Comments on: ”There is too much bike traffic already.

By: andrewp

andrewp — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 21:43:04 +0000

If you’ve ever been on Glendridge (in a car) heading towards Lakemont, you know that the traffic backs up at the light during heavy congestion times — backs up so far as to stack back past Waterbridge’s entrance on Glenridge. I watch cars cut through there all the time trying to bypass the Lakemont/Glenridge light. I’m surprised they haven’t put up an electronic gate yet …..

By: Mighk

Mighk — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 17:22:11 +0000

“I blame Mighk, since he’s originally from Euclid, OH.”

Hey! We didn’t invent zoning or NIMBYism, we’re just their poster child. (Or maybe “poster grandfather” is a more appropriate term.)

Actually Euclid had/has very good permeability compared to Central Florida. As a kid there I could bike all over town and rarely had to use an arterial or collector. I walked to school from kindergarten through high school, and could even walk to the grocery store and movie theater.

(OK, for you non-planners: Euclid, OH won a Supreme Court case back in the 1920s upholding the power of cities to utilize zoning in their planning. Euclid wasn’t the first place to do it (I think Los Angeles was), just notorious for having a case in which a developer wanted to build industrial in an area zoned residential.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_of_Euclid,_Ohio_v._Ambler_Realty_Co. )

By: Laura M

Laura M — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 13:27:27 +0000

Not surprising, welcome to NIMBYism. When I worked in parks and recreation we butted heads a lot with nearby homewners where new parks were planned. FOR those same homeowners! I blame Mighk, since he’s originally from Euclid, OH.

Randy Lyons, the developer of Lake Nona, commented at a workshop I attended years ago explaining the difference between ‘community’ and ‘privacy’. So many developments, Waterbridge included I’m sure, use privacy and exclusivity as selling points. Newer development adjacent to these exclusive developments (particularly true for greenfield development) detract from that privacy and exclusivity. That’s why it’s so hard to connect existing adjacent neighborhoods today that were designed with cul de sacs and other curvy linear streets and walls.

However, when you build a ‘community’, you’re not selling privacy and exclusivity. As the development fills in, you’ve actually enhanced the community (the product) that you were selling. Think Baldwin Park and how it’s beginning to gell as a community with a sense of place. The original Lake Nona Development has this too – lakes and other natural resources are public, not private. Houses don’t back up to lakes or other natural resources, trails and other paths do. Not saying the spin off developments around Lake Nona resemble this, however, there is a synergy developing down there.

Something to keep in mind when we’re looking to connect more quiet residential areas throughout the city. I think it will be easier in the urban core (we’re used to activity), but outside of that it will likely be much more problematic. Permeability will likely come in the form of canal and utility easements.

By: Keri

Keri — Sat, 10 Apr 2010 22:07:17 +0000

Um, no.

By: Eric

Eric — Sat, 10 Apr 2010 14:56:05 +0000

Give them credit where credit is due.

Even though they bricked part of Winter Park Rd and Pennsylvania with the rough bricks — which are moving all over the place due to Newton’s Third Law of Motion — they left the “Share the Road” signs up.

That should count for something. Shouldn’t it?

By: Keri

Keri — Sat, 10 Apr 2010 14:02:32 +0000

This is the same city that has replaced asphalt with rough brick on no less than 4 popular bike routes.

By: Grayson Peddie

Grayson Peddie — Sat, 10 Apr 2010 02:58:26 +0000

I chuckle at those who have concerns about cyclists riding on streets. LOL!

By: Ed W

Ed W — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 23:55:11 +0000

We had a similar situation in Tulsa when the on-street route system was first proposed. One route went through a quiet residential area where one or more vocal homeowners decried allowing those cyclists to use their streets, because after all, they didn’t pay any taxes to maintain them. I pointed out that they were welcome to use other streets outside their neighborhood, streets presumably paid for with tax money from someone else. Furthermore, the homeowners were terribly concerned about the cyclist’s safety since there were numerous crashes and street mayhem. The city crash map showed there had actually been 3 crashes in 2 years, and those were at intersections with arterial streets.

I used to have a big cowbell labeled as a “bullshit detector.” I should take that to some meetings.