to me, it seems that the aesthetic enhancements are where we find these goals in misalignment. simply putting in the pedestrian sleeves (perhaps with a few less bollards here and there) does not necessitate the removal of the bike lanes. the aesthetic enhancements (a couple extra bollards) are the linchpin to negating the bike lanes. as a result, we will undermine the potential harmony mentioned in the guest editorial: motorists have their two lanes, bicyclists their one, and pedestrians the sidewalk to themselves and safe, beautiful intersections to cross at.

and i’m not sure i buy the argument that these enhancements will miraculously make Fruitville a pedestrian haven. Fruitville will still be approximately the same size, with the same speed limit, and with the same number (19,000) of car trips per day to keep it rather unpleasant in terms of walkability. and on top of that, you’ll have bicyclists sharing the sidewalk with you!

and again, i must stress, especially because i am a bike commuter who uses this stretch of Fruitville to get to and from work every day, that, as currently formulated, this project will not provide compensatory bike routes in place of these bike lanes. the Fruitville bike lanes provide a signalized intersection for me to cross US 301, with the right of way and without the fear of having to beat a line of cars heading right for me.

in summary, a pedestrian friendly Fruitville is certainly possible while simultaneously maintaining the bike lanes. we can do it, and i bet it would be a lot cheaper too.

The traffic they’re hoping for would be from new ventures on Fruitville, condos+retail in the now-vacant lots. Yes, Fruitville is not ped-friendly, but part of the reason nobody walks there is because there’s little on Fruitville that people want to drive to, let alone walk to. Hopefully that will change, and that’s what the plan is banking on.

I’m not saying that raised property values are inherently evil, or that bicyclists are inherently angelic (nothing about latex is angelic), but it does feel to me that cyclists are getting screwed out of a major thoroughfare to make way for the change, of which increased property values are a huge part.

But being a bike-friendly city — not, you know, the fifth-most dangerous in the state — is a worthy goal. A green goal.

From what I understand — and admittedly, I’m not as familiar with Masterplan as I could be — the hope is that Fruitville will be a welcoming street, an entrance to downtown.

If that’s the goal, why not make the stretch between 41 and 301 two lanes? Everyone would be happy — big sidewalks, big bike lanes, all the trees and streetlights we could ever want. But even the bike advocates at last week’s A.R.T. meeting laughed that option off as an impossibility.

Why? Because Fruitville, even close to downtown, is a thoroughfare, one motorists aren’t going to be willing to give up. So why should bikers — especially in a city that wants to encourage green living?

But that’s the point of narrowing the roads and widening the sidewalks — to INCREASE pedestrian traffic — the traffic that you’re right, rarely exists there.
They want to make Fruitville less of a barrier for people who would like to walk from Rosemary to downtown. The city says it IS being more green by doing this to Fruitville.

Fruitville between 41 and 301 is not pedestrian friendly, that’s why no one walks along it. They’re trying to make it more ped-friendly, and thus the city more walkable.

They’ve said (and in all fairness, their word is NOT their bond) that they will compensate for lost bicycle routes on Fruitville by creating other routes on less-traffic heavy streets.

It’s not about evil property values vs. angelic bicyclists rights — it’s about two groups who want the same outcome, but see different ways of accomplishing it.