Livingston. . . A new "Main Street"?

[JFW657]

Certainly there doesn't have to be only one main e/w street. 

We are finally getting to the point of having a few of them. 

I think Central will always be the #1 "main" e/w side street, but a lot of things go into making other streets "major" side streets. The development of the major construction projects going up on Livingston, will be enough to transform it from a kind of unremarkable, nothing special, second rate pass through, to a much more recognizable street that when mentioned, will evoke its own mental images and a sense of place. 

[prahaboheme]

12 hours ago, JFW657 said:

Certainly there doesn't have to be only one main e/w street. 

We are finally getting to the point of having a few of them. 

I think Central will always be the #1 "main" e/w side street, but a lot of things go into making other streets "major" side streets. The development of the major construction projects going up on Livingston, will be enough to transform it from a kind of unremarkable, nothing special, second rate pass through, to a much more recognizable street that when mentioned, will evoke its own mental images and a sense of place. 

Including making streets two-way and not one-way. 

[JFW657]

25 minutes ago, prahaboheme said:

Including making streets two-way and not one-way. 

With the exception of Orange and Rosalind Avenues, which of course, should remain one way.  

Just like they are.

 

.

Edited February 29, 2020 by JFW657

[prahaboheme]

11 hours ago, JFW657 said:

With the exception of Orange and Rosalind Avenues, which of course, should remain one way.  

Just like they are.

 

.

Disagree - especially on Rosalind which doesn’t need to be a freeway to the north. 

[JFW657]

9 hours ago, prahaboheme said:

Disagree - especially on Rosalind which doesn’t need to be a freeway to the north. 

Guess we'll just disagree then.  

[spenser1058]

Just turn Rosalind over from the state to Buddy. Before you know it, there’ll be so many potholes it will be impassable.

But remember: Here in Buddy’s Orlando, potholes are a feature, not a bug!

Edited March 1, 2020 by spenser1058

[nite owℓ]

16 hours ago, spenser1058 said:

Just turn Rosalind over from the state to Buddy. Before you know it, there’ll be so many potholes it will be impassable.

But remember: Here in Buddy’s Orlando, potholes are a feature, not a bug!

 

I prefer potholes over speed bumps myself: they get the job done. 

[JFW657]

21 hours ago, spenser1058 said:

Just turn Rosalind over from the state to Buddy. Before you know it, there’ll be so many potholes it will be impassable.

But remember: Here in Buddy’s Orlando, potholes are a feature, not a bug!

I say build concrete barrier walls along each side of Rosalind from South St to Robinson, take away the on street parking, get rid of the traffic lights and increase the speed limit to 55 mph.  

  

[spenser1058]

FL 527 became a raceway through downtown to move traffic before I4 was built. We can make the case that the interstate should have remained west of downtown, but Martin Andersen had other ideas.

As a result, we have a limited-access highway through downtown (actually, two, when you count the E/W) and the Orange/Rosalind raceway is an anachronism which should be removed.

[JFW657]

People who never drive to work through downtown every morning are probably more apt to feel that snarling the traffic to a crawl along Rosalind is a good idea. Those who do use it every morning would probably disagree. 

[Jernigan]

1 hour ago, JFW657 said:

People who never drive to work through downtown every morning are probably more apt to feel that snarling the traffic to a crawl along Rosalind is a good idea. Those who do use it every morning would probably disagree. 

Sure - we saw that on Curry Ford.   But I’d hope what is being measured is real travel delay against real benefits and not just angry fist shaking against idealists who hate cars.

My assumption is the closer you get to the city center the pros would intensify while the differential travel delay gets smaller but I could be wrong.

[spenser1058]

1 hour ago, JFW657 said:

People who never drive to work through downtown every morning are probably more apt to feel that snarling the traffic to a crawl along Rosalind is a good idea. Those who do use it every morning would probably disagree. 

I have to drive to work through downtown every morning. I’m willing to bet I use the streets downtown in a given week a lot more than you would. I guess those of us who live downtown aren’t entitled to an opinion.

[JFW657]

11 minutes ago, spenser1058 said:

I have to drive to work through downtown every morning. I’m willing to bet I use the streets downtown in a given week a lot more than you would. I guess those of us who live downtown aren’t entitled to an opinion.

