to maneuver by bike or foot on our major roads.
Idea Title I'd like to see a mountain bike trail Idea Detail Currently have to drive to Antioch, Tullahoma, Mt Juliet, or further to ride a trail.
Comment 1 This would certainly be a possibility if the city acquires the Burgess property for the new park. | By Stephen S
Idea Title Better crossings at Memorial & Broad Downtown could certainly use more bike racks. Especially on the square. But one big thing that's missing are easy places to cross our biggest arteries. Getting a bike Idea Detail across Broad Street or Memorial can be a very risky endeavor.
Idea Title More of this down town and around MTSU. Idea Detail Shared walking and bike trails.
Idea Title Before we add more trails and greenway All of our green way locations should have sidewalks to them. These trail heads are great, but people have to get into their cars and drive to them, does not anyone else Idea Detail see this as a bit strange?
Comment 1 I agree. Also, the greenway needs to connect to MTSU somehow. | By Jo W
Comment 2 Both of these comments are important, and address the need for increased connectivity and walkability within the City. | By Aaron T
How about a moratorium on greenways, trails and bike lanes until we have completed building sideways on all necessary city streets? The moratorium should also be in place until the city can retire all debt in less than 5 years. Let's get our priorities straight. We also need to stop acting like making a walkable city is the most important Comment 3 thing ever. It needs to be possible to walk safely down the streets where we drive our cars. You should have that option, but that shouldn't change how we plan our city. We drive cars. We will for the next 20 years at least. We need to plan for that. You can't drop off your kid at school and commute 30 miles to work on a bike. Of course that brings up the fact that our city (or should I say Destination Rutherford) has failed miserably at recruiting white collar jobs. | By Jeff R
Idea Title More Bike lanes and paths. Along Sulphur Springs Rd and 231 in particular Idea Detail The greenway is great but it is too dangerous to get to on a bike. Extend the greenway north past the Thompson Lane trailhead.
Comment 1 Maybe connect the Thompson Lane Trailhead to the Richard Siegel Park Trail Head? | By Greg P
Idea Title More bike lanes are needed around the MTSU campus. Idea Detail While there are already a few bike lanes around campus, more would make it a bit safer for the bikers.
Comment 1 Great comment. Specifically, which streets would you like to see bike lanes added? | By Aaron T
Idea Title Easy access for bikes in the downtown area & MTSU Idea Detail A lot of student commute by bike and live in the downtown area.
Idea Title Downtown/Church St. Idea Detail Anywhere in the downtown area, anywhere near MTSU, and definitely the entire length of S. Church St.
Idea Title Walter Hill Area to Thompson Lane Idea Detail We need bike lanes on 231 that connect to Thompson lane
Idea Title Haynes, PItts Lane Idea Detail Very dangerous traveling by bike or walking down these roads. These serve as a major connectors to DeJarnette, Thompson, and Northfield.
Idea Title DeJarnette and Memorial streets Idea Detail DeJarnette and Memorial streets as well as other busy intersections could be improved by making it easier for pedestrians and bicyclists to cross.
Idea Title Bike Lanes Idea Detail All major roadways such as Memorial, Church and Broad
Idea Title Bike path along River Rock Boulevard to Old Fort Parkway Along Old Fort Parkway in front of Target and the mall would be a perfect opportunity to build a separate bike path from the road. The path could start along River Rock Boulevard and could connect to the greenway along West Fork Stones River and continue on between Target and the businesses along Chaffin Place to eventually go Idea Detail along Old Fort Parkway between North and South Frontage Road in front of Target and the mall (with a bridge across Old Fort Parkway at the intersection of Old Fort Parkway and Thompson Lane). Bike racks could be installed to the stores along this stretch and maybe connect the path to the other greenway at Old Fort Park. This will at least connect some neighborhoods across I-24 to the primary shopping areas of Murfreesboro.
Idea Title Expansion of Rover Idea Detail some routes that circle the city Vs returning downtown
Idea Title Hwy 96 and Rutherford Blvd behind MTSU Idea Detail With the apartment traffic on Hwy 96 a bike lane would make it a lot safer, and continue around Rutherford Blvd to John Bragg Hwy.
TOPIC: Sidewalks and Trails Idea Title Main street from MTSU to Rutherford From MTSU Blvd to Rutherford in front of Slick Pig area has no sidewalks. This is a dangerous area to walk since the road is two lane in areas. I avoid this area at all Idea Detail times when running. Idea Title Church Street needs major pedestrian consideration How on earth was the fire station built on S. Church without sidewalks in front of it? I see "new construction" like Bojangles and Smoothie King have a sidewalk. The in- continuity is ridiculous and prevents pedestrians from being able to walk/bike the area. The stop light at Kroger/ Innsbrooke DESPERATELY needed a cross-walk to link Idea Detail Church St./ Barfield Elem. access and was not included. How can we encourage citizens to walk/ bike to Barfield Park when you cannot SAFELY cross Church St. to get there? Same for the corner of Warrior/ S. Church. I see Riverdale students trying to cross Church for McDonald's...SO DANGEROUS without a cross walk. This is much more important than a greenway or bike lanes. You can't even walk across the bridge over the Stones River safely. The shoulder was repaved to add Comment 1 another lane years ago. That was the right thing to do, but sidewalks should have been added. | By Jeff R Idea Title City-wide Idea Detail Rather than 5' sidewalks, we need more trails and multi-use paths. Wider, with better separation from traffic. Idea Title S. Church St. There is hardly any room for pedestrians on Church St., even though there are a few Rover stops throughout. It seems very dangerous for anyone who is walking or Idea Detail riding a bike. Idea Title S. Church St. Memorial Blvd. Downtown S. Church St. could really use sidewalks, especially considering there are already several Rover stops throughout the length of the street. Same goes for Memorial Blvd. Idea Detail Downtown already supports a large population of bikers but connecting to the rest of the city definitely needs improvement. Idea Title Downtown Even though I live 4 blocks from the square, there are lots of examples of missing sidewalks or overgrown brick walks that are simply out of date and not at all handicap accessible. There is a group who I see training blind people to navigate downtown. They frequent my street (Maney Ave). I'm always just a little disgusted when I see Idea Detail them have to navigate into a street because either a sidewalk is missing or the intersection doesn't have an ADA compliant crossing. I can't stress enough just how badly our downtown needs to be brought up to speed with other areas of this town. Don't forget the heart of the city!!! If we're not careful we'll have an "inner city" instead of a "historic downtown".
Idea Title Continue to expand and connect the Greenway. Idea Detail Make the Greenway people and animal friendly. Idea Title Bradyville Idea Detail There are lots of pedestrians on Cypress Dr, Minerva, and Bradyville Idea Title Main St by MTSU Idea Detail The sidewalks need to be extended from where they terminate in front of MTSU Parking Services. Extend the sidewalks all the way to the MTSU intramural fields. Idea Title The neighborhoods that surround MTSU Idea Detail Specifically East Main Street east of Middle Tennessee Blvd.
Idea Title North Highland Avenue We are missing a good connection between N. Highland and downtown because of a lack of sidewalks and pedestrian crossing at Highland and Clark. People walk or Idea Detail bike this way all the time.
Idea Title Maney Avenue from E Main to Oakland's Idea Detail This area should of historical interest to tourist and local citizens.
Idea Title Haynes and Pitts Lane Idea Detail Pretty dangerous to walk these roads.
Idea Title All areas especially Thompson Ln, Memorial Blvd We all need to walk more but we need to be able to walk safely. There are businesses on Memorial Blvd that I would like to walk to their locations, however it is not safe Idea Detail to walk in the street. Walking would be free exercise for myself and others.
Idea Title Streets should be safe for pedestrians Idea Detail We spend money on busses, but people have to take their life in their hands to walk to a bus stop because of high shoulders on roads and no sidewalks.
Idea Title Pitts Lane (sidewalk), E. Main St. (sidewalk) Idea Detail These two roads need to have the sidewalks extended and repaired.
Idea Title Wenlon Drive and Clark from MTSU to Memorial There is significant pedestrian traffic along Wenlon Drive originating from multi-family housing and apts to shopping destinations at Northfield and Lascassas. Idea Detail Sidewalks and/or bike lanes would also be helpful from MTSU to Memorial on Clark.
Idea Title Clark Blvd. Idea Detail Clark Blvd from Memorial to MTSU.
Idea Title Dill Lane Dill Lane should be widened with sidewalks and bike lanes on both sides of the street. Also the street behind the Tractor Supply that leads to Rutherford Blvd could use Idea Detail sidewalks. It is not safe for residents to walk to that retail area.
Idea Title Anywhere Idea Detail Murfreesboro does not have many sidewalks. I would be happy for any.
Idea Title Church Street
Idea Detail Finish the greenway past Barfield
Survey Question Topic Name (Instant Poll) Transportation Projects
Idea Title Widen existing roadways (which ones?) Idea Title More sidewalks and trails (where?) Idea Title Offer more public transit choices (where?)
Idea Title Construct new roadways to improve connectivity (where?) Idea Title More bike lanes and other bike facilities (where?) Idea Title Repair existing roadways (which ones?) Comments
Number of 8 Comments We could benefit from improved flow to Oaklands Historic House Museum and Ransom School House (now open Saturdays) from Medical Center Pkwy. Currently Evergreen Street, which is not wide enough for two cars to pass, is the most direct route making it difficult for tourists to navigate. Currently Rover does not provide transportation to and from tourists destinations like Oaklands and Stones River National Battlefield. Downtown business are currently renting a trolley to aid in Comment 1 transportation of residents and tourists alike. Residents could benefit from sidewalks that connect the walking trails, playground, etc. of Oakland’s Park to N. Maney Avenue and Highland Ave. The renovation of the former MTMMC for Murfreesboro Police Dept. might necessitate a cross-walk between that location and Oaklands park on opposite sides of Highland. I know the employees at MTMMC needed that when they were there. Thanks, JM | By James M
S Church needs sidewalks! I know they are working to widen Veterans Parkway. Although not one of the choices we need a light at Veterans and Barfield road. It's Comment 2 impossible during busy hours. | By Alisa C
Sidewalks needed on S. Church Street. Comment 3 | By Alisa C
Comment 4 Rucker lane reconstruction as a ton of new motorist are driving through narrow road with no shoulder. | By Henry H
Paint arrows/hwy#s in lanes along Broad south of Old Fort Pkwy to help motorists through the confusing lane shifts. Extend Veterans Pkwy north to I-24 & Murfreesboro Comment 5 Rd. | By Bob M
Comment 6 Mountain bike Trail needed in the Boro!!!@ | By Jim H
Comment 7 Improve streets in the downtown area with new sidewalks and wider streets. Extend N Maney Avenue to Oakland's. Provide for bikes on these streets. | By Gwen B
Comment 8 Perhaps more right turn lanes. I understand land acquisition, moving utilities, etc., are all very expensive. Still right turn lanes are very effective. | By Frank C
Topic Name Needs and Opportunities
Idea Title More pedestrian-friendly sidewalks all over town. I think so many of us would like to walk places more often than we can. This city needs to become more pedestrian-friendly in order to foster a sense of autonomy and Idea Detail independence.
I think you just want to assess a higher tax rate... how the heck can we afford elevated crosswalks everywhere? there are plenty of place to walk, we've got 11 miles of Comment 1 connected greenways all over the place... now we have "bike lanes" being put in everywhere... are they also considered pedestrian lanes?
We should consider elevated crosswalks in congested areas to permit a safe crossing for our citizens. School zones near major highways and partnering with MTSU and Comment 2 the State near the campus and facilitate this, reduce congestion and give our community something vitally needed.
