no bike path for chat holley

[swantree]

If I correctly understand your questions, the multi-use paths on 83, feed off of hwy 98, there is no real 83 N, except that short street which has mostly commercial large parcels that dead ends, so it would be pointless to extend the paths on the north side. That road doesn't feed to Chat Holley.

I believe hwy 393 north and hwy 395 are also designated as Scenic Highways, so that they we could apply for funding for such paths in the future, to do exactly what you are asking, connecting areas north of 98 with the central and south areas.

Not sure what you mean about JD Miller's path ending at 98. It connects people to 98, where they can flow further south on a feeder road. Funding cannot easily be given in one big dose to cover every need at the same time. It is done as money is available.

West end of 98 beautification median money was state funded (I believe).

Just Curious does make a point that the funding and it would seem the logical explanation for everyone is that "those are scenic roads" but we didn't get the designation as scenic till well after the paths were set in place.
on 393 north, north of Chat holley there is a designated bike path lane and is well marked. but again it dead ends at CH. I understand the whole of the issue being money, but it seems to me lack of funding for items that are crucial to the well being of year round residents vs. a more tourist "area" again seems short sighted? I ask this because of the children and the sake of being a greener county?
is delay not an option, when those of us who drive CH often have put up with it for so long, could not a better more thought out version be put in place? did not the county rally around blue signs (coming down) because of this same arguement? I'm not trying to be a simpleton just pragmatic.

 

[wrobert]

Right, show me a commissioner that's willing to build a road up to someone's front door and I'll show you someone who won't be reelected.

And that is why the Vulcans will one day rule this planet. The needs of the many..........

 

[scooterbug44]

Right, show me a commissioner that's willing to build a road up to someone's front door and I'll show you someone who won't be reelected.

How big is the easement for Chat Holley?

Don't quite understand how making a 2 lane paved road into a 2 lane paved road w/ a 3' bike lane on one side is reinventing the wheel and causing political crises.

There's that one wood house by the 331 (for sale the last time I drove by), but nothing else is in ANY immediate danger from an extra 36" that I recall.

 

[Matt J]

How big is the easement for Chat Holley?

Don't quite understand how making a 2 lane paved road into a 2 lane paved road w/ a 3' bike lane on one side is reinventing the wheel and causing political crises.

There's that one wood house by the 331 (for sale the last time I drove by), but nothing else is in ANY immediate danger from an extra 36" that I recall.

Let me rephrase my response:

Perhaps you should talk to the property rights folks that think 36" will quickly turn into the government picking out their wall paper. They also argue that if you give them just 3 feet for a bike path they'll take 6 more feet for a golf cart path. Then they'll want to 4 lane the whole thing and eventually they'll have to move for the light rail track that will run parallel with the new 4 lane highway this pushing them completely out of the way and negating the need for a bike path in the first place.

 

[scooterbug44]

That's why I asked what the EASEMENT size was - the dadgum gubment done already took that land!

 

[Smiling JOe]

I believe the County just received a DOT (Dept of Transportation) grant for Chat Holley, which may free up other money for other purposes.

Regarding spending money on bike lane, I'm all for a bike lane, as Chat Holley is probably the most narrow road in South Walton, but I bet there are many people who live on dirt roads in the area, who would rather have "their" road paved, than to have a bike lane on Chat Holley.

It is correct that the feeder roads had multi-use paths prior to getting the designation of "scenic Hwy." That doesn't stop the potential to receive money for additional things on those roads. I believe that 393 north was included in the "scenic Hwy" designation to help get funding for things such as a multi-use path, so give it time.

Regarding adding 3 extra feet of width to an already tight roadway, with almost no shoulder in many parts, isn't as simple as just adding a little extra paving, even if they have easements they require. With such tight shoulders, much fill will have to be added, and that might also impact wetlands in the area. I bet the County wishes that it was as easy as just widening the width of the paving machine down one side. Also, something like 90 % of bike/car accidents occur when the bike rider is riding against the flow of traffic, on the same side of the road. Adding a bike lane if done correctly, would actually require 3ft lanes on both sides of the road.

 

[florida girl]

As I understand it, when TS Michener platted the east end of Chat Holley back in the early 1900's, he didn't include enough easement to meet current standards. To bring it up to code, they would have to purchase property from the adjoining property owners. This has been a source of contention for many years, until Col Fleet ordered it paved as it was. If it is repaved, the issue will again be front and center, and whether they will allow it to be done without following code is yet to be seen.

 

[swantree]

Let me rephrase my response:

Perhaps you should talk to the property rights folks that think 36" will quickly turn into the government picking out their wall paper. They also argue that if you give them just 3 feet for a bike path they'll take 6 more feet for a golf cart path. Then they'll want to 4 lane the whole thing and eventually they'll have to move for the light rail track that will run parallel with the new 4 lane highway this pushing them completely out of the way and negating the need for a bike path in the first place.

:dothewave:.......................as the path goes the way of the Dodo bird.

 

[sunspotbaby]

Regarding spending money on bike lane, I'm all for a bike lane, as Chat Holley is probably the most narrow road in South Walton, but I bet there are many people who live on dirt roads in the area, who would rather have "their" road paved, than to have a bike lane on Chat Holley.

I live on a dirt road but NO WAY do I ever want it paved. It's flat, no ditches, no holes, and is well maintained. If it were paved, i'd have to dodge potholes within 6 months and we couldn't take our walks to the end of the road bare-footed anymore. I would like to see a path on West Hewitt & East Hewitt though, to accomodate this community in the future when all the development pops up at the end of the streeet. When that comes, we won't be able to take a walk on "the big road" without a path .

Our commissioners would do well to consider pedestrian traffic as they do vehicle traffic when permitting big development.

 

[Smiling JOe]

FYI- I believe the Planning Dept made a request for this project to have sidewalks on both sides of the internal road for this project, or for them to create one path at least 8ft in width on one side for pedestrian traffic. The internal road can be seen on the "site plan" link I posted earlier. It reminds me of the one which runs through Publix, Kelly Plantation, Home Depot, etc in Destin.