The Lane - Mixed-Use Development - News & Updates
May 26, 2011 12:57 am at 12:57 am #445834
Common Sense Citizen wrote >>
No one cares until something happens to them. These folks have been raped by the powers that be. Just hope nothing like this happens to you.
Like losing the ability to tell the difference between being raped and having someone park in front of my home? I sincerely hope not.May 26, 2011 1:21 am at 1:21 am #445835
This thread is providing some good entertainment for me as I sit here and look at the roughly 20,000 cars per day out my front window and listen to the fire trucks coming from the station down the street.
Keep the drama coming please.May 26, 2011 1:59 am at 1:59 am #445836
Jumping up and down and yelling the city is breaking the law is going to get you nowhere and I’d guess trying to vote the precinct dry is a close second.
I hope you’ve been going to all the council meetings and any other meeting you’re able to attend that even tangentially touches on your issue. And when you’re at the table try to bring a reasoned solution. Talk to the traffic engineers, your neighbors, the business owners, and council people. Talk to the guys who put up the signs because they’re probably the only ones who really know what’s going on. After reading the article you posted it sounds like there’s more going on than meets the eye so you’ve got some homework to do.
And yes, you do have to pay attention to the legal notices in the paper, and the city council agenda, and the traffic plan that Aecom is making and whatever else you can get. Paying attention is probably the most important part; then try to work it out with all your neighbors.
And if you’ve already done all that and more go to Lowes, get two dozen bags of Quick-crete asphalt and make a nasty-ass speed bump yourself in the middle of the night.May 26, 2011 2:05 am at 2:05 am #445837
Common Sense Citizen wrote >>
The residents already have a “Parking by Permit Only” status on their streets. The city took the signs away 2 years ago claiming that they needed repair. The residents have requested that they be put back up because Wine Bistro patrons are lite rally racing through their residential streets and making U-turns in driveways looking for a parking spot in front of their homes. Would you want to live with kids on such a street?
This was not the situation when they moved in. Nine years ago, without notification other than 3 small ads in local papers with just parcel numbers (Do YOU read those itty bitty ads? Do YOU know YOUR parcel number?), the city rezoned their homes to be multi-use. The residents can not contest this, since the timeframe for reconsideration has expired.
The city officials and council don’t want to retain the “Parking by Permit Only” because it will upset the owner of the Wine Bistro.
Right now, the city is in violation of the law, the residents have repeatedly expressed their concern for the safety of their children, and the city has put up roadblock after roadblock on every turn.
What would YOU do?
First, if I were you, I’d take a deep breath and unclench my ass. Then I’d reexamine my cloistered existence. Next I’d apologize to my children (and anyone else I’ve ever come in close contact with) and try to explain to them my anal-retentive pathos. Finally, I’d seek professional help for my neurosis. After I was cured, I call up my neighbors, walk over to the Wine Bistro and share a bottle of wine and some flatbread.
No one cares until something happens to them. These folks have been raped by the powers that be.
Just hope nothing like this happens to you.
I sure hope another good restaurant that I can walk to doesn’t open up near me. The horror.May 26, 2011 2:22 am at 2:22 am #445838
Common Sense Citizen wrote >>
* * *
the city rezoned their homes to be multi-use. The residents can not contest this, since the timeframe for reconsideration has expired.
* * *
Sounds to me like a bunch of people who weren’t paying attention when decisions were getting made and now want to complain about the results of their own failure…
Either that or NIMBY-ism.
Or both.May 26, 2011 3:30 am at 3:30 am #445839
Umm. yeah, like I thought, there’s a little more going on than the article let on.
Upper Arlington might allow 8 more liquor permits along Lane Avenue
Thursday, May 26, 2011
BY DEAN NARCISO
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
As a consultant visits Upper Arlington this week to discuss traffic and parking problems with residents, a new entertainment district under discussion would allow eight new liquor licenses in the city.May 26, 2011 3:57 am at 3:57 am #445840
@csc – At the risk of upping the hyperbole, may I suggest that the “final solution” of voting the district dry seems about as effective as setting your house on fire in order to stay warm in the winter.May 26, 2011 4:17 am at 4:17 am #445841
cbus11MemberMay 26, 2011 1:28 pm at 1:28 pm #445842
This is going to a vote where the majority of Upper Arlington residents welcome the development.