Idea Title More sidewalks. We are not a pedestrian friendly community. We have rover, but you must take your life in your own hands by walking on the shoulder in most places. Instead of building green ways we should be building Idea Detail pedestrian ways for people to get around town without having to drive. Few people can walk to a greenway, they must drive to walk and that's a problem.
Comment 1 and more, just how much walking are you going to do around town... why is it a problem to drive to the greenway?
Every major thoroughfare and collector streets need sidewalks. Not everyone ones a car. We have to realize that. South Church on the south side of I-24 has a bridge Comment 3 across the stones river with no shoulder or sidewalk. How can that be? You shouldn't have to risk your life to walk to the store. We need better prioritization of how we spend our funds. We should suspend all Greenway Building until we make walking to the store or bus stop safe.
Idea Title Transportation alternatives We need crosswalks, sidewalks, and more options for transportation. No new roads should be built or existing roads substantially improved without the addition of pedestrian amenities. For example, all of the recent work on Memorial should result in crosswalks at all intersections with traffic signals. The poor condition of and Idea Detail lack of sidewalks around the university detracts from the livability of our city as well. I am not willing to bike due to the culture here, but I should be able to walk and cross the street without undue safety concerns.
I support the idea of addressing the walkability of Murfreesboro as a whole. I see the opportunities near MTSU, near Rover stops and Memorial Blvd. As for Memorial, I Comment 1 used to live in a nearby neighborhood and would have walked downtown had it been safe. Also, I see kids walking across the street from Sports Com and senior citizens crossing from a nursing home. I can only expect more pedestrians once Walmart and the new apartment complex open. | By Terra G
I am not talking about biking for fun, for which the greenway is lovely. I live across from the new Walmart and walk with my family to places on my side of Memorial. The lack of crosswalks means no safe access to the other side. It also means I see people dodging across Memorial occasionally. The demand is reduced by lack of access, Comment 2 so a survey of potential users would be legitimate as opposed to actual users. Either way, it's too late. They did all of the construction, added bike lanes which only an insane person would use, cut out the sidewalks at every intersection (for some reason), and as far as I can tell, did not add a single crosswalk. | By Karen P
I want to see a survey of people who walk down or across memorial? I don't think that many people are clamoring to walk down Memorial and what is the culture here Comment 3 that prevents you from biking? There is 11 miles of connected paved greenways you can bike on. Why wouldn't you use that? | By Jim S
Idea Title Complete Streets
Idea Detail Safer way for people to walk and bike places. Obesity rate in Murfreesboro is high. We need easy ways to be active in everyday life
So how do you make people bike that don't want to? Comment 1 Complete Streets is straight out of the UN with all the other greenhouse gas bilge... there is no justification for every street being "multimodal" - a huge waste of money. | By Jim S
Idea Title Bicycle & pedestrian accessibility Murfreesboro has great potential to be a bicycle friendly city. It is a university town that is flat. Lots of people can ride their bikes, regardless of their fitness level. Idea Detail Bicycle and pedestrian access not only reduces traffic, pollution, and stress on our roads; it creates opportunities for citizens to safely enjoy healthy modes of transportation. Many of our commercial spaces are within walking distance of residential areas, yet there are no safe pathways to them.
Comment 1 I agree with Jim S about paving the entire Greenway. That's neither necessary nor green. | By Lynnisse R
Jim S. is correct. We need to look at ways to get a ban on eminent domain for parks/greenways in place. This might take legislative action at the state level to Comment 2 accomplish. It takes a morally bankrupt city to use eminent domain to take part of someone's American Dream. Murfreesboro needs to learn how to respect property rights. This is true with eminent domain and zoning issues. | By Jeff R
Well, we already have 11 miles of paved bike paths and that doesn't include the miles and miles of bike paths on our main roads like Memorial, Thompson Lane etc. I don't know if you realize it but it costs more than $1,000,000 PER MILE to build a greenway/bike path. I don't understand why, if we value the ecology that we are paving a road next to the Stones River and want to continue this until every mile of the Stones River has a paved road! Is this common sense? BTW, the city already Comment 3 approved 165 miles of bikeways and greenways... just can't wait to see how they will pay for it and how many people will lose their precious access and property along the Stones River from eminent domain. Ask Dave Curry about this, he almost lost the house he built by hand to the greenway until a few citizens raised a ruckus with the city... the weird thing is, his house is in the county and the city has not annexed the land, so here is a guy that cannot vote for a city councilman or the mayor but they are effecting his property. | By Jim S This is great feedback. Hopefully the development of Murfreesboro's Greenway System will provide a framework for accessible trails for bicyclist and pedestrians | By Comment 4 Frances K
Idea Title Mountain bike trail system (Barfield Park) Idea Detail sorba/imba will build the trails. Parking and restrooms are already there.
Idea Title A monorail I was thinking that Murfreesboro could use a monorail like system. We could place tracks down on the turning lanes of major roads and have a monorail run on them. In Idea Detail order to prevent crashes, we could install motion sensors so it would stop when an object or person is on the rail. it would be faster and better than the current Rover bus system we have now and could be connected to Smyrna , LaVergne , and even Nashville
Idea Title Light/commuter rail, municipal internet, more high tech jobs There's no reason why Murfreesboro can't be a destination for high tech jobs like Franklin and Brentwood are. Attracting high tech jobs attracts money. Nearly Idea Detail everyone I know commutes to Nashville, Franklin, or Brentwood for work. That's a lot of money being spent outside of Murfreesboro. Metropolitan ethernet would be one way to attract more high tech jobs.
We definitely to expand our current transit system---Rover---to make it more useful for those who work, especially second shift. We are slotted to get Google Fiber when Comment 1 Nashville does. That will be huge. | By Terri S
Idea Title What about property rights? Most of the 'wish list' items people are listing comes with a price tag.. the city would have to acquire the property - cost you tax dollars.. someone most likely would have to give up their property through eminent domain... tantamount to legalized stealing... I wonder how many people will lose the land they own now next to the Stones River once the greenway finally gets to them? It will bring a paved road in their back yard plus the added risk of thugs on bikes - greenways make good getaways for thieves on bikes... Idea Detail The cost to develop it vs the number of people who use it.. at a million dollars per mile to develop the greenway is this really prudent to spend so much tax dollar on more of it? I am more concerned about my property rights What made Murfreesboro great is still here... people love it so much is for what it is NOW... making a wholesale change & trying to change the character of our town by "selling" us on High Density Mixed Use Walkable may throwing the baby out
The real question is how much will peoples' property value increase as a result of being adjacent to a greenway. There are multiple examples across the country that Comment 1 prove these amenities such as recreational trails and greenways are significant revenue generators. | By Aaron T
I don't know how it works---acquiring land to expand the greenway. If it includes acquiring private property, that should be approached carefully. People are paid for Comment 2 their land, right? There is a balance here, but I would like to see the Greenway expanded even more, with consideration for private property rights. | By Terri S
The rights of the individual trump the collective good. We are not a communist nation. You don't have the right to take my land for a park/greenway. That is morally Comment 3 reprehensible. | By Jeff R
Plenty of people use the Greenway systems - especially families and older folks. Just because you don't use it doesn't mean it shouldn't be there for others. | By Comment 4 Stephanie T We have the ROVER transit system that isn't adequate enough. ROVER needs to have more routes, longer routes and available on weekends. They need to have more bus drivers also for the same routes so that there could be longer routes and better than what we have now. I understand that Rover is now going to change the route where they don't go to The Avenue which is a mistake also. You have to walk a
Idea Detail long way get on a Rover location to get picked up. Rover system is a start but it needs to be a whole lot better that what we have. There needs to be a way to have better funding to expand Rover's system to meet the needs of the Murfreesboro community. I think if it was expanded to meet the needs of all citizens in Murfreesboro there would be more people that would ride the buses. The Relax and Ride system needs to be expanded than just going to downtown Nashville and have a transit system that goes to more places that just Nashville and also a weekend route. Monorail--we have to be thinking big and into the future to accommodate the projected influx of new people in 20 yrs. It's not unreasonable to be thinking out-side the Comment 1 box NOW. | By Cynthia H
Comment 2 Definitely! Please expand transit. It is a huge key to economic success for any city. We need to expand to second shift hours. | By Terri S
Comment 3 I don't understand why our buses aren't used for advertising. Most cities sell ads on their buses and shelters. We don't have to have a picture of a dog. | By Jeff R
The reason funding is so hard is the Rover doesn't pay for itself... it is a black hole money goes to die... I really believe they have those Rover buses "wrapped" so you/me Comment 4 can't see how many people DON"T use it and it is underutilized... do what the city is pushing for... ride a bike instead... | By Jim S
Idea Title Bike paths throughout Murfreesboro I would like Murfreesboro to incorporate bike paths throughout the city for both recreational use and as a mode of transportation. The City has bike lanes on a few major roads, but these bike lanes are not fully utilized as they are unsafe for some bicyclists. I would like to see paths wide enough to allow both bicyclists and pedestrians to utilize that do not necessarily follow existing roads but instead follow the most Idea Detail convenient route by the shortest distance. Maybe these trails could incorporate parts of the current Greenway for some sections. Bike share programs can be implemented for those who do not own a bike. Nashville currently has these programs in place as well as many other communities across the nation. The one benefit that Murfreesboro has for implementing this is our landscape...it is FLAT! I attached a picture of what this could look like. Not all areas of the path will look like this, but the commercial corridors might be able to look like this.
Idea Title Richard Siegel park green way Idea Detail Connect the Richard Siegel park Green Way head to the rest of the Murfreesboro green way system.
Idea Title Bike lanes Idea Detail Add more bike lanes where ever possible. especially connecting from Walter hill area towards town
Idea Title Me personally, would like to see a mountain bike trail. Idea Detail I would like to see a mountain bike trail in the Boro. The nearest ones now require a drive to Antioch or Mt. Juliet.
Topic Name Recent Progress
Idea Title Make biking a real option It needs to be a safer city for biking and walking. City planning should make these options more appealing to help increase physical fitness, decrease traffic, and allow Idea Detail more people to safely navigate our city.
Bike lanes are too close to car lanes. Put a green space in-between them to increase safety and then maybe more people would use them for walking and riding Comment 1 bicycles. I'm too scared to ride a bike alongside a car going 50 miles an hour down Memorial! Our drivers here are not accustomed to it either. It's an educational process- one you usually grow up with like in Europe or campus areas. | By Cynthia H
Comment 2 In what ways could you see biking and walking made safer in the City? | By Frances K
Idea Title Developing the Gateway Rutherford Business & Retail District I believe that this new system of upgraded roads, interstate exit, retail, and offices show Murfreesboro in a good light to visitors. I would love to see Broad Street from Idea Detail Church Street to Northfield Blvd be improved as it is aging badly.
Don't stop at Church. SE Broad to Mercury Blvd is a public eyesore as well. And the curve right in front of Advance Auto Parts is incredibly dangerous for any pedestrian Comment 1 brave/stupid enough to walk on that sidewalk. | By Stephen S
Idea Title greenway, farmer's market on square, and bike lanes I'm glad to see progress on the greenway, and would love to see it integrated with bike lanes into the city to serve as safe routes for cyclist, rather than something you Idea Detail drive to access.
Idea Title Roads, Stinger Medical, Schwan Corp, Fire Dept, Schools Murfreesboro has used the economic downturn to catch up on road building. We still have some construction to go; but Medical Center, Joe B Jackson and Veterans Pkys have set the city up for success. The Stinger Medical and Schawn included corporate jobs instead of just manufacturing. Murfreesboro need to use these Idea Detail accomplishment to recruit more high paying corporate jobs to our community. Murfreesboro top rated Fire Dept. is an asset to our city. The quality of our city and county schools is a major driver of our residential growth.
