Hampton Inn Seagrove Beach on Chateau Hotel Property

[Lake View Too]

The roundabout project in Washington State incorporated all of that (pedestrian,bike path) I believe. A roundabout moves traffic, prevents t-bone collisions, and can eliminate the need for additional lanes (395 at 30-A would be right turn lane Westbound, protected left turn lane Eastbound). Either way, right of way would have to be purchased at fair market value by the county. Probably not going to happen...unless locals and state put up some money, as was the case in Washington State.
There are other methods of reducing gridlock at intersections: add a lane. This does nothing to calm traffic in my opinion.
The ideas of more perpendicular avenues between 30-A and 98 is dangerous to the protected forest areas and/or invites more development in the area(s) if any,
that are not protected.

Again, the problem, to me, would be the bike path. As it stands now, the bike path traffic does not merge with the vehicular traffic. If a roundabout was installed, it would become necessary for the bike traffic to merge with vehicular traffic to keep things flowing. I can't see the "typical vacation bicycler" (many of which are children) being able to merge with typical vehicular traffic.

Also, I don't see why north-south "connector roads" can't traverse the forests and be restricted from any commercial development. You see scenic roads through parks all the time.

 

[NotDeadYet]

The roundabout project in Washington State incorporated all of that (pedestrian,bike path) I believe. A roundabout moves traffic, prevents t-bone collisions, and can eliminate the need for additional lanes (395 at 30-A would be right turn lane Westbound, protected left turn lane Eastbound). Either way, right of way would have to be purchased at fair market value by the county. Probably not going to happen...unless locals and state put up some money, as was the case in Washington State.
There are other methods of reducing gridlock at intersections: add a lane. This does nothing to calm traffic in my opinion.
The ideas of more perpendicular avenues between 30-A and 98 is dangerous to the protected forest areas and/or invites more development in the area(s) if any,
that are not protected.

Right of way does not need to be purchased.
The Stephens family that owns the property on the northeast corner of 30A and 395 are willing to donate enough of it to make the right of way large enough to accommodate a roundabout. However, they want some input into the design in exchange for the loss of some valuable land, and they have not been able to, as far as I know, come to an agreement with the county. Somewhere in the video archives of the county is one of a long meeting that took place last year or maybe the year before. The Stephens' family had their own traffic engineer there and there was a lot of technical discussion. If I remember correctly the Stephens preferred a roundabout but the county preferred a traffic signal and a right turn lane for westbound traffic. It's worth watching the whole thing if you want to hear the history of discussions about this intersection as they actually took place. Sorry I haven't got the link for you, but it's there somewhere, I watched it shortly after it took place.
I am against roads through the forest for the same reasons as you mention here, but in addition there is the further reason that any road would be very expensive to build and permit, assuming permission could even be obtained. There are many wetlands which you can see for yourself if you hike the trails.

 

[Lake View Too]

Having been thru these conversations over and over again, it has finally occurred to me how to solve the problem, with less stress, and, most importantly, less words...

STOP DEVELOPMENT!

(Thank you.)

 

[Bob Wells]

Unfortunately stopping development is not an option. People/ companies that have invested in these properties surely deserve a return on the investment. In fairness for whatever reason they are seeking that return now. As for building a road through the forest I look no further than what they did at camp creek area and the road they put through there. I think if you want to alleviate traffic and help with reasonable development a road or 2 north and south would be an option. I also think it would open up potential for more biking and running trails. Just my opinion and you may disagree. Just a note making this what it used to be is not going to happen. Slowing down growth is possible but really we can't put the genie back in the bottle.

 

[Lake View Too]

It was an attempt at humor (sort of). Sane zoning laws would be nice. Connector roads is the most viable option and I think they could be done with minimal environmental impact.

 

[Geo]

Unfortunately stopping development is not an option. People/ companies that have invested in these properties surely deserve a return on the investment. In fairness for whatever reason they are seeking that return now. As for building a road through the forest I look no further than what they did at camp creek area and the road they put through there. I think if you want to alleviate traffic and help with reasonable development a road or 2 north and south would be an option. I also think it would open up potential for more biking and running trails. Just my opinion and you may disagree. Just a note making this what it used to be is not going to happen. Slowing down growth is possible but really we can't put the genie back in the bottle.

