From abstract to installed infrastructure. This is the realistic path.
The pilot site must be:
- High-visibility problem: Known pedestrian crash history, ideally with a recent fatality or serious injury — establishes urgency and justifies expedited action
- Existing RRFB: Retrofit, not new install — proves the concept without entangling it in RRFB siting debates
- State route: TDOT jurisdiction — can be authorized directly without Metro Nashville approval chain
- Multi-lane: 4+ lanes — demonstrates the multi-fixture configuration needed for Nashville's actual problem corridors
- Night crash concentration: Crash data should show nighttime overrepresentation at or near the crossing
- Accessible for evaluation: Good sight lines for video study, nearby reference crossing (similar road, RRFB, no illumination) for control comparison
- Community support: Corridor with active neighborhood or business association that will publicly support the improvement
| Corridor | Lanes | TDOT Route | RRFB Locations | Recent Ped Crashes | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nolensville Pike | 4-5 | SR 11A | Multiple | High | $13M SS4A grant already in play — natural fit |
| Murfreesboro Pike | 4-5 | US 41 | Multiple | High | Heavy transit ridership, high ped volume |
| Gallatin Pike | 4-5 | US 31E | Multiple | High | East Nashville growth, increasing ped demand |
| Dickerson Pike | 4 | US 41A | Limited | High | Historically underserved, strong equity case |
Recommended first pilot: Nolensville Pike. The existing SS4A grant means there's active infrastructure investment on this corridor, community engagement is already happening, and TDOT is already at the table. Adding coordinated illumination to an existing or planned RRFB on Nolensville Pike is the lowest-friction path to a first installation.
Nashville's universities bring a different political and funding dynamic. Thousands of pedestrians crossing arterials daily, institutional liability exposure, out-of-state tuition dollars, alumni donor networks, and administrations with strong motivation to protect students.
| Institution | Key Corridors | Road Owner | Crossing Context |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vanderbilt University | West End Ave (US 70S), 21st Ave S, Broadway | TDOT (West End), Nashville (21st Ave) | High-volume campus perimeter crossings; students crossing to/from off-campus housing, restaurants, Midtown. West End is 4-5 lanes, 35+ mph. |
| Belmont University | Wedgewood Ave, 12th Ave S, Portland Ave, Belmont Blvd | Nashville | Campus spans multiple blocks; students cross Wedgewood (4 lanes) and 12th Ave S to reach campus buildings, parking, and the Gulch district. |
| Tennessee State University | Centennial Blvd, John A Merritt Blvd, Ed Temple Blvd | Nashville / TDOT | HBCU campus adjacent to state fairgrounds; crossings connect campus to transit stops and surrounding community. |
| Lipscomb University | Granny White Pike, Belmont Blvd, Caldwell Ln | Nashville | Residential area but Granny White carries commuter traffic; campus crossings serve students walking to nearby commercial and residential areas. |
| Fisk University | Dr. D.B. Todd Jr Blvd (formerly 17th Ave N), Jefferson St | Nashville / TDOT | HBCU campus in historic North Nashville; Jefferson St is a significant arterial with pedestrian safety concerns. |
Why universities matter for this proposal:
-
Concentrated pedestrian demand: University corridors generate thousands of daily crossings in tight geographic areas. The activation data from university crossings would be some of the densest in any pilot.
-
Institutional funding: Universities can fund improvements on adjacent public ROW through partnership agreements with TDOT or Nashville. Vanderbilt's endowment is ~$10.9B. Belmont has invested heavily in campus-adjacent infrastructure. These institutions can move faster than municipal budget cycles.
-
Liability pressure: A student fatality on a crossing adjacent to campus creates enormous institutional, legal, and reputational risk. University general counsel offices are highly motivated to support infrastructure improvements that reduce this exposure.
-
Visibility and accountability: University campuses have identifiable, concentrated pedestrian populations with institutional advocacy structures. Safety improvements at campus-adjacent crossings receive more institutional and media attention, creating demonstration value that benefits all corridors.
-
Research partnership: Vanderbilt's Civil & Environmental Engineering department could provide academic rigor to the evaluation methodology — student research projects, faculty co-authorship on published results, access to traffic modeling tools. This transforms a municipal pilot into a peer-reviewed study.