You are correct Stephen. Add 96 west to that list. Rutherford county pays a lot taxes to the state. We need to push hard to get these items done. The city has done Comment 1 their part to fund roads. We need to demand our state stand up and return some of our money to fix these issues. This will take help from our delegation to Nashville. | By Jeff R We still need to find a way to expedite state road projects like Hwy 99, Manchester Hwy and Bradyville Rd. Those three projects are critically important and have been for Comment 2 at least five years each. Yet little progress has been made on any of them. | By Stephen S
Idea Title Maintaining ties with MTSU. Expanding bikes. MTSU will continue to be the beacon that will bring an educated populace into the area. This is becoming a first rate place to bike. But drivers have to buy into Idea Detail expanding those opportunities in town. You could make this town a real tourist destination with a solid biking community.
Comment 1 biking community! YES! | By Greg P
Idea Title Greenway, Rover, Roads, Veteran's Parkway, I-24 Exit 80 Idea Detail Recreation and transportation are two major components for successful urban development.
Idea Title Road conditions have been kept up Idea Detail Traffic is rarely effected by construction, of course that may not be true with the Memorial/Broad exit, but that's understandable.
Idea Title Rover and Medical facilities Rover is the infant of what modern transportation planners have been calling for Medical facilities are state of the art. The city/profession needs to match the Idea Detail treatment level with the facilities
Topic Name Game Changer
Idea Title The city needs to go back and fill in infrastructure When we moved here 14 yrs ago, we were appalled at the lack of sidewalks in many newer neighborhoods. My kids can't walk anywhere in our particular neighborhood Idea Detail b/c some driver is going to mow them down. Other places we've lived have sidewalks. Go back and build them.
I could not agree more regarding lack of sidewalks being a major problem. How can we encourage walking (for example near MTSU) without sidewalks? I do NOT expect Comment 1 all neighborhoods to have them, but main road connections should for safety and promotion of foot traffic. | By Lisa W
The sidewalks are a city-wide issue because of the lack of pedestrian crosswalks and signals. What good are sidewalks if the city doesn't make it safe for pedestrians to Comment 2 cross. A great example is at Memorial and Clark Boulevard Intersection. I wouldn't dare try to cross that street any time of day. | By Justice M
Comment 3 Particular neighborhoods. Sidewalks give a "good feel" to the neighborhoods. | By Gwen B
Comment 4 Do you think that the lack of sidewalks is a city-wide issue or are sidewalks lacking just in particular neighborhoods? | By Frances K
Idea Title Regional Mass Transit Murfreesboro city residents and leaders have virtually no control over this "game changing" development. But few things would have as widespread, positive impact on our city as the development of a comprehensive, convenient mass transit option to Nashville. I spend 500 hours a year on I-24, and that is usually getting in FRONT of Idea Detail rush "hour" traffic. I can only imagine the economic impact that would result from increased productivity if I and tens of thousands of other residents were able to spend less time in traffic.
This has always been a problem. I rode the Greyhound bus to work in Nashville 45 years ago and had to walk to my office from the bus station. However, the schedules Comment 1 were workable. One Express Bus will not solve this problem! | By Gwen B
I absolutely agree about the transfer issue Mike. I don't ride the Express Bus to Nashville as the afternoon bus options are 30 minutes BEFORE I get off work or 30 Comment 2 minutes AFTER. | By Stephen S
The basic problem that keeps regional mass transit from working anywhere (never has/never will) is that once a commuter gets to the end point, they're at a transit station, not where they want to go. They still have to find a way from the station to their destination. That's not bad for the few who are within walking distance of their Comment 3 target location but what about the other 99%. They have to access other mass transit. That means cabs or buses. That brings up the issues of route matching and added costs. And what happens when they get off early or work late and there's no matching transit service? There are many other detracting factors that explain why cities with regional services still have many times more commuters that still drive parallel to an existing transit system. | By Mike L
Idea Title Regional Transportation to include a rail system The I-24 corridor has become difficult and dangerous to navigate due to the explosion of traffic. A regional transportation system must quickly be put into place if Idea Detail people are going to willing to locate her and commute.
Comment 1 Would make sense but will it ever happen? | By Henry H
Idea Title Creating a walkable community + expanding public transit Every day, I see more and more people in Murfreesboro walking. Up and down the streets, crossing the streets, riding their bikes. With our temperate weather, we could be a year-round walkable community if we had the infrastructure, like sidewalks and more bike paths, plus an expanded public transit system. Many of our businesses have 2nd and 3rd shifts, and many of these jobs are entry-level, appealing to people moving up from minimum wage to the next level. They need public Idea Detail transportation. MTSU students, especially international ones, need public transportation. We need to expand Rover to midnight on weekdays first, then to Saturday, and start at 5 a.m. on weekdays. We need more sidewalks. Tennesseans have one of the worst obesity problems---this is the intersection of better health, economic expansion, putting people to work and connecting with MTSU.
Idea Title 600 people a month are moving to Rutherford County, we need Idea Detail To four lane 41 highway from middle Tenn Blvd. past Buchannon elements school. That part of town is growing we need to get in gear.
Comment 1 This corridor is one of the three most needed road projects in the city. Yet I fear it will be reactive construction rather than proactive. | By Stephen S
Idea Title The new bridge over Broad If the new bridge over Broad Street does nothing to reflect the character of the downtown area, then we will need to decide who should be hired to blow it up, and then Idea Detail start over again to create another pathway into town at another crossing point of the Stones River.
Topic Name Opportunities or Concerns to Growth
Idea Title Make the Greeways safer for all citizens to use. The negative aspects of a larger city include more criminals even if the crime rate is unchanged. The number grows with the population. As we grow from 120K to near 200K, our Greenways could become more dangerous. We are already seeing this in some areas. The best way to combat this situation is to allow handgun carry Idea Detail permit holders to lawfully carry on the Greenway. This would have the desired effect of putting the criminal element on notice that the Greenway is off limits. Our state and federal parks allow carry. Our city should also. It's the only effective way to keep our Greenways safe due to their secluded nature. Our Greenways are a great asset to the community. Let's keep the safe for all.
Idea Title More and better public transportation ROVER's routes and rates are not student-friendly. Their student rate ends at age 16. Students who need to ride ROVER are not getting cars at age 16. Student rates should be in effect as long as a student can prove that he is attending a public school. Routes are hard to figure out and may not get a student to school on time. Idea Detail School systems need to be able to buy ROVER tickets with a county PO. There's also a need for transportation to after school and weekend activities for middle and high school students living in motels and shelters.
Topic Name Locating Businesses Downtown
Idea Title Identify parking
In December I accidently discovered the parking lot a few blocks from the square. Near the bank. I would like to see something in the local newspaper that identifies Idea Detail the locations available for parking.
Idea Title Allow more parking options I slightly disagree with another comment on removing 2-hour parking limits on the square, BUT something should be done to increase short-term parking opportunity Idea Detail near merchants. The worst is when court is in session...no hope of parking. We may be familiar with the vehicles of attorneys/employees. To see them park for work, thus eliminating shopping spots, is discouraging. They really need to use the garage. THANK YOU for the reserved voter spots in front of the election commission.
Idea Title Loosen up the parking requirements on business and change. Change the zoning requirements to allow for mix uses in the neighborhoods. Stop allowing suburban type developments to be built in the downtown area, starting with the new county judicial building. Require retail to be included in any new development in the downtown area including parking garages, Ban offices (especially lawyer Idea Detail offices) from being on the first floor of buildings on the square. The square should be strictly restaurant and retail only on the first floor. Encourage a hotel to locate in the downtown area with the use of TIF.
Topic Name Areas for Growth
Idea Title Exit 81 off I-24 This area of town along South Church St between Middle TN Blvd and Warrior Dr is convoluted mess of commercial, industrial, agricultural and residential. Many of the Idea Detail commercial developments are older, neglected eye-sores. Some of the newer developments create traffic nightmares. I wish I could wave a magic wand over the entire area and start all over.
Idea Title Over crowding and congestion Thompson Lane and Medical Center Parkway if a booming area and it will only get bigger. It would be really nice if we could spread the businesses out over the city and Idea Detail not cluster them in one area. Another area is Hwy 99, the road expansion hasn't even begun and the houses being built is causing more and more traffic. Hwy 99 can hardly handle the flow of traffic now in the peak times of the day.
Idea Title East of I24. Memorial from one end to the other - too many fast food chains. It looks like any town in America. Where's the uniqueness that is M'boro? Make the Cason Lane Idea Detail intersection with Old Fort Park better. Fix the intersection of Haynes and Memorial - we've been begging for a real light there for years, with pedestrian crosswalks, etc. Fix the intersection at Sulphur Springs and Northfield. Don't let accidents determine where fixes should go in. That light is an accident waiting to happen.
Topic Name Neighborhoods
Idea Title Sidewalks!!!!! Idea Detail Sidewalks encourage people in the community to get out. They meet each other and care more.
Idea Title Accessible parks and greenspace I want to be able to walk or bike from my home to a park, without getting in a car. I want my child to grow up spending time playing outside, and I want our family to Idea Detail play in safe parks and trails. Sidewalks are important, and I prefer greenways and multi-use paths as shown in Murfreesboro's Greenway Blueway and Bikeway Master Plan. I think every child and adult in Murfreesboro needs access to parks and greenspace.
Idea Title mature trees, sidewalks, bikpaths, neighborhood parks Make it easy to enjoy the outdoors. Some new neighborhoods look like prisons - all concrete and the only way to enjoy anything natural would be to get in your car and Idea Detail go somewhere else. Let's promote and make it easy to get outside.
Idea Title East Main St. Pedestrian walk-way
Would love to see vehicular traffic prohibited each evening on East Main Street for a designated period of time to encourage walking/jogging/strolling on a larger basis, Idea Detail much like the mall at Williamsburg. This area could extend from the courthouse to Middle Tennessee Blvd. (or a shorter length). Would also like to see gas lamps or lanterns more indicative of the Civil War period. This could bring many visitors to the downtown area and make it a destination location.
Idea Title Sidewalks. Lighted Streets. Trees. Sustainable Development Sidewalks are an advantage on every level, from kids getting dropped off by the bus to providing a safe place for walkers/joggers, any type of transportation in general that is not a car. Lighted streets just make people feel safer. Trees add aesthetic value but more importantly, provide shade to streets and houses, homes for wildlife keeping the ecosystem in check, and obviously give oxygen and lower pollution output. A neighborhood that is developed sustainably considers the environment and Idea Detail how it affected by the development. This is especially important in Murfreesboro because of the close proximity of the Stones River and all its tributaries literally running through so many developments and neighborhoods. This water is important as it eventually becomes our drinking water. Runoff can become a huge issue during development. Idea Title I would like a more walkable city. Idea Detail Widened, well lit streets with curbs and sidewalks on both sides of the street.
Topic Name Downtown: What brings you here?
Idea Title Walkability I bought a home downtown b/c of the lifestyle that the neighborhood provides. Beautiful historic homes, delicious restaurants, safe-ish parks, sometimes good Idea Detail sidewalks (You guys gotta work on those north of main street).