Thank you, Bob. I couldn't agree with you more.

I believe folks hearts are in the right place but I just can't wrap my head around how we go about things sometimes. We don't want development- only ours. We freak out about traffic but won't allow a stoplight or another North/South thoroughfare. We're not okay with a 90 unit development being approved but said little about the massive multi-home developments that will have far greater impacts that are already green lighted. We can't possibly allow chains when we already have chains. We want our own beach accesses, don't want to allow parking near them but we are very concerned about the impact of more beach accesses and don't like peeps parking along the right of way.

I certainly don't have all the answers but I certainly believe there are some very simple solutions that require just a very little common sense compromise. Here are a few which I personally support-

Instead of spending our money supporting causes in the form of paying for attorneys' beach houses we should instead put our money behind buying the remaining parcels and turning them into green space.

We should pressure our elected and appointed officials to redirect existing monies to infrastructure and land acquisition to support the current visitor numbers rather than just spending it on marketing to grow those numbers.

We should absolutely build more North South roads - even if it needs to be through state lands (gasp) and do so in a way that minimizes environmental impact. WaterSound Parkway is a nice example of what such a road could look like, IMHO. There is so much aesthetic potential. Look at what St. Joe and Alys Beach often do along roads and with empty land. Gorgeous manicured landscaping. Wooden sculptures (have a look at the horses across the street from Caliza). This would not only solve traffic issues but it would end up literally winning this area awards and make us a model for what you do with connector roads. (be careful what we wish for- that would just get us more exposure and more visitors- haha.

Separate thread but we should fix our electoral issues so that South Walton voters vote for South Walton commissioners and the north can vote for their own.

We should elect leaders that participate in open dialogue (or demand existing ones do so). On a community FB page not long ago I asked a commissioner to pipe in with their thoughts/position on an issue. In response, community activists tripped over themselves apologizing for me and making the excuse that it was an inappropriate request "in our current political climate". Change the climate. Find someone who tells you what they think about every single issue and why. Someone who is open minded to consider other positions based on what the community wants. And let the constituents decide who they want to vote for without regard to political party. Which BTW (another separate thread)---- for local politics we should completely throw out the democrat/republican party system. In this day in age they don't need them for fundraising and they are a liability to our slice of heaven, IMHO.

Too much coffee.

Back to my lurker hole.

 

[Geo]

Well I didn't stay in my lurker hole too long.

Since I just ranted I should probably at least try to get back on topic. Hampton Inn. I don't want one. But it seems very likely I am afraid that it will get a green light.

So I think of it kind of like I do the 2 or 3 high rises we have. Those made it through. And that is a shame but at least we learned our lesson and tightened up the restrictions to avoid having more. And while I haven't given up hope completely that it will get voted down my hope is that at a minimum (if it doesn't get voted down entirely) that our commissioners deny its current iteration and make ultimate approval contingent upon a design that does fit better into the area. I have seen Walmarts and Best Buys and McDonalds in California and in Arizona that actually look nice (relative to the cookie cutter designs of those typical businesses). And NO- I don't want any of those either.

 

[JoeWormwood]

Thank you, Bob. I couldn't agree with you more.

I believe folks hearts are in the right place but I just can't wrap my head around how we go about things sometimes. We don't want development- only ours. We freak out about traffic but won't allow a stoplight or another North/South thoroughfare. We're not okay with a 90 unit development being approved but said little about the massive multi-home developments that will have far greater impacts that are already green lighted. We can't possibly allow chains when we already have chains. We want our own beach accesses, don't want to allow parking near them but we are very concerned about the impact of more beach accesses and don't like peeps parking along the right of way.

I certainly don't have all the answers but I certainly believe there are some very simple solutions that require just a very little common sense compromise. Here are a few which I personally support-

Instead of spending our money supporting causes in the form of paying for attorneys' beach houses we should instead put our money behind buying the remaining parcels and turning them into green space.

