no bike path for chat holley

No tourists to impress on Chat Holley. Sad, but true.

As a long time resident of the area I am just glad the county commission is finally improving the road.

So, i'm hearing that Chat Holley will be repaved but the money ran out for any sort of pedestrian and/or bike path lane, easement of any nature?
does this sound like North of 98 is getting the screws put to them. I thought the nature of CH would be to get people (locals) to use it more as a bypass, instead of 98? but i would never in million years let my children come close to crossing it let alone walk down it with no path or easement. considering its history and death toll; am i out of line here?
can someone answer me this? why does a road like 83 get a path but a major use road like CH get zip? I cannot understand how we get behind the other programs but saving peoples lives and cutting car usage gets trashed so easily?

Why not just look at it for what it is. CH was not going to get anything, then all of a sudden you get a new commissioner who has to drive it daily, at least according to her mileage logs, and now it is getting paved. IF a bike path were to be put in place she might push for that one to be inspected daily like the one on 30A, at a cost of $35/hr for the guy to ride down it on his bike, and frankly, I just do not believe we have the money. We are already closing libraries early to take care of these other expenses, what else would you cut to get a bike path?

Why not just look at it for what it is. CH was not going to get anything, then all of a sudden you get a new commissioner who has to drive it daily, at least according to her mileage logs, and now it is getting paved. IF a bike path were to be put in place she might push for that one to be inspected daily like the one on 30A, at a cost of $35/hr for the guy to ride down it on his bike, and frankly, I just do not believe we have the money. We are already closing libraries early to take care of these other expenses, what else would you cut to get a bike path?

It still seems your in your funk, inhale/ exhale, repeat until you feel better. Nice to here from you. She also voted for no increase in taxes and voted in favor of reducing the millage. Chat Holley needed the work to be done, I agree reference the bike paths, besides don't they have issues with easements on that road. As for the bicyclist, most don't ride the bike path, lucky if they follow the traffic laws when coming to stop signs and red lights and I have to share the road.

I'm pretty sure FF is correct, that there are right of way/easement issues on Chat Holley - no room for a bike path and iffy even for proper drainage. Should be easy enough to check - call the county's public works dept. The politics of tourism may have nothing to do with it.

It would take a lot of work to add a bike path to Chat Holley. It has quite steep ditches on both sides. As much as a path would be a nice addition, reality says it's just too big of a project in the current economic scene.

The feeder roads to 30A, such as 83, 283, 395, 393 are designated as "Scenic Highways" and are therefore eligible for state funding to pay for things such as sidewalks and multi-use paths. Chat Holley is not designated as a Scenic Hwy and is left with County funding.

It still seems your in your funk, inhale/ exhale, repeat until you feel better. Nice to here from you. She also voted for no increase in taxes and voted in favor of reducing the millage. Chat Holley needed the work to be done, I agree reference the bike paths, besides don't they have issues with easements on that road. As for the bicyclist, most don't ride the bike path, lucky if they follow the traffic laws when coming to stop signs and red lights and I have to share the road.

After reading how I have been supporting the Sansom world wide tour, yes my funk is not getting any better.

The easement, right of way issue is a bogus one, it is a public purpose, if the BCC had leadership it could be fixed, it is done in other counties. They could have used the hundreds of thousands they spent on the consultants to design a road to Mack Bayou that is never going to happen to buy right of way. That whole area is perfect to be turned into a walkable community if planned correctly.

She did vote to cut taxes. I actually would have had no problem with them supporting the Amendment 1 rate, which would have increased taxes for many, but would have been in line with what I had asked for in the past. Heck a vote to have taxes stay the same as last year would have been alright with me. I am happy to see them cutting taxes, because it is forcing them to cut spending and shrink government. Now the test is going to be just what it is they believe we can do without. So far it is appearing to be libraries.

My overall tax bill in Walton County is going to go up 15% though when you add in the school tax rate. But that is still a tax/budget cut from last year so I give them credit for trying.

My spouse got some land in Holmes County last year, I just saw the proposed tax bill for that. $30K in land value is going to run us $500. That is a bit absurd, imho.

After reading how I have been supporting the Sansom world wide tour, yes my funk is not getting any better.