Topic Name (Instant Poll) Biggest Obstacle to Improving Quality of Life
Idea Title Traffic Congestion One of the biggest obstacles to addressing the traffic congestion appears to be the lack of cooperation from the state. As our city continues to grow, our state roads are not improved BEFORE the development comes. We know development is coming along Manchester Hwy and along Hwy 99. Both roads should have been widened a Comment 2 decade ago. The growth is happening but the state delays allocating the funds to address the congestion. Those two road projects are going to be nightmares when they finally begin. (See "Bridge Over Broad" as an example of delayed funding for a project needed for decades.) | By Stephen S
The biggest problem is congestion. The other is aesthetics. It takes me 25 minutes to get from my place near MTSU to the interstate. There are no easy ways out to get out of this town. Way too many traffic lights don't help, either. Murfreesboro needs a limited access or auxiliary route from the center of town to the interstate. Other Comment 5 cities such as Huntsville and Chattanooga have these routes and they work great. Huntsville has interstate 565, and Chattanooga has U.S. 27. The second problem is aesthetics. Broad Street, Church Street, and Memorial Boulevard are eyesore full of used car dealers, pawn and title loan businesses. Is this the type of community we want visitors to see when they come here? | By Justice M
Honestly, the more time I sit in traffic the less time I have to shop/dine at local businesses. Many times I avoid the Old Fort area due to the horrible congestion at exit 78 or the access road near Panera. It's not worth it! The traffic keeps me home! Comment 6 My "other" selection is due to needing more high-paying white collar jobs. These are driving into Nashville every day. I have read recently about a plan for this...so we'll see. | By Lisa W
Broad St. Memorial Blvd. and Church St. are now travel nightmares. We don't fix the problem, we add to it. Stop the unabated additions of new residential tracks and apartments. The schools are completely overloaded and nothing is done. All in the name of progress right? Comment 14 Our elected officials are supposed to protect us, not screw us. And the 3 aforementioned routes? Well, they are now a virtual sea of used car lots. Zero forward thinking on zone issues, unless, of course, someone will make a lot of money. Nice work Murfreesboro. | By Ken A
Traveling through town is too congested and takes too long now. Need to control growth by preserving open space and issuing less residential building permits. This will Comment 15 help with congestion in schools and roads. | By Becki J
Survey Questions Survey Neighborhood Features in Other Cities
Question Check the top three Entry Trails for walking, jogging, skating, and bicycling
Votes 15
Entry Ponds, lakes, and other water amenities (recreation and drainage functions)
Votes 9
Entry Nature preserve
Votes 11
Entry Children’s playground
Votes 5
Entry Splash pads
Votes 2
Entry Recreation center / clubhouse
Votes 5
Entry Swimming pool
Votes 6
Entry Community gardens
Votes 12
Entry Picnic areas
Votes 4
Entry Convenience stores at the edge of the neighborhood
Votes 6
Entry Other (please comment in detail)
Votes 2
Comments
Number of 2 Comments More neighborhood home based businesses that could provide hair care, alterations, dog grooming, photography and artist studios, etc., etc. These would provide a Comment 1 more walkable community, encourage neighbors to know one another better, encourage entrepreneurship and add to the economy. | By Susan A
Great concept, Susan. Beyond the excellent points you have made, mixing commercial / office in with residential through home-based businesses also preserves and Comment 2 enhances neighborhood and community character. Are there particular neighborhoods where this kind of land use may be accommodated better than others? | By Aaron T
Survey Providing for Our Seniors
Question Pick the service you think is most needed Entry Access to health care
Votes 0
Entry Other
Votes 7
Answer Accessibility to and connection with the community.
Answer Affordable assisted living. Who can afford 5k per month?
Communities with affordable, but upscale small single story housing. If Williamson County can do this, so can Murfreesboro. Murfreesboro is cramming large houses on Answer small lots. Forrest Crossing in Franklin is an excellent example of an ideal development. It offers large single family homes with a pool, tennis courts, etc.,. but at the entrance there is a zero lot line section enclosed in a serpentine brick wall with smaller homes, many with only one story. It is a good, diverse neighborhood.
Answer Independent living via affordable and accessible housing such as high density condos.
Mass transportation is either unavailable or unaccessible at hours seniors need it.. Boomers are about to age and have night vision problems or mobility problems Answer which will prevent them from engaging in the community unless there are transportation options.
Answer seniors will have more time
Answer Transportation issues
Entry Assisted living centers
Votes 5
Entry Senior centers
Votes 3
Entry Volunteer outreach to seniors
Votes 3
Entry Recreational activities
Votes 3
Entry Financial planning and education services
Votes 4
Comments
Number of 0 Comments Survey Questions Proximity to Destinations
Question Travel Distance Entry 1 block
Votes 3
Entry 1 half mile (10 minute walk)
Votes 8
Entry 1 mile
Votes 3
Entry 2 miles
Votes 6
Entry 5 miles
Votes 6
Comments
Number of 1 Comments Comment 1 Distance is less of an issue. More important to have the right ambience. | By Rick M
Appendix D: Project Sheets
Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: Robert Rose Connector 2040 MTP Project ID: STI 1 Project Description: Construct new 3 lane road between Robert Rose Drive and Gateway Boulevard
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) N/A 2025 MTP Project ID: N/A Project Length (miles): 0.27 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: 0 Classification: Local Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 4,492 Existing No. Lanes: 0 Proposed No. Lanes: 3
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 0 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 60 Description Date Action Staff presentation to joint City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission & City Council: Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040
Preliminary Engineering ($) $106,860 Rights-of-Way ($) $589,090 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $106,860 Construction ($) $1,068,550 TOTAL $1,871,360 $0 $0
Potential Funding Sources: Local, Developer
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: Clark Boulevard Widening 2040 MTP Project ID: STI 2 Project Description: Widen existing 2 lane road between Memorial Boulevard and Broad Street to 3 lanes
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) N/A 2025 MTP Project ID: N/A Project Length (miles): 1.10 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: 9,026 Classification: Community Collector Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 12,565 - 13,732 Existing No. Lanes: 2 Proposed No. Lanes: 3
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 60 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 60 Description Date Action Staff presentation to joint City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission & City Council: Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040
Preliminary Engineering ($) $586,810 Rights-of-Way ($) $334,500 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $586,810 Construction ($) $5,868,080 TOTAL $7,376,200 $0 $0
Potential Funding Sources: Local
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: Haynes Drive Widening 2040 MTP Project ID: STI 3 Project Description: Widen existing 2 lane road between Memorial Boulevard and Thompson Lane to 3 lanes
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) BL4 2025 MTP Project ID: N/A Project Length (miles): 2.40 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: 7,857 Classification: Minor Arterial Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 10,456 - 10,919 Existing No. Lanes: 3 Proposed No. Lanes: 3
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 60 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 60 Description Date Action Staff presentation to joint City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission & City Council: Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040
Preliminary Engineering ($) $773,100 Rights-of-Way ($) $169,180 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $773,100 Construction ($) $7,730,950 TOTAL $9,446,330 $0 $0
Potential Funding Sources: Local
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: Northfield Boulevard Extension 2040 MTP Project ID: STI 4 Project Description: Extend Northfield Boulevard as a new 5 lane road from NW Broad Street to Thompson Lane
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) N/A 2025 MTP Project ID: N/A Project Length (miles): 0.77 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: 0 Classification: Major Arterial Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 12,152 Existing No. Lanes: 0 Proposed No. Lanes: 5
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 0 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 88 Description Date Action Staff presentation to joint City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission & City Council: Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040
Preliminary Engineering ($) $2,085,610 Rights-of-Way ($) $128,000 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $2,085,610 Construction ($) $20,856,080 TOTAL $25,155,300 $0 $0
Potential Funding Sources: Local
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: Clark Boulevard Extension 2040 MTP Project ID: STI 5 Project Description: Extend Clark Boulevard as a new 3 lane road from NW Broad Street to West College Street
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) N/A 2025 MTP Project ID: N/A Project Length (miles): 0.19 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: 0 Classification: Community Collector Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 4,567 Existing No. Lanes: 0 Proposed No. Lanes: 3
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 0 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 60 \ Date Action Staff presentation to joint City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission & City Council: Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040
Preliminary Engineering ($) $1,018,830 Rights-of-Way ($) $630,105 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $1,018,830 Construction ($) $10,188,330 TOTAL $12,856,095 $0 $0
Potential Funding Sources: Local
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: River Rock Blvd. & SR 99 Connector Road 2040 MTP Project ID: STI 6 Project Description: Construct new 3 lane road with bridge over I-24 from River Rock Boulevard to New Salem Hwy (SR 99)
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) N/A 2025 MTP Project ID: N/A Project Length (miles): 1.40 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: 0 Classification: Commercial Collector Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 8,968 - 12,890 Existing No. Lanes: 0 Proposed No. Lanes: 3
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 0 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 60 Description Date Action Staff presentation to joint City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission & City Council: Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040
Preliminary Engineering ($) $2,664,170 Rights-of-Way ($) $2,312,730 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $2,664,170 Construction ($) $26,641,680 TOTAL $34,282,750 $0 $0
Potential Funding Sources: Local, Developer
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: Molloy Lane Realignment & Widening 2040 MTP Project ID: STI 7 Project Description: Realign North/South Molloy Lane between existing East/West Molloy Lane & Bridge Avenue
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) N/A 2025 MTP Project ID: N/A Project Length (miles): 0.64 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: No Data Classification: Commercial Collector Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 6,367 - 7,307 Existing No. Lanes: 0-2 Proposed No. Lanes: 3
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 0-45 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 60 Description Date Action Staff presentation to joint City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission & City Council: Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040
Preliminary Engineering ($) $242,390 Rights-of-Way ($) $1,150,910 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $242,390 Construction ($) $2,423,890 TOTAL $4,059,580 $0 $0
Potential Funding Sources: Local
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: Cherry Lane Extension 2040 MTP Project ID: STI 8 Project Description: Extend as 5 lane road w/ bridge and overpass from Broad Street to Florence Road
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) N/A 2025 MTP Project ID: N/A Project Length (miles): 1.10 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: 0 Classification: Major Arterial Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 13,827 - 20,218 Existing No. Lanes: 0 Proposed No. Lanes: 5
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 0 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 84 Description Date Action Staff presentation to joint City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission & City Council: Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040
Preliminary Engineering ($) $4,428,370 Rights-of-Way ($) $141,820 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $4,428,370 Construction ($) $44,283,710 TOTAL $53,282,270 $0 $0
Potential Funding Sources: Local, Developer
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: SE Broad (US 41) Widening 2040 MTP Project ID: STI 9 Project Description: Widen existing 2 & 4 lane road from Maney Avenue to Rutherford Boulevard to 5 lanes
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) BR 11 2025 MTP Project ID: MTI 15 Project Length (miles): 2.16 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: 7,295 - 9,618 Classification: Major Arterial Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 14,151 - 19,674 Existing No. Lanes: 2-4 Proposed No. Lanes: 5
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 80 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 84 Description Date Action Staff presentation to joint City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission & City Council: Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040
Preliminary Engineering ($) $973,660 Rights-of-Way ($) $38,750 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $973,660 Construction ($) $9,736,550 TOTAL $11,722,620 $0 $0
Potential Funding Sources: Local, State, Federal
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: Broad Street (US 41/70) Widening 2040 MTP Project ID: STI 10 Project Description: Widen existing 4 lane median divided road from Medical Center Parkway to I-840 to 7 lanes
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) BL 13, BR 1 2025 MTP Project ID: MTI 1 Project Length (miles): 4.19 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: 24,358 - 39,850 Classification: Major Arterial Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 54,804 - 80,510 Existing No. Lanes: 4 Proposed No. Lanes: 7
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 140 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 140 Description Date Action Staff presentation to joint City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission & City Council: Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040
Preliminary Engineering ($) $2,964,560 Rights-of-Way ($) $0 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $2,964,560 Construction ($) $29,645,620 TOTAL $35,574,740 $0 $0
Potential Funding Sources: Local, State, Federal
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: New Lascassas Hwy (SR 96) Widening 2040 MTP Project ID: STI 11 Project Description: Widen existing 2 & 3 lane road from Clark Boulevard to DeJarnette Lane to 5 lanes
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) BR 6 2025 MTP Project ID: STI 10 (partial) Project Length (miles): 2.31 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: 14,058 - 17,764 Classification: Major Arterial Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 24,647 - 31,824 Existing No. Lanes: 2-3 Proposed No. Lanes: 5
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 120 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 120 Description Date Action Staff presentation to joint City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission & City Council: Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040