We should pressure our elected and appointed officials to redirect existing monies to infrastructure and land acquisition to support the current visitor numbers rather than just spending it on marketing to grow those numbers.

We should absolutely build more North South roads - even if it needs to be through state lands (gasp) and do so in a way that minimizes environmental impact. WaterSound Parkway is a nice example of what such a road could look like, IMHO. There is so much aesthetic potential. Look at what St. Joe and Alys Beach often do along roads and with empty land. Gorgeous manicured landscaping. Wooden sculptures (have a look at the horses across the street from Caliza). This would not only solve traffic issues but it would end up literally winning this area awards and make us a model for what you do with connector roads. (be careful what we wish for- that would just get us more exposure and more visitors- haha.

Separate thread but we should fix our electoral issues so that South Walton voters vote for South Walton commissioners and the north can vote for their own.

We should elect leaders that participate in open dialogue (or demand existing ones do so). On a community FB page not long ago I asked a commissioner to pipe in with their thoughts/position on an issue. In response, community activists tripped over themselves apologizing for me and making the excuse that it was an inappropriate request "in our current political climate". Change the climate. Find someone who tells you what they think about every single issue and why. Someone who is open minded to consider other positions based on what the community wants. And let the constituents decide who they want to vote for without regard to political party. Which BTW (another separate thread)---- for local politics we should completely throw out the democrat/republican party system. In this day in age they don't need them for fundraising and they are a liability to our slice of heaven, IMHO.

Too much coffee.

Back to my lurker hole.

Why do you hate SOWAL?

 

[Zebraspots]

Wanting enforcement of existing rules is not taking away anyone's property rights or value.

There is a preservation requirement on the Hampton Inn property. Making them stick to it and not allowing a buyout means they can't build a giant eyesore that will add to stormwater and traffic issues. No rule changes, no lawsuit, just common sense.

And building more connector roads will not solve the traffic issues. Connecting roads and developments so you don't have everyone using the same road is how you fix that.

 

[Geo]

And building more connector roads will not solve the traffic issues.

How can you say that? Please provide your underlying logic and/or reason and/or data and/or assumptions to support this statement. Here is some of my own to support why I think you are wrong.

What is the issue?

Let's start by making sure we are both talking about and attempting to address the same problem. I don't see the traffic problem as being the number of cars we have coming or going to/from the area at large. The secret is out. I don't believe we have control anymore over that. So hopefully you understand that I am not saying connectors will reduce the number of cars.

I see the problem as being the combination of the congestion, gridlock, amount of time it takes and the length of distance needed to be traveled to get to a destination on 30A and to leave 30A. In other words, we need improve the flow in and out of the Scenic Highway corridor.

Some assumptions I am making when I say connector roads will help to address the issue.

Connector roads would need to be used in conjunction with properly timed stoplights on and off of 30A (e.g. intersection of 331 and 98, intersection of all connectors with 98 and at the intersections of 30A and the connector roads namely 395). And by properly timed I mean that they will behave as needed during peak times vs. off peak times.

The bridge project and widening of 331 would be completed.

The new connectors would be dedicated thoroughfares and therefore have no or very limited development and therefore their speed limits would increase as they approached 98 (e.g. 45MPH-55MPH).

The high level of why I believe this would help address the issue?

The more connector roads there are dispersed east/west across 30A the less distance most cars traveling to 30A would need to travel on 30A to get to their destination.

The more connector roads there are dispersed east/west across 30A the less distance most cars leaving 30A would need to travel on 30A in order to leave it.

Cars leaving 30A would be able to leave 30A faster. This will help with the flow on 30A.

Only local traffic would be driving on 30A at slower speeds. Vehicles coming and going to/fro 30A would instead be driving on roads with higher speed limits and less stop and go local traffic.

With connectors the same amount of cars coming and going would be divisible into a larger number of arteries which provide more surface area/road capacity during our peak coming and going periods (e.g. Saturday morning).

Your turn.