The easement, right of way issue is a bogus one, it is a public purpose, if the BCC had leadership it could be fixed, it is done in other counties. They could have used the hundreds of thousands they spent on the consultants to design a road to Mack Bayou that is never going to happen to buy right of way. That whole area is perfect to be turned into a walkable community if planned correctly.

She did vote to cut taxes. I actually would have had no problem with them supporting the Amendment 1 rate, which would have increased taxes for many, but would have been in line with what I had asked for in the past. Heck a vote to have taxes stay the same as last year would have been alright with me. I am happy to see them cutting taxes, because it is forcing them to cut spending and shrink government. Now the test is going to be just what it is they believe we can do without. So far it is appearing to be libraries.

My overall tax bill in Walton County is going to go up 15% though when you add in the school tax rate. But that is still a tax/budget cut from last year so I give them credit for trying.

My spouse got some land in Holmes County last year, I just saw the proposed tax bill for that. $30K in land value is going to run us $500. That is a bit absurd, imho.

Yeah, I saved about $66 dollars off my tax bills, I would have rathered them use it to prevent the cuts to services and employees.

if some of you are correct and i'm assuming this is true. my issue would become this. why would the county be so short sighted to build some bike paths to no where but then no connect them via a road such as CH? i can come down to 83 on a path and then a dead stop? or 393 has an easement on the north side for bikes but again a dead stop? JD miller has one running it's length on the south side of CH but again a dead stop? it's like a bad Tetris game?
I do agree with the fact that the county is funding it, but i also agree that it tax cuts and lack of leadership over the long term will hurt both property values and the quality of our area for those who live on the north side of 98.
has the repavement of CH thrown out the median(s) that were planned as well?

as a side note, what did we spend on the median improvement on the west end of 98 for beautification? was that a Walton county project and where did that money come from? i had noticed that it has really weeded up lately and seems like we may have spent some money for nothing? i'm sure you see where i'm going with this!

I have wondered where the the money for upkeep would come from. Why does beautification always mean elaborate landscaping? As for Chat Holley, maybe a pedestrian walkway would be a better term. Serious bikers use the street anyway.

Just for argument sake, if you turn the millage into a percentage how does that rank against the bed tax?

There are some R/W issues on the east end of the road. PW is working on a plan right now, and it looks like the path, if they can find funding, will resemble the path on Moll Dr. It will be attached to the road with a curb and it will be concrete.

I don't think state funding did any of the paths on the scenic hwy roads; those paths were in before the designation was received. On 393 they couldn't get permits from DEP because of some wetland impacts.

Funding for multi-use paths primarily comes out of the sidewalk fund account, which is just about gone, because of three recent projects: Moll Dr. , Mack Bayou and Gulfview Heights.

The median improvements on 98 were State funded, but the county is maitaining them now. About those improvements, why do we have standing water in some of those medians?

if some of you are correct and i'm assuming this is true. my issue would become this. why would the county be so short sighted to build some bike paths to no where but then no connect them via a road such as CH? i can come down to 83 on a path and then a dead stop? or 393 has an easement on the north side for bikes but again a dead stop? JD miller has one running it's length on the south side of CH but again a dead stop? it's like a bad Tetris game?
I do agree with the fact that the county is funding it, but i also agree that it tax cuts and lack of leadership over the long term will hurt both property values and the quality of our area for those who live on the north side of 98.
has the repavement of CH thrown out the median(s) that were planned as well?

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).

Why can't they just have an extra 3' shoulder on one side instead of a separate curbed bike path?

Curbs just seem to make roads $$, take longer, and keep the water on them.

Why can't they just have an extra 3' shoulder on one side instead of a separate curbed bike path?

Curbs just seem to make roads $$, take longer, and keep the water on them.

Right of way issues. Just because you want to add 3 feet doesn't mean you can.

Right of way issues. Just because you want to add 3 feet doesn't mean you can.

Theer are the government. They have the force of law. If that is an issue it is because they are allowing it to be one.

Theer are the government. They have the force of law. If that is an issue it is because they are allowing it to be one.

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.

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.

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..........

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.

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.

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

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.