Preliminary Engineering ($) $1,215,780 Rights-of-Way ($) $334,550 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $1,215,780 Construction ($) $12,157,750 TOTAL $14,923,860 $0 $0
Potential Funding Sources: Local, State, Federal
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: Main Street Widening 2040 MTP Project ID: STI 12 Project Description: Widen existing 2 lane road from Middle Tennessee Boulevard to Rutherford Boulevard to 3 lanes
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) N/A 2025 MTP Project ID: N/A Project Length (miles): 1.20 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: 6,558 - 9,433 Classification: Minor Arterial Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 9,723 - 10,875 Existing No. Lanes: 2 Proposed No. Lanes: 3
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 60 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 60 Description Date Action Staff presentation to joint City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission & City Council: Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040
Preliminary Engineering ($) $325,670 Rights-of-Way ($) $0 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $325,670 Construction ($) $3,256,670 TOTAL $3,908,010 $0 $0
Potential Funding Sources: Local
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: Warrior Drive Widening 2040 MTP Project ID: STI 13 Project Description: Widen existing 2 lane road from South Church Street (US 231) to New Salem Highway (SR 99) to 3 lanes
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) N/A 2025 MTP Project ID: N/A Project Length (miles): 1.90 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: 9,692 Classification: Minor Arterial Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 6,292 - 16,187 Existing No. Lanes: 2 Proposed No. Lanes: 3
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 80 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 60 Description Date Action Staff presentation to joint City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission & City Council: Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040
Preliminary Engineering ($) $495,380 Rights-of-Way ($) $0 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $495,380 Construction ($) $4,953,760 TOTAL $5,944,520 $0 $0
Potential Funding Sources: Local
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: Rutherford & Broad Street Connector Road 2040 MTP Project ID: STI 14 Project Description: Construct new 3 lane road between SE Broad Street (US 41) and Rutherford Boulevard
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) N/A 2025 MTP Project ID: N/A Project Length (miles): 0.53 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: 0 Classification: Local Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 3,303 Existing No. Lanes: 0 Proposed No. Lanes: 3
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 0 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 60 Description Date Action Staff presentation to joint City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission & City Council: Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040
Preliminary Engineering ($) $386,980 Rights-of-Way ($) $52,360 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $386,980 Construction ($) $3,869,810 TOTAL $4,696,130 $0 $0
Potential Funding Sources: Local, Developer
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: Rutherford Boulevard Extension 2040 MTP Project ID: STI 15 Project Description: Extend Rutherford Boulevard as new 3 lane road with bridge over I-24 from Rutherford Boulevard to Warrior Drive
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) N/A 2025 MTP Project ID: N/A Project Length (miles): 0.70 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: 0 Classification: Commercial Collector Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 11,744 - 14,910 Existing No. Lanes: 0 Proposed No. Lanes: 3
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 0 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 60 Description Date Action Staff presentation to joint City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission & City Council: Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040
Preliminary Engineering ($) $1,777,290 Rights-of-Way ($) $1,527,270 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $1,777,290 Construction ($) $17,772,850 TOTAL $22,854,700 $0 $0
Potential Funding Sources: Local, Developer
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: Rutledge Boulevard Extension 2040 MTP Project ID: STI 16 Project Description: Extend and reconstruct existing 2 lane road from Middle Tennessee Boulevard to Rutherford Boulevard Extension (STI 15) as 3 lane road
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) N/A 2025 MTP Project ID: Committed Project Length (miles): 0.70 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: No Data Classification: Commercial Collector Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 6,596 Existing No. Lanes: 0-2 Proposed No. Lanes: 3
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 0-80 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 60 Description Date Action Staff presentation to joint City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission & City Council: Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040
Preliminary Engineering ($) $366,090 Rights-of-Way ($) $741,820 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $366,090 Construction ($) $3,660,850 TOTAL $5,134,850 $0 $0
Potential Funding Sources: Local, Developer
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: Elam Farms Parkway Extension 2040 MTP Project ID: STI 17 Project Description: Extend existing 3 lane road to SE Broad Street (US 41)
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) N/A 2025 MTP Project ID: N/A Project Length (miles): 0.45 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: No Data Classification: Local Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 2,726 Existing No. Lanes: 0 Proposed No. Lanes: 3
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 0 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 60 Description Date Action Staff presentation to joint City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission & City Council: Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040
Preliminary Engineering ($) $165,030 Rights-of-Way ($) $49,090 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $165,030 Construction ($) $1,650,280 TOTAL $2,029,430 $0 $0
Potential Funding Sources: Local, Developer
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: Broad St. & Thompson Ln. Separated Grade 2040 MTP Project ID: STI 18 Project Description: Construct Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI) as Separated Grade Crossing at NW Broad Street (US 41/70) & Thompson Lane (SR 268)
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) N/A 2025 MTP Project ID: N/A Project Length (miles): N/A Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: N/A Classification: Major Arterial Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: N/A Existing No. Lanes: N/A Proposed No. Lanes: N/A
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): N/A Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) N/A Description Date Action Staff presentation to joint City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission & City Council: Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040
Preliminary Engineering ($) $4,810,760 Rights-of-Way ($) $450,910 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $4,810,760 Construction ($) $48,107,590 TOTAL $58,180,020 $0 $0
Potential Funding Sources: Local, State, Federal
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: Salem Cove Lane Extension 2040 MTP Project ID: STI 19 Project Description: Extend Salem Cove Lane as new 3 lane Road to Rucker Lane
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) N/A 2025 MTP Project ID: MTI 28 Project Length (miles): 0.91 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: No Data Classification: Residential Collector Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 7,035 Existing No. Lanes: 0 Proposed No. Lanes: 3
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 60 Description Date Action Staff presentation to joint City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission & City Council: Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040
Preliminary Engineering ($) $340,760 Rights-of-Way ($) $99,270 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $340,760 Construction ($) $3,407,570 TOTAL $4,188,360 $0 $0
Potential Funding Sources: Local, Developer
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: Barfield Road Widening 2040 MTP Project ID: STI 20 Project Description: Widen existing 2 lane road from New Salem Highway (SR 99) to Veterans Parkway to 3 lanes
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) N/A 2025 MTP Project ID: MTI 25 Project Length (miles): 2.50 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: 13,832 Classification: Community Collector Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 8,909 - 12,089 Existing No. Lanes: 2 Proposed No. Lanes: 3
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 50 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 60 Description Date Action Staff presentation to joint City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission & City Council: Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040
Preliminary Engineering ($) $951,860 Rights-of-Way ($) $45,450 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $951,860 Construction ($) $9,518,550 TOTAL $11,467,720 $0 $0
Potential Funding Sources: Local
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: New North / South Road 2040 MTP Project ID: STI 21 Project Description: Construct new 3 lane road between Thompson Lane and Cherry Lane extension
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) GC 2 2025 MTP Project ID: MTI 8 Project Length (miles): 1.02 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: 0 Classification: Community Collector Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 10,123 Existing No. Lanes: 0 Proposed No. Lanes: 3
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 0 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 60 Description Date Action Staff presentation to joint City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission & City Council: Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040
Preliminary Engineering ($) $335,640 Rights-of-Way ($) $98,180 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $335,640 Construction ($) $3,356,430 TOTAL $4,125,890 $0 $0
Potential Funding Sources: Local, Developer
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: Memorial Boulevard (US 231) Widening 2040 MTP Project ID: STI 22 Project Description: Widen existing 2 lane road between Thompson Lane (SR 268) and Jefferson Pike (SR 266) to 5 lanes
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) BR 3 2025 MTP Project ID: MTI 9 Project Length (miles): 2.79 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: 16,042 Classification: Major Arterial Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 22,984 - 41,077 Existing No. Lanes: 2 Proposed No. Lanes: 5
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 104 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 104 Description Date Action Staff presentation to joint City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission & City Council: Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040
Preliminary Engineering ($) $1,297,260 Rights-of-Way ($) $0 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $1,297,260 Construction ($) $12,972,560 TOTAL $15,567,080 $0 $0
Potential Funding Sources: Local, State, Federal
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: Leanna Road Widening 2040 MTP Project ID: STI 23 Project Description: Widen and realign existing 2 lane road between Thompson Lane (SR 268) and Leanna Swamp Road as 3 lane road
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) N/A 2025 MTP Project ID: MTI 7 Project Length (miles): 1.88 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: No Data Classification: Community Collector Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 14,306 - 18,578 Existing No. Lanes: 0-2 Proposed No. Lanes: 3
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 0-40 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 60 Description Date Action Staff presentation to joint City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission & City Council: Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040
Preliminary Engineering ($) $625,880 Rights-of-Way ($) $129,820 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $625,880 Construction ($) $6,258,760 TOTAL $7,640,340 $0 $0
Potential Funding Sources: Local
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: Compton Road (SR 266) Widening 2040 MTP Project ID: STI 24 Project Description: Widen existing 2 lane road between Memorial Boulevard (US 231) and New Lascassas Highway (SR 96) to 5 lanes
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) BR 4 2025 MTP Project ID: MTI 5 (partial) Project Length (miles): 3.12 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: 9,884 Classification: Minor Arterial Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 12,949 - 22,403 Existing No. Lanes: 2 Proposed No. Lanes: 5
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 70 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 84 Description Date Action Staff presentation to joint City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission & City Council: Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040
Preliminary Engineering ($) $1,330,720 Rights-of-Way ($) $79,670 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $1,330,720 Construction ($) $13,307,240 TOTAL $16,048,350 $0 $0
Potential Funding Sources: Local, State, Federal
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: SE Broad Street (US 41) Widening 2040 MTP Project ID: STI 25 Project Description: Widen existing 2 lane road between Rutherford Boulevard and Joe B. Jackson Parkway to 5 lanes
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) BR 11 2025 MTP Project ID: MTI 16 Project Length (miles): 2.43 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: 9,700 - 9,774 Classification: Major Arterial Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 10,554 - 23,466 Existing No. Lanes: 2 Proposed No. Lanes: 5
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 90 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 104 Description Date Action Staff presentation to joint City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission & City Council: Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040
Preliminary Engineering ($) $1,313,340 Rights-of-Way ($) $150,220 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $1,313,340 Construction ($) $13,133,360 TOTAL $15,910,260 $0 $0
Potential Funding Sources: Local, State, Federal
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: SR 96 Widening 2040 MTP Project ID: MTI 1 Project Description: Widen existing 2 lane road between Veterans Parkway and I-840 to 4/5 lanes
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) BR 17 2025 MTP Project ID: Committed Project Length (miles): 6.82 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: 5,748 Classification: Major Arterial Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 17,598 - 30,539 Existing No. Lanes: 2 Proposed No. Lanes: 4-5
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 65 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 104-148 Description Date Action Staff presentation to City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission (PC): Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040 Preliminary Engineering ($) $2,201,600 Rights-of-Way ($) $1,041,270 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $2,201,600 Construction ($) $22,016,030 TOTAL $0 $27,460,500 $0
Potential Funding Sources: State, Federal
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: West College Street Widening 2040 MTP Project ID: MTI 2 Project Description: Northfield Boulevard extension project (STI 4) to Medical Center Parkway
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) N/A 2025 MTP Project ID: MTI 18 (partial) Project Length (miles): 0.77 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: 2,645 Classification: Minor Arterial Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 3,766 Existing No. Lanes: 2 Proposed No. Lanes: 3
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 50 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 60 Description Date Action Staff presentation to City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission (PC): Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040 Preliminary Engineering ($) $210,790 Rights-of-Way ($) $280,000 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $210,790 Construction ($) $2,107,860 TOTAL $0 $2,809,440 $0
