It looked good on paper . . .

Some new landscaping in Baldwin Park is causing a line-of-sight problem for the Cady Way trail where it crosses Baldwin Park Street over by 436. Some new trees have been planted on the southwest corner and it obstructs the view of east bound drivers as well northbound users of the trail. There is a stop sign there for the trail users, but it is widely ignored.

Click on th eimage and look to the right

Look to the right. Do you see the woman cyclist? She is less than 50 feet from the intersection.

More photos.
The thumbnails in the album crop the left and right, so you have to click to see what I am talking about.

I’m not sure who to tell about this. If it is the Orlando traffic engineers, then I will have to go over there with my camera and tape measure and then come home and fire up some CAD software to “prove” to them there is a problem.

Going to the builder would be the easiest way, but I don’t know how much he can deviate from the landscaping plan. This involves moving a tree or two, so it won’t be free. Since these are new trees it would cost less to do it now rather than waiting a few years.

Maybe the Orlando building inspectors? I think they have to approve landscaping plans now, just like regular building plans.

I’m open to ideas.

2 replies
  1. Mighk
    Mighk says:

    I don’t think you can design a facility based on the fact that many users are violating the law. The stop sign for the trail is appropriate in this case (others along the trail are unwarranted, such as at the water treatment plant driveway). A trail user who stops has good sightlines to see approaching vehicles, and while the trail crossing warning sign is obscured to some extent, I think it’s still visible from a sufficient distance.

    What Eric missed, and what I think is far more important, is the lack of traffic control for the intersection of the two trails. The path along Baldwin Park Street is the western-most section of the Little Econ Trail, and when that trail is completed there will be lots of traffic on both paths.

  2. Keri
    Keri says:

    My beef with this section of road is the segregationist paradigm which results in a narrow, median-separated lane for cars and a side path for cyclists. Because of the medians, motorists cannot pass a cyclist choosing to use the road. Because the sidepath is there, roadway cyclists are guaranteed harassment. It is unsafe to ride more than 12-15mph on a side path (on some side paths safe speeds are even slower – like 5-10mph). So this design reduces the level of service for a cyclist who wants to ride faster. He must choose between harassment and having to ride slow and dodge pedestrians.

Comments are closed.