I thought you lived on the east side of Lake Eola, which seems to me like it would negate the need to use Rosalind.

But that's neither here nor there. If you do, you do.

As far as who is and who isn't "entitled" when it comes to having an opinion, all I'm doing is expressing mine while doing nothing whatsoever to hinder you or anyone else from having and expressing theirs. 

Where you get the notion otherwise, I have no idea.

Given the fact that I lived downtown very near where you live now for fifteen years and, more recently having worked at Advent Health which I often drove to using Rosalind, I too am both entitled and qualified to have an opinion on this particular subject.

You can feel perfectly free to disagree, with no fear of oppression, suppression or reprisal.

And I will do so as well.

My opinion: Leave the traffic on Rosalind the way it is.

YMMV.

[spenser1058]

9 minutes ago, JFW657 said:

I thought you lived on the east side of Lake Eola, which seems to me like it would negate the need to use Rosalind.

But that's neither here nor there. If you do, you do.

As far as who is and who isn't "entitled" when it comes to having an opinion, all I'm doing is expressing mine while doing nothing whatsoever to hinder you or anyone else from having and expressing theirs. 

Where you get the notion otherwise, I have no idea.

Given the fact that I lived downtown very near where you live now for fifteen years and, more recently having worked at Advent Health which I often drove to using Rosalind, I too am both entitled and qualified to have an opinion on this particular subject.

You can feel perfectly free to disagree, with no fear of oppression, suppression or reprisal.

And I will do so as well.

My opinion: Leave the traffic on Rosalind the way it is.

YMMV.

The folks on Curry Ford spoke loudly about their preferences and even though I disagreed (although Buddy’s minions botched it as they do so many road things), I believed that the folks who lived there should carry the day. It seems fair to apply the same thinking to those of us who live downtown.

I may live east of Eola but have to use Rosalind often to get out of downtown. In any event, my ZIP code says it all: it’s 32801, just like the rest of downtown.

[JFW657]

2 minutes ago, spenser1058 said:

The folks on Curry Ford spoke loudly about their preferences and even though I disagreed (although Buddy’s minions botched it as they do so many road things), I believed that the folks who lived there should carry the day. It seems fair to apply the same thinking to those of us who live downtown.

I may live east of Eola but have to use Rosalind often to get out of downtown. In any event, my ZIP code says it all: it’s 32801, just like the rest of downtown.

I disagree.

I do not believe that on an issue like traffic flow, which affects residents countywide and beyond, a small number should get to decide how things will be for the rest of the entire metro area. I feel that what's best for the vast majority of the residents is what should be given prominence.

Choking off the flow of vehicular traffic for thousands of taxpaying citizens who have a legitimate need to use the roadways to efficiently get to and from work and conduct commerce, just to appease a much smaller number of neighborhood residents who only want it done because they feel it would give their neighborhood a more hip, cool urban vibe, be it my Hourglass or your downtown, doesn't make sense to me.  

[spenser1058]

4 minutes ago, JFW657 said:

I disagree.

I do not believe that on an issue like traffic flow, which affects residents countywide and beyond, a small number should get to decide how things will be for the rest of the entire metro area. I feel that what's best for the vast majority of the residents is what should be given prominence.

Choking off the flow of vehicular traffic for thousands of taxpaying citizens who have a legitimate need to use the roadways to efficiently get to and from work and conduct commerce, just to appease a much smaller number of neighborhood residents who only want it done because they feel it would give their neighborhood a more hip, cool urban vibe, be it my Hourglass or your downtown, doesn't make sense to me.  

So you value autos above all else. How very 1950’s of you. In any event, just as was proved on Edgewater Drive, even with a road diet folks can use alternatives. Anyone coming in on Rosalind may hop to I4 or, egad!, use SunRail. Cars are not more important than pedestrians and cyclists.

[JFW657]

5 hours ago, spenser1058 said:

So you value autos above all else. How very 1950’s of you. In any event, just as was proved on Edgewater Drive, even with a road diet folks can use alternatives. Anyone coming in on Rosalind may hop to I4 or, egad!, use SunRail. Cars are not more important than pedestrians and cyclists.

So you make ambiguous assumptions about people based on specious logic. How very 1950's of you. 

I don't feel that Edgewater Drive and Rosalind Avenue are comparable.