Potential Funding Sources: Local
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: Battleground Drive Widening 2040 MTP Project ID: MTI 3 Project Description: Widen existing 2 lane road between Clark Boulevard and Tomahawk Trace to 3 lanes with bridge over Sinking Creek
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) BR 2 2025 MTP Project ID: N/A Project Length (miles): 1.60 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: No Data Classification: Community Collector Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 2,640 Existing No. Lanes: 2 Proposed No. Lanes: 3
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 60 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 60 Description Date Action Staff presentation to City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission (PC): Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040 Preliminary Engineering ($) $868,980 Rights-of-Way ($) $0 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $868,980 Construction ($) $8,689,790 TOTAL $0 $10,427,750 $0
Potential Funding Sources: Local
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: Wenlon Drive Widening 2040 MTP Project ID: MTI 4 Project Description: Widen existing 2 lane road between Northfield Boulevard and North Tennessee Boulevard to 3 lanes
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) N/A 2025 MTP Project ID: Committed Project Length (miles): 0.95 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: No Data Classification: Community Collector Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 3,983 Existing No. Lanes: 2 Proposed No. Lanes: 3
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 60 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 60 Description Date Action Staff presentation to City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission (PC): Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040 Preliminary Engineering ($) $258,820 Rights-of-Way ($) $0 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $258,820 Construction ($) $2,588,150 TOTAL $0 $3,105,790 $0
Potential Funding Sources: Local
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: Rutherford to Elam Connector Street 2040 MTP Project ID: MTI 5 Project Description: Construct new 3 lane road between Rutherford Boulevard and Elam Road
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) N/A 2025 MTP Project ID: N/A Project Length (miles): 0.96 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: 0 Classification: Local Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 8,455 Existing No. Lanes: 0 Proposed No. Lanes: 3
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 0 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 60 Description Date Action Staff presentation to City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission (PC): Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040 Preliminary Engineering ($) $333,930 Rights-of-Way ($) $1,613,360 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $333,930 Construction ($) $3,339,320 TOTAL $0 $5,620,540 $0
Potential Funding Sources: Local, Developer
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: Asbury Road Connector System 2040 MTP Project ID: MTI 6 Project Description: Construct new 3 lane road between Medical Center Parkway and Asbury Lane
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) N/A 2025 MTP Project ID: N/A Project Length (miles): 1.50 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: 0 Classification: Commercial Collector Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 2,135 Existing No. Lanes: 0 Proposed No. Lanes: 3
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 0 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 60 Description Date Action Staff presentation to City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission (PC): Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040 Preliminary Engineering ($) $553,410 Rights-of-Way ($) $163,640 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $553,410 Construction ($) $5,534,050 TOTAL $0 $6,804,510 $0
Potential Funding Sources: Local, Developer
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: Asbury Roadway Connector System 2040 MTP Project ID: MTI 7 Project Description: Construct new 3 lane road between Florence Road and Asbury Lane with bridge over I-24
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) N/A 2025 MTP Project ID: N/A Project Length (miles): 1.30 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: 0 Classification: Community Collector Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 6,106 - 7,329 Existing No. Lanes: 0 Proposed No. Lanes: 3
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 0 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 60 Description Date Action Staff presentation to City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission (PC): Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040 Preliminary Engineering ($) $2,071,110 Rights-of-Way ($) $114,550 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $2,071,110 Construction ($) $20,711,110 TOTAL $0 $24,967,880 $0
Potential Funding Sources: Local, Developer
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: Asbury Roadway Connector System 2040 MTP Project ID: MTI 8 Project Description: Widen existing 2 lane roadway to 3 lanes between MTI 7 and Old Nashville Highway
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) N/A 2025 MTP Project ID: N/A Project Length (miles): 1.40 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: No Data Classification: Community Collector Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 3,776 - 3,815 Existing No. Lanes: 2 Proposed No. Lanes: 3
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 50 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 60 Description Date Action Staff presentation to City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission (PC): Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040 Preliminary Engineering ($) $379,830 Rights-of-Way ($) $62,790 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $379,830 Construction ($) $3,798,250 TOTAL $0 $4,620,700 $0
Potential Funding Sources: Local
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: Asbury Roadway Connector System 2040 MTP Project ID: MTI 9 Project Description: Construct new 3 lane roadway between Manson Pike and MTI 7
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) N/A 2025 MTP Project ID: N/A Project Length (miles): 0.30 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: 0 Classification: Local Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 4,268 Existing No. Lanes: 0 Proposed No. Lanes: 3
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 0 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 60 Description Date Action Staff presentation to City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission (PC): Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040 Preliminary Engineering ($) $120,140 Rights-of-Way ($) $32,730 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $120,140 Construction ($) $1,201,440 TOTAL $0 $1,474,450 $0
Potential Funding Sources: Local, Developer
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: Veterans Parkway Extension 2040 MTP Project ID: MTI 10 Project Description: Extend Veterans Parkway to Old Nashville Highway with new interchange at I-24
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) MUP 1 2025 MTP Project ID: N/A Project Length (miles): 4.90 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: 0 Classification: Major Arterial Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 11,270 - 22,342 Existing No. Lanes: 0-2 Proposed No. Lanes: 5
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 0-60 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 84 Description Date Action Staff presentation to City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission (PC): Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040 Preliminary Engineering ($) $5,100,090 Rights-of-Way ($) $616,180 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $5,100,090 Construction ($) $51,000,850 TOTAL $0 $61,817,210 $0
Potential Funding Sources: Local, State, Federal
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: No 2040 MTP Project ID: MTI 11 Project Description: Widen existing road from 2 to 5 lanes with new interchange at I-24. Extend road from new interchange to Florence Road.
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) N/A 2025 MTP Project ID: N/A Project Length (miles): 3.40 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: No Data Classification: Major Arterial Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 7,684 - 11,176 Existing No. Lanes: 0-2 Proposed No. Lanes: 5
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 0-50 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 84 Description Date Action Staff presentation to City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission (PC): Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040 Preliminary Engineering ($) $3,878,260 Rights-of-Way ($) $335,450 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $3,878,260 Construction ($) $38,782,600 TOTAL $0 $46,874,570 $0
Potential Funding Sources: Local, State, Federal
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: Baker Road Widening 2040 MTP Project ID: MTI 12 Project Description: Widen existing 2 lane road between Veterans Parkway and Blackman Road to 3 lanes
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) N/A 2025 MTP Project ID: N/A Project Length (miles): 1.10 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: No Data Classification: Local Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 4,029 Existing No. Lanes: 2 Proposed No. Lanes: 3
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 60 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 60 Description Date Action Staff presentation to City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission (PC): Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040 Preliminary Engineering ($) $295,700 Rights-of-Way ($) $0 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $295,700 Construction ($) $2,957,040 TOTAL $0 $3,548,440 $0
Potential Funding Sources: Local, Developer
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: Old Nashville Highway Widening 2040 MTP Project ID: MTI 13 Project Description: Widen existing 2 lane road between Northfield Boulevard extension (STI 4) and Cherry Lane extension (STI 8) to 3 lanes
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) N/A 2025 MTP Project ID: MTI 18 (partial) Project Length (miles): 3.60 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: 2,645 Classification: Minor Arterial Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 3,929 - 13,431 Existing No. Lanes: 2 Proposed No. Lanes: 3
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 60 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 60 Description Date Action Staff presentation to City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission (PC): Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040 Preliminary Engineering ($) $1,024,550 Rights-of-Way ($) $0 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $1,024,550 Construction ($) $10,245,480 TOTAL $0 $12,294,580 $0
Potential Funding Sources: Local
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: Old Nashville Highway Widening 2040 MTP Project ID: MTI 14 Project Description: Widen existing 2 lane road between Cherry Lane extension (STI 8) and Chicken Pike to 5 lanes
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) N/A 2025 MTP Project ID: MTI 18 (partial) Project Length (miles): 3.40 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: 6,418 Classification: Minor Arterial Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 17,057 - 27,286 Existing No. Lanes: 2 Proposed No. Lanes: 5
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 60 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 84 Description Date Action Staff presentation to City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission (PC): Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040 Preliminary Engineering ($) $1,220,960 Rights-of-Way ($) $304,970 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $1,220,960 Construction ($) $12,209,640 TOTAL $0 $14,956,530 $0
Potential Funding Sources: Local
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: Old Fort Parkway Widening 2040 MTP Project ID: MTI 15 Project Description: Widen existing 4 lane median divided road between I-24 and NW Broad Street to 6 lane median divided road
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) MUP 5 2025 MTP Project ID: MTI 12 Project Length (miles): 1.99 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: 31,845 - 36,071 Classification: Major Arterial Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 49,419 - 58,096 Existing No. Lanes: 4 Proposed No. Lanes: 6
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 350 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 170 Description Date Action Staff presentation to City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission (PC): Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040 Preliminary Engineering ($) $782,330 Rights-of-Way ($) $0 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $782,330 Construction ($) $7,823,250 TOTAL $0 $9,387,910 $0
Potential Funding Sources: Local, State, Federal
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: New Lascassas Highway (SR 96) Widening 2040 MTP Project ID: MTI 16 Project Description: Widen existing 2 lane road between DeJarnette Lane and Compton Road to 5 lanes
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) BR 6 2025 MTP Project ID: STI 10 (partial) Project Length (miles): 1.69 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: No Data Classification: Major Arterial Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 32,370 - 34,537 Existing No. Lanes: 2 Proposed No. Lanes: 5
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 120 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 120 Description Date Action Staff presentation to City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission (PC): Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040 Preliminary Engineering ($) $883,000 Rights-of-Way ($) $0 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $883,000 Construction ($) $8,829,960 TOTAL $0 $10,595,960 $0
Potential Funding Sources: Local, State, Federal
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: Sulphur Springs Road Extension 2040 MTP Project ID: MTI 17 Project Description: Extend Sulphur Springs Road from Sulphur Springs Road & Cherry Lane Extension intersection to Leanna Swamp Road
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) N/A 2025 MTP Project ID: MTI 29 Project Length (miles): 1.30 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: 0 Classification: Community Collector Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 9,580 Existing No. Lanes: 0 Proposed No. Lanes: 3
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 0 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 60 Description Date Action Staff presentation to City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission (PC): Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040 Preliminary Engineering ($) $480,970 Rights-of-Way ($) $141,820 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $480,970 Construction ($) $4,809,730 TOTAL $0 $5,913,490 $0
Potential Funding Sources: Local
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: Haven Street Extension 2040 MTP Project ID: MTI 18 Project Description: Extend Haven Street from Rutherford Boulevard to Double Springs Road
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) N/A 2025 MTP Project ID: N/A Project Length (miles): 1.20 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: 0 Classification: Community Collector Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 173 - 434 Existing No. Lanes: 0 Proposed No. Lanes: 3
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 0 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 60 Description Date Action Staff presentation to City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission (PC): Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040 Preliminary Engineering ($) $426,460 Rights-of-Way ($) $130,910 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $426,460 Construction ($) $4,264,630 TOTAL $0 $5,248,460 $0
Potential Funding Sources: Local, Developer
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: East Main to Bradyville Connector 2040 MTP Project ID: MTI 19 Project Description: Construct new 3 lane road between East Main Street and Bradyville Pike
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) N/A 2025 MTP Project ID: N/A Project Length (miles): 2.20 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: 0 Classification: Community Collector Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 573 Existing No. Lanes: 0 Proposed No. Lanes: 3