-
Demonstration value: University administrators, trustees, and donors are high-influence individuals. A visible, working installation near campus creates awareness among people who sit on state boards, donate to political campaigns, and shape policy. The crossing in front of Belmont is a demonstration site that markets itself.
Recommended university pilot: Belmont University — Wedgewood Ave at campus entrance. Wedgewood is a 4-lane arterial with documented pedestrian safety concerns, direct campus adjacency, and Belmont has a track record of investing in campus-perimeter improvements. Vanderbilt's West End Ave is the higher-profile site but involves TDOT (state route) and more complex coordination.
Parallel track: University pilots can run in parallel with the Nolensville Pike state-route pilot. Different funding sources, different approval chains, different political pressure. If one stalls, the other moves. If both succeed, the evidence base doubles.
For credible before/after evaluation, select two matched crossings on the same corridor:
- Treatment crossing: Existing RRFB + coordinated illumination retrofit
- Control crossing: Existing RRFB only (no change)
Match for: road width, lane count, speed limit, crossing volume, adjacent land use. Measure both for 6 months before treatment, then 12+ months after.
| Stakeholder | Role | Interest | What They Need |
|---|---|---|---|
| TDOT Traffic Operations | Approves modifications to state route infrastructure | Safety improvement on their roads; fulfills their own "shall" mandate | Spec that meets TDOT standards, liability comfort, minimal maintenance burden |
| TSITE VP / TDOT Traffic Design | Manager of Traffic Design, TSITE Vice-President | Professional platform — presenting or endorsing actionable safety improvement | Ready-made package with data, spec, and language to champion |
| Nashville NDOT | Local traffic authority for Metro Nashville roads | Aligns with Vision Zero commitments | Demonstration that it works before citywide adoption |
| NES | Utility coordination for powered installations | Minimal — solar design largely bypasses NES involvement | Awareness only; no action needed for solar pilot |
| Stakeholder | Role | Interest | What They Need |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nashville Vision Zero office | Coordinates Metro's pedestrian safety strategy | Infrastructure wins for their reporting and advocacy | Data showing measurable improvement |
| TSITE membership | Tennessee Section ITE — traffic engineers statewide | Professional development, best practices | Compelling presentation with actionable takeaway |
| Corridor community organizations | Neighborhood associations, business districts on target corridors | Safer streets for their constituents and customers | Visible improvement, community engagement |
| Metro Council members (districts covering target corridors) | Elected officials | Constituent safety, visible infrastructure wins | Before/after data, constituent support, low cost |
| FHWA Tennessee Division | Federal oversight of state highway safety programs | Innovative use of HSIP-eligible countermeasures | Alignment with FHWA pedestrian safety priorities |
| University administrations (Belmont, Vanderbilt, TSU, Fisk, Lipscomb) | Campus safety, institutional liability | Protecting students, reducing liability exposure, visible safety investment | Working demonstration, cost sharing model, partnership framework |
| Vanderbilt Civil & Environmental Engineering | Academic research, traffic safety | Publication opportunities, student research projects, faculty expertise | Data access, co-authorship on evaluation results |
| University general counsel offices | Institutional risk management | Reducing liability at campus-adjacent crossings | Evidence that illumination reduces crash risk, alignment with duty of care |
| Source | Concern | Response |
|---|---|---|
| Adjacent property owners | Light pollution, aesthetics | Narrow beam confines light to crossing surface; cutoff fixture eliminates spill. Offer photometric demonstration. |
| Budget gatekeepers | Cost, precedent for future spending | $2-4K incremental is noise on RRFB project budgets. Pilot is 1-2 crossings. |
| Risk-averse engineers | Liability, novelty | Failsafe design, data logging, sovereign immunity, TDOT's own "shall" mandate. Not novel hardware — novel specification. |
| Utility (NES) | Encroachment on streetlighting territory | Solar-first design doesn't touch NES infrastructure. Frame as traffic safety equipment, not streetlighting. |
- Submit abstract to TSITE for spring or annual meeting
- Present the problem, spec, and draft language to Tennessee traffic engineers