Detouring over to I-4 is not the quick, convenient little "hop" you make it sound like, and using SunRail is nowhere even close to being a viable option for everyone.

You're just grasping at straws there.

Making downtown more conducive to walking and cycling is a laudable goal, but it is not more important than the smooth flow of traffic for the entire metro area.

.

Edited March 3, 2020 by JFW657

[orlandoguy]

For what it's worth, there were  a lot of us in the neighborhoods surrounding the Curry Ford study area that were in support of the study, as well as finding solutions that allow CF to be more hospitable to pedestrians and cyclists. (Many posters on this board often refer to the residents who were outraged by the CF test, not mentioning those of us who supported it.)

[codypet]

9 minutes ago, orlandoguy said:

For what it's worth, there were  a lot of us in the neighborhoods surrounding the Curry Ford study area that were in support of the study, as well as finding solutions that allow CF to be more hospitable to pedestrians and cyclists. (Many posters on this board often refer to the residents who were outraged by the CF test, not mentioning those of us who supported it.)

This! 

[AndyPok1]

I don't think we need to rehash this again.  You're right.  Cars are not more important.  But they are also not second class citizens, despite what we want it to be.  I walk around downtown all the time and have 0 issues crossing any of these streets.

[nite owℓ]

7 hours ago, orlandoguy said:

For what it's worth, there were  a lot of us in the neighborhoods surrounding the Curry Ford study area that were in support of the study, as well as finding solutions that allow CF to be more hospitable to pedestrians and cyclists. (Many posters on this board often refer to the residents who were outraged by the CF test, not mentioning those of us who supported it.)

I personally regarded the homeowners in the neighborhood who were against CF test as outliers. People with skin in the game are unlikely to be against improvements to the neighborhood because it would be like shooting yourself in the foot. The other protests came from people who don't live in the area but are happy to use the neighborhood as a cut-through, quality of life be damned (as long as it's not in their own backyard).

Edited March 3, 2020 by nite owℓ

[JFW657]

1 hour ago, nite owℓ said:

I personally regarded the homeowners in the neighborhood who were against CF test as outliers. People with skin in the game are unlikely to be against improvements to the neighborhood because it would be like shooting yourself in the foot. The other protests came from people who don't live in the area but are happy to use the neighborhood as a cut-through, quality of life be damned (as long as it's not in their own backyard).

I am a twenty year homeowner in the neighborhood and I was against it. 

Describing it as an improvement is a matter of opinion. 

[nite owℓ]

50 minutes ago, JFW657 said:

I am a twenty year homeowner in the neighborhood and I was against it. 

Describing it as an improvement is a matter of opinion. 

Interesting. I believe there were also plans to rezone portions of CF as well, were you against that too? I don't remember your stance on the subject or your reasons behind it.

[JFW657]

12 minutes ago, nite owℓ said:

Interesting. I believe there were also plans to rezone portions of CF as well, were you against that too? I don't remember your stance on the subject or your reasons behind it.

If by rezone portions of CF, you mean allowing certain new types of businesses to operate there, no, I was not against that.

All I cared about was any proposal or plan to bottleneck the vehicular traffic.  

[codypet]

6 hours ago, JFW657 said:

I am a twenty year homeowner in the neighborhood and I was against it. 

Describing it as an improvement is a matter of opinion. 

You're not alone.  There was quite a bit of people against it.  Particularly those who lived on Vine St.  Also during the rezoning study a neighbor of mine who had lived there 40 years went on record to say she didn't want the area improved because it would increase her property values and her taxes and she didn't want that, and if the people who have lived in the neighborhood want it improved then they should find somewhere else to live.   I tried to explain to her that right now there's limited zoning restrictions and if we don't get involved we're about to get a bunch of ugly tatoo and pawn shops.  With this rezoning and special use district, we could kinda preserve the current neighborhood.

5 hours ago, nite owℓ said:

Interesting. I believe there were also plans to rezone portions of CF as well, were you against that too? I don't remember your stance on the subject or your reasons behind it.

Those were two different meetings and public events that occurred around the same time which caused confusion.  There was also overlap because I believe the rezoning one had bike/ped improvements within the limits of the existing road.   That's why during the 2nd rezoning meeting Patty stood up in front of everyone and famously threw the transportation dept under the bus.