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 0 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 60 Description Date Action Staff presentation to City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission (PC): Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040 Preliminary Engineering ($) $771,510 Rights-of-Way ($) $240,000 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $771,510 Construction ($) $7,715,050 TOTAL $0 $9,498,070 $0
Potential Funding Sources: Local, Developer
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: Bradyville Pike Widening 2040 MTP Project ID: MTI 20 Project Description: Widen existing 2 lane road between Rutherford Boulevard and Joe B. Jackson Parkway extension to 3 lanes
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) BR 18 2025 MTP Project ID: N/A Project Length (miles): 3.00 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: 3,794 Classification: Minor Arterial Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 6,471 - 8,479 Existing No. Lanes: 2 Proposed No. Lanes: 3
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 55 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 60 Description Date Action Staff presentation to City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission (PC): Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040 Preliminary Engineering ($) $797,240 Rights-of-Way ($) $132,730 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $797,240 Construction ($) $7,972,380 TOTAL $0 $9,699,590 $0
Potential Funding Sources: Local, State, Federal
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: Kingwood Lane Extension 2040 MTP Project ID: MTI 21 Project Description: Extend Kingwood Lane from Kingwood Lane to Veterans Parkway
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) N/A 2025 MTP Project ID: N/A Project Length (miles): 0.44 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: 0 Classification: Local Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 11,774 Existing No. Lanes: 0 Proposed No. Lanes: 3
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 0 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 60 Description Date Action Staff presentation to City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission (PC): Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040 Preliminary Engineering ($) $162,190 Rights-of-Way ($) $48,000 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $162,190 Construction ($) $1,621,870 TOTAL $0 $1,994,250 $0
Potential Funding Sources: Local, Developer
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: Irby Lane Extension 2040 MTP Project ID: MTI 22 Project Description: Extend Irby Lane from US 41 to Elam Road
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) N/A 2025 MTP Project ID: N/A Project Length (miles): 0.28 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: 0 Classification: Local Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 4,329 Existing No. Lanes: 0 Proposed No. Lanes: 3
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 0 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 60 Description Date Action Staff presentation to City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission (PC): Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040 Preliminary Engineering ($) $152,130 Rights-of-Way ($) $30,550 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $152,130 Construction ($) $1,521,280 TOTAL $0 $1,856,090 $0
Potential Funding Sources: Local, Developer
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: Elam Road Widening 2040 MTP Project ID: MTI 23 Project Description: Widen existing 2 lane roadway to 3 lanes between US 41 and 1,600' north of Joe B. Jackson Parkway
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) N/A 2025 MTP Project ID: N/A Project Length (miles): 1.46 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: 4,010 Classification: Community Collector Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 7,316 - 10,376 Existing No. Lanes: 2 Proposed No. Lanes: 3
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 60 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 60 Description Date Action Staff presentation to City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission (PC): Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040 Preliminary Engineering ($) $437,060 Rights-of-Way ($) $0 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $437,060 Construction ($) $4,370,640 TOTAL $0 $5,244,760 $0
Potential Funding Sources: Local
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: I-24 Widening 2040 MTP Project ID: MTI 24 Project Description: Widen I-24 from 4 to 8 lanes between South Church Street and Joe B. Jackson Parkway
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) N/A 2025 MTP Project ID: MTI (partial) Project Length (miles): 2.40 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: 24,633 Classification: Freeway Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 98,754 Existing No. Lanes: 4 Proposed No. Lanes: 8
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 300 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 300 Description Date Action Staff presentation to City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission (PC): Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040 Preliminary Engineering ($) $1,574,290 Rights-of-Way ($) $0 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $1,574,290 Construction ($) $15,742,900 TOTAL $0 $18,891,480 $0
Potential Funding Sources: State, Federal
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: CBD Connector Route 2040 MTP Project ID: MTI 25 Project Description: Realign and connect Vine Street and Front Street
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) N/A 2025 MTP Project ID: N/A Project Length (miles): 0.32 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: No Data Classification: Commercial Collector Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 12,958 Existing No. Lanes: 2 Proposed No. Lanes: 3
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 50 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 60 Description Date Action Staff presentation to City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission (PC): Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040 Preliminary Engineering ($) $465,160 Rights-of-Way ($) $87,270 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $465,160 Construction ($) $4,651,560 TOTAL $0 $5,669,150 $0
Potential Funding Sources: Local
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: Blackman Road Widening 2040 MTP Project ID: MTI 26 Project Description: Widen existing 2 lane roadway to 3 lanes between Manson Pike/Burnt Knob Road and Veterans Parkway
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) N/A 2025 MTP Project ID: N/A Project Length (miles): 1.14 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: No Data Classification: Minor Arterial Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 3,181 Existing No. Lanes: 2 Proposed No. Lanes: 3
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 60 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 60 Description Date Action Staff presentation to City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission (PC): Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040 Preliminary Engineering ($) $310,910 Rights-of-Way ($) $0 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $310,910 Construction ($) $4,651,560 TOTAL $0 $5,273,380 $0
Potential Funding Sources: Local, Developer
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: Old Salem Road Widening 2040 MTP Project ID: LTI 1 Project Description: Widen existing 2 lane roadway to 3 lanes from Castle Street to Middle Tennessee Boulevard
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) N/A 2025 MTP Project ID: N/A Project Length (miles): 0.89 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: No Data Classification: Commercial Collector Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 7,256 Existing No. Lanes: 2 Proposed No. Lanes: 3
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 60 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 60 Description Date Action Staff presentation to joint City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission & City Council: Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040 Preliminary Engineering ($) $244,050 Rights-of-Way ($) $0 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $244,050 Construction ($) $2,440,540 TOTAL $0 $0 $2,928,640
Potential Funding Sources: Local
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: Manson Pike Widening 2040 MTP Project ID: LTI 2 Project Description: Widen existing 2 and 3 lane roadway to 5 lanes from Fortress Boulevard to Veterans Parkway
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) N/A 2025 MTP Project ID: STI 3 Project Length (miles): 2.80 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: 6,202 Classification: Major Arterial Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 7,609 - 25,179 Existing No. Lanes: 2-3 Proposed No. Lanes: 5
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 50-100 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 80 Description Date Action Staff presentation to joint City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission & City Council: Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040 Preliminary Engineering ($) $995,410 Rights-of-Way ($) $0 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $995,410 Construction ($) $9,954,120 TOTAL $0 $0 $11,944,940
Potential Funding Sources: Local
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: Osborne Lane Extension 2040 MTP Project ID: LTI 3 Project Description: Extend Osborne Lane from Emery Road to Lascassas Highway
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) N/A 2025 MTP Project ID: LTI 9 Project Length (miles): 0.24 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: 0 Classification: Community Collector Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 5,563 Existing No. Lanes: 0 Proposed No. Lanes: 3
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 3 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 60 Description Date Action Staff presentation to joint City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission & City Council: Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040 Preliminary Engineering ($) $96,250 Rights-of-Way ($) $26,180 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $96,250 Construction ($) $962,480 TOTAL $0 $0 $1,181,160
Potential Funding Sources: Local, Developer
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: SW Bypass Road 2040 MTP Project ID: LTI 4 Project Description: Construct new 4 lane median divided road between US 231 and Almaville Road/I-840 interchange
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) N/A 2025 MTP Project ID: N/A Project Length (miles): 17.00 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: 0 Classification: Minor Arterial Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 10,333 - 25,564 Existing No. Lanes: 0 Proposed No. Lanes: 4
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 0 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 120 Description Date Action Staff presentation to joint City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission & City Council: Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040 Preliminary Engineering ($) $4,655,480 Rights-of-Way ($) $3,709,090 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $4,655,480 Construction ($) $46,554,790 TOTAL $0 $0 $59,574,840
Potential Funding Sources: Local, Developer, State, Federal
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: Leanna Swamp Road Widening 2040 MTP Project ID: LTI 5 Project Description: Widen existing 2 lane roadway to 5 lanes from US 231 to I-840
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) N/A 2025 MTP Project ID: MTI 5 Project Length (miles): 3.40 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: 4,137 Classification: Major Arterial Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 7,179 - 33,006 Existing No. Lanes: 2 Proposed No. Lanes: 4
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 60 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 80 Description Date Action Staff presentation to joint City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission & City Council: Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040 Preliminary Engineering ($) $1,722,820 Rights-of-Way ($) $330,130 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $1,722,820 Construction ($) $17,228,200 TOTAL $0 $0 $21,003,970
Potential Funding Sources: Local
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: Joe B. Jackson Parkway Extension 2040 MTP Project ID: LTI 6 Project Description: Construct new 5 lane road between US 70 and US 41
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) MUP 9 2025 MTP Project ID: LTI 3 Project Length (miles): 5.34 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: 0 Classification: Major Arterial Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 6,191 - 14,010 Existing No. Lanes: 0 Proposed No. Lanes: 5
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 0 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 100 Description Date Action Staff presentation to joint City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission & City Council: Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040 Preliminary Engineering ($) $2,013,690 Rights-of-Way ($) $301,090 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $2,013,690 Construction ($) $20,136,940 TOTAL $0 $0 $24,465,410
Potential Funding Sources: Local, Developer
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: US 41 Widening 2040 MTP Project ID: LTI 7 Project Description: Widen existing 2 lane roadway to 3 lanes from Joe B. Jackson Parkway to Elam Road
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) BR 11 2025 MTP Project ID: LTI 6 Project Length (miles): 2.29 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: No Data Classification: Major Arterial Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 17,243 Existing No. Lanes: 2 Proposed No. Lanes: 3
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 90 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 60 Description Date Action Staff presentation to joint City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission & City Council: Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040 Preliminary Engineering ($) $351,920 Rights-of-Way ($) $0 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $351,920 Construction ($) $3,519,170 TOTAL $0 $0 $4,223,010
Potential Funding Sources: Local, State, Federal
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: Jefferson Pike Widening 2040 MTP Project ID: LTI 8 Project Description: Widen existing 2 lane roadway to 5 lanes from US 231 to Lascassas Hwy
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) N/A 2025 MTP Project ID: LTI 12 Project Length (miles): 5.41 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: 9,077 Classification: Minor Arterial Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 9,255 - 22,417 Existing No. Lanes: 2 Proposed No. Lanes: 5
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 5 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 100 Description Date Action Staff presentation to joint City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission & City Council: Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040 Preliminary Engineering ($) $2,168,100 Rights-of-Way ($) $334,440 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $2,168,100 Construction ($) $21,680,950 TOTAL $0 $0 $26,351,590
Potential Funding Sources: Local, State, Federal
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: Lascassas Highway Widening 2040 MTP Project ID: LTI 9 Project Description: Widen existing 2 lane roadway to 5 lanes from Compton Road to Jefferson Pike
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) BR 6 2025 MTP Project ID: MTI 13 Project Length (miles): 2.80 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: 8,247 Classification: Major Arterial Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 20,090 Existing No. Lanes: 2 Proposed No. Lanes: 5
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 110 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 100 Description Date Action Staff presentation to joint City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission & City Council: Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040 Preliminary Engineering ($) $1,657,530 Rights-of-Way ($) $0 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $1,657,530 Construction ($) $16,575,250 TOTAL $0 $0 $19,890,310
Potential Funding Sources: Local, State, Federal