- Outcome: professional peer review, TDOT awareness and endorsement
- TSITE VP introduces the supplemental specification to TDOT Traffic Operations
- TDOT reviews draft language against existing Lighting Design Manual and Traffic Operations Memo 2022
- TDOT identifies a pilot location on a state route (likely Nolensville Pike per SS4A alignment)
- Outcome: TDOT authorization for pilot installation
- Site survey and photometric modeling for selected crossing
- Procurement — fixture, solar, battery, controller, radar
- Installation (1 day per crossing, 2 crossings for treatment + control baseline)
- Commissioning and 30-day burn-in period
- Outcome: working installation, data flowing
- Collect activation data, vehicle yield rates, crossing demand, near-miss events
- Before/after comparison against control crossing
- Nighttime vs daytime yield rate analysis
- Compile results into technical report
- Outcome: evidence base for corridor-wide and statewide adoption
- Present evaluation results to TSITE and TDOT
- TDOT formally adopts supplemental specification as Traffic Operations Memo addendum
- All future RRFB installations on state routes include coordinated illumination by default
- Outcome: "shall" now includes "how"
- Corridor-wide deployment on Nolensville, Murfreesboro, Gallatin Pikes
- Nashville NDOT adopts for local roads
- TSITE recommends to ITE nationally
- Other state DOTs reference Tennessee specification
- Outcome: national practice change originating from Tennessee
| Metric | Measurement Method | Success Threshold |
|---|---|---|
| Nighttime driver yielding rate | Video analysis at treatment vs control crossings | Statistically significant increase at treatment crossing |
| Vehicle approach speed on activation | Radar data logged by system | Measurable speed reduction when illumination activates |
| Crossing demand volume | Radar/activation log | Baseline establishment (no expected change — this is observational) |
| Near-miss events | Radar detects vehicles that don't slow below threshold speed during active crossing | Reduction at treatment crossing |
| System uptime | Controller logs | 95%+ availability |
| Maintenance events | Field service records | Establish actual maintenance cost and frequency |
- Pedestrian push-button usage rate (treatment vs control — does illumination change behavior?)
- Community perception survey (before/after, adjacent residents and crossing users)
- Crash data (requires 3-5 years for statistical significance at a single crossing — not a primary pilot metric)
- Minimum before period: 6 months of baseline data at both crossings before retrofit
- Minimum after period: 12 months post-installation
- Seasonal coverage: Must span both summer and winter to account for daylight variation
- Data collection: Automated via system radar and controller logs (treatment crossing) and temporary video/radar equipment (control crossing)
- Analysis: Standard traffic safety before/after with comparison group methodology (FHWA CMF Clearinghouse compatible)
Results should be published as:
- TSITE conference paper (Tennessee audience)
- ITE Journal article (national audience)
- FHWA CMF Clearinghouse entry (establishes a Crash Modification Factor for coordinated crosswalk illumination — this doesn't exist today)
- Data shared with NCHRP for incorporation into future research
Establishing a CMF is the single most impactful long-term outcome. Once a CMF exists, any jurisdiction can use it to justify the improvement in benefit-cost analyses for federal funding.
| Item | Cost |
|---|---|
| Hardware and installation (2 crossings, multi-fixture) | $8,000-16,000 |
| Temporary data collection equipment (control crossing) | $2,000-5,000 |
| Photometric modeling and site survey | $1,000-3,000 |
| Contingency (20%) | $2,200-4,800 |
| Pilot total | $13,200-28,800 |
| Item | Cost |
|---|---|
| Hardware and installation (volume pricing) | $25,000-60,000 |
| Project management and commissioning | $5,000-10,000 |
| Corridor total | $30,000-70,000 |
For context: Nashville's SS4A grant for Nolensville Pike alone is $13M. A full corridor of coordinated illumination is less than 0.5% of that grant.
| Phase | Timeframe | Key Milestone |
|---|---|---|
| TSITE presentation | Spring/Summer 2026 | Professional peer review and TDOT awareness |
| TDOT review | Summer-Fall 2026 | Authorization for pilot |
| Pilot installation | Fall 2026 - Spring 2027 | First operational crossing |
| Evaluation | 2027-2028 | 12-18 months of data |
| Specification adoption | 2028 | TDOT Traffic Operations Memo addendum |
| Corridor/statewide scaling | 2028+ | Standard practice for all RRFB installations |