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: Jefferson Pike Widening 2040 MTP Project ID: LTI 10 Project Description: Widen existing 2 lane roadway to 5 lanes from Lebanon Highway to I-840
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) N/A 2025 MTP Project ID: STI 7 Project Length (miles): 5.41 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: 8,121 Classification: Minor Arterial Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 26,743 - 36,159 Existing No. Lanes: 2 Proposed No. Lanes: 5
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 50 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 100 Description Date Action Staff presentation to joint City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission & City Council: Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040 Preliminary Engineering ($) $2,682,400 Rights-of-Way ($) $284,360 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $2,682,400 Construction ($) $26,824,030 TOTAL $0 $0 $32,473,190
Potential Funding Sources: State, Federal
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: SR 99 Widening 2040 MTP Project ID: LTI 11 Project Description: Widen existing 2 lane roadway to 5 lanes from Veterans Parkway to Proposed SW Loop Road
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) BR 16 2025 MTP Project ID: MTI 17 (partial) Project Length (miles): 7.12 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: 8,243 Classification: Major Arterial Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 23,001 - 32,201 Existing No. Lanes: 2 Proposed No. Lanes: 5
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 120 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 100 Description Date Action Staff presentation to joint City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission & City Council: Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040 Preliminary Engineering ($) $2,331,220 Rights-of-Way ($) $593,450 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $2,331,220 Construction ($) $23,312,210 TOTAL $0 $0 $28,568,100
Potential Funding Sources: Local, State, Federal
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: Barfield Crescent and US 231 Connector Road 2040 MTP Project ID: LTI 12 Project Description: Extend Oak Meadow Drive from current terminus to Webb Road
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) N/A 2025 MTP Project ID: N/A Project Length (miles): 1.25 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: 0 Classification: Community Collector Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 3,879 - 8,575 Existing No. Lanes: 0-2 Proposed No. Lanes: 3
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 0-60 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 60 Description Date Action Staff presentation to joint City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission & City Council: Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040 Preliminary Engineering ($) $561,800 Rights-of-Way ($) $165,820 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $561,800 Construction ($) $5,618,010 TOTAL $0 $0 $6,907,430
Potential Funding Sources: Local, Developer
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: Dilton Mankin Road Widening 2040 MTP Project ID: LTI 13 Project Description: Widen existing 2 lane roadway to 3 lanes from US 41 to Wilson Overall Road
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) N/A 2025 MTP Project ID: STI 11 Project Length (miles): 2.37 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: No Data Classification: Community Collector Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 2,505 Existing No. Lanes: 2 Proposed No. Lanes: 3
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 50 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 60 Description Date Action Staff presentation to joint City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission & City Council: Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040 Preliminary Engineering ($) $646,960 Rights-of-Way ($) $43,090 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $646,960 Construction ($) $6,469,620 TOTAL $0 $0 $7,806,630
Potential Funding Sources: Local
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: Sulphur Springs Road Widening 2040 MTP Project ID: LTI 14 Project Description: Widen and extend Sulphur Springs Road from I-840 to NW Broad Street as 5 lane roadway
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) N/A 2025 MTP Project ID: STI 6 Project Length (miles): 2.42 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: No Data Classification: Minor Arterial Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 18,736 - 24,554 Existing No. Lanes: 0-2 Proposed No. Lanes: 5
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 0-50 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 84 Description Date Action Staff presentation to joint City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission & City Council: Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040 Preliminary Engineering ($) $1,155,540 Rights-of-Way ($) $430,550 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $1,155,540 Construction ($) $11,555,430 TOTAL $0 $0 $14,297,060
Potential Funding Sources: Local
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: Elam Road Widening 2040 MTP Project ID: LTI 15 Project Description: Widen existing 2 lane roadway to 3 lanes from Joe B. Jackson Parkway to Elam Mill Road
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) N/A 2025 MTP Project ID: LTI 13 Project Length (miles): 1.54 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: 2,714 Classification: Community Collector Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 10,039 Existing No. Lanes: 2 Proposed No. Lanes: 3
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 50 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 60 Description Date Action Staff presentation to joint City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission & City Council: Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040 Preliminary Engineering ($) $418,790 Rights-of-Way ($) $28,000 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $418,790 Construction ($) $4,187,900 TOTAL $0 $0 $5,053,480
Potential Funding Sources: Local, Developer
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: I-840 Connector Road 2040 MTP Project ID: LTI 16 Construct new 3 lane roadway from proposed I-840 interchange to Leanna Central Valley Road (note: interchange and Florence Rd connector is included Project Description: in Smyrna's MTP and not part of this proposed project)
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) N/A 2025 MTP Project ID: N/A Project Length (miles): 1.40 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: 0 Classification: Community Collector Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 7,297 Existing No. Lanes: 0 Proposed No. Lanes: 3
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 0 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 60 Description Date Action Staff presentation to joint City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission & City Council: Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040 Preliminary Engineering ($) $516,450 Rights-of-Way ($) $152,730 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $516,450 Construction ($) $5,164,490 TOTAL $0 $0 $6,350,120
Potential Funding Sources: Local, Developer
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: Joe B. Jackson Parkway Extension 2040 MTP Project ID: LTI 17 Project Description: Widen existing 2 lane Richland Richardson road to 3 lanes from Halls Hill Pike to US 70
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) N/A 2025 MTP Project ID: LTI 2 Project Length (miles): 3.73 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: 770 Classification: Major Arterial Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 7,237 - 8,431 Existing No. Lanes: 2 Proposed No. Lanes: 3
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 30 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 60 Description Date Staff presentation to joint City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission & City Council: Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040 Preliminary Engineering ($) $1,358,150 Rights-of-Way ($) $203,450 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $1,358,150 Construction ($) $13,581,520 TOTAL $0 $0 $16,501,270
Potential Funding Sources: Local
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: Old Woodbury Highway Widening 2040 MTP Project ID: LTI 18 Project Description: Widen existing 2 road to 3 lanes from Rutherford Boulevard to Richland Richardson Road
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) N/A 2025 MTP Project ID: MTI 14 Project Length (miles): 3.10 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: 3,452 Classification: Minor Arterial Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 8,356 Existing No. Lanes: 2 Proposed No. Lanes: 3
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 60 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 60 Description Date Action Staff presentation to joint City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission & City Council: Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040 Preliminary Engineering ($) $688,310 Rights-of-Way ($) $0 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $688,310 Construction ($) $6,883,090 TOTAL $0 $0 $8,259,710
Potential Funding Sources: Local
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: Joe B. Jackson Parkway Extension 2040 MTP Project ID: LTI 19 Project Description: Construct new 3 lane roadway from Halls Hill Pike to Lascassas Hwy
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) N/a 2025 MTP Project ID: LTI 1 Project Length (miles): 3.87 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: 0 Classification: Major Arterial Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 5,035 Existing No. Lanes: 0-2 Proposed No. Lanes: 3
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 0-50 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 60 Description Date Action Staff presentation to joint City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission & City Council: Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040 Preliminary Engineering ($) $1,524,690 Rights-of-Way ($) $422,180 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $1,524,690 Construction ($) $15,246,920 TOTAL $0 $0 $18,718,480
Potential Funding Sources: Local
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: Florence Road Widening 2040 MTP Project ID: LTI 20 Project Description: Widen existing 2 lane roadway to 3 lanes from Sulphur Springs Road to NW Broad Street
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) N/A 2025 MTP Project ID: MTI 19 Project Length (miles): 1.09 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: 3,201 Classification: Minor Arterial Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 18,744 Existing No. Lanes: 2 Proposed No. Lanes: 3
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 50 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 60 Description Date Action Staff presentation to joint City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission & City Council: Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040 Preliminary Engineering ($) $427,350 Rights-of-Way ($) $20,000 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $427,350 Construction ($) $4,273,530 TOTAL $0 $0 $5,148,230
Potential Funding Sources: Local
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: East Compton Road Widening 2040 MTP Project ID: LTI 21 Project Description: Widen existing 2 lane roadway to 3 lanes from Lascassas Highway to Briarwood Drive
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) N/A 2025 MTP Project ID: MTI 5 (partial) Project Length (miles): 1.20 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: 1,984 Classification: Minor Arterial Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 7,784 Existing No. Lanes: 2 Proposed No. Lanes: 3
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 50 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 60 Description Date Action Staff presentation to joint City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission & City Council: Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040 Preliminary Engineering ($) $325,670 Rights-of-Way ($) $21,820 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $325,670 Construction ($) $3,256,670 TOTAL $0 $0 $3,929,830
Potential Funding Sources: Local
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: Kingwood Lane Widening 2040 MTP Project ID: LTI 22 Project Description: Widen existing 2 lane roadway to 3 lanes from Windrow Road to SR 96
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) N/A 2025 MTP Project ID: N/A Project Length (miles): 2.60 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: No Data Classification: Community Collector Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 14,565 - 16,261 Existing No. Lanes: 2 Proposed No. Lanes: 3
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 60 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 60 Description Date Action Staff presentation to joint City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission & City Council: Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040 Preliminary Engineering ($) $698,880 Rights-of-Way ($) $0 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $698,880 Construction ($) $6,988,810 TOTAL $0 $0 $8,386,570
Potential Funding Sources: Local
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: Windrow Road Widening 2040 MTP Project ID: LTI 23 Project Description: Widen existing 2 lane roadway to 3 lanes from Kingwood Lane to Veterans Parkway
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) N/A 2025 MTP Project ID: N/A Project Length (miles): 1.69 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: No Data Classification: Community Collector Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 16,625 Existing No. Lanes: 2 Proposed No. Lanes: 3
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 50 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 60 Description Date Action Staff presentation to joint City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission & City Council: Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040 Preliminary Engineering ($) $455,890 Rights-of-Way ($) $0 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $455,890 Construction ($) $4,558,850 TOTAL $0 $0 $5,470,630
Potential Funding Sources: Local
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: Old Salem Road Widening 2040 MTP Project ID: LTI 24 Project Description: Widen existing 2 lane roadway to 3 lanes from SR 99 to Veterans Parkway
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) N/A 2025 MTP Project ID: N/A Project Length (miles): 1.39 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: No Data Classification: Local Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 14,684 Existing No. Lanes: 2 Proposed No. Lanes: 3
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 50 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 60 Description Date Action Staff presentation to joint City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission & City Council: Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040 Preliminary Engineering ($) $374,450 Rights-of-Way ($) $25,270 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $374,450 Construction ($) $3,744,510 TOTAL $0 $0 $4,518,680
Potential Funding Sources: Local
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Recommended Improvement Project 2040 Major Transportation Plan
Project Name: Halls Hill Pike Widening 2040 MTP Project ID: LTI 25 Project Description: Widen existing 2 lane roadway to 3 lanes from Adams Lane to Joe B. Jackson Parkway
Bike Master Plan Project ID: (1) N/A 2025 MTP Project ID: LTI 7 (partial) Project Length (miles): 2.10 Average Daily Traffic Year 2014: 1,860 Classification: Minor Arterial Average Daily Traffic Year 2040: 8,226 Existing No. Lanes: 2 Proposed No. Lanes: 3
Existing Right-of-Way (ft.): 50 Minimum Required Right-of-Way (ft.): (2) 60 Description Date Action Staff presentation to joint City Planning August 22, 2017 N/A Adoption History Commission & City Council: Public Hearing conducted by PC: November 8, 2017 Approved by PC and forwarded to City Council for ratification Considered by City Council: November 30, 2017 PC approval ratified by City Council Project Costs (in 2016 dollars) CY 2016-2024 CY 2025-2032 CY 2033-2040 Preliminary Engineering ($) $769,600 Rights-of-Way ($) $38,180 Construction Engineering & Inspection ($) $769,600 Construction ($) $7,696,020 TOTAL $0 $0 $9,273,400
Potential Funding Sources: Local
NOTES: 1) Bike Master Plan Project ID contained in the 2013 City of Murfreesboro Greenways, Blueways, and Bikeways Master Plan 2) Minimum Required Right-of-Way outlined in the 2009 City of Murfreesboro Street Design Specifications Appendix E: Adopted & Recorded Major Transportation Plan