I guess I’d be upset if I lived near the Wine Bistro and I saw a bunch of crazy patrons flying down the street in their Lexus/BMW’s with their 13.1 bumper stickers.May 26, 2011 1:39 pm at 1:39 pm #445843
I love the idea of people racing for wine. 2 Fast 2 Furious: UA StyleMay 26, 2011 11:33 pm at 11:33 pm #445844
Creating an entertainment district on Lane Avenue sounds like a great idea, but something would definitely need to be done about the traffic through there. The sidewalks are adequate, but the roads are designed for speed, and the safe crossing points don’t seem to be as plentiful as they should be. Honestly, turning the curb lane to on-street parking in both directions with crosswalk bump outs and medians (where wide enough) would probably solve that issue *and* would add needed parking to the area *and* provide a small revenue stream through meters.May 26, 2011 11:54 pm at 11:54 pm #445845
if lane were not *the* major artery through the area with few options to reroute traffic, (a la 3rd st/4th st does for high) that might work. unfortunately the street layout does not lend itself to using lane as anything but a major arterial.May 27, 2011 12:48 am at 12:48 am #445846
If Lane Avenue were reduced to a travel lane in each direction with a middle turn lane and metered on-street parking, it would resemble High Street in the Short North. And we all know what kind of major disaster that arterial is both for commuters and for entertainment destinations.May 27, 2011 1:41 am at 1:41 am #445847
Walker wrote >>
If Lane Avenue were reduced to a travel lane in each direction with a middle turn lane and metered on-street parking, it would resemble High Street in the Short North. And we all know what kind of major disaster that arterial is both for commuters and for entertainment destinations.
I hear ya, I’m as big a fan of the road diet as you are. But its not a one-size fits all solution for all roads. High street is NOT handling most of the commuter traffic N/S through the SN. Summit and 4rth are doing that.
I’ve also lived near Lane ave for a long time, these are my observations:
unlike high street in the SN which is very congested in the afternoon/evenings mostly with people going to the SN, much of the traffic on Lane is through that neighbourhood to somewhere else entirely.
Especially in the mornings/evenings its a really large volume, larger than High street. not turning, not shopping, just straight on through. All of the through traffic in the area is actively funnelled onto that one road including two busy lanes of traffic entering the neighborhood from campus/kenny rd/sr315 (at 45mph). It is the primary east/west connector in that area with no good alternates at all.
For high street to be a correct analogy it would have to be with 3rd/4th/indianola shut down and with high handling ALL of the commuter traffic through the area. That is simply not the case with High street.
Maybe if they used a system where they turned off the meters twice a day and let the commuters use the parking lane (like they do downtown)… then it would be pretty ok.
I dunno, i’m sure there’s a traffic study that would make the case one way or the other, but I would be really skeptical you could take it down to one lane each way until I see actual data for that road.
but the point is moot since I don’t think anyone is even suggesting this kind of thing (except here).May 27, 2011 2:15 am at 2:15 am #445848
Yeah, probably a moot point, as I’m sure public opinion would most likely swing toward whatever is easiest for auto traffic, but I still think it would be something worth considering by the powers that be.
It’s been a long time, but “back in the day” I lived on North Campus and worked out on the west side (around Trabue & 270). During non-peak hours, I’d take Lane to Trabue to get to work. During peak hours (a lot of which aligned with student traffic coming and going from west campus) I was better off taking 315 south to 670/70 west around to Wilson because Lane was such a cluster. It does get really busy through there.
While I agree with you that Lane and High differ due to other closer options, some of that through traffic does have other viable options. I don’t think it’s a stretch to assume that some of that traffic would flow to 5th Avenue or Fishinger, depending upon the points of origin and destination. Current traffic patterns exist because they were man-made as such, right?
I’d also love to see total traffic volumes of High compared to Lane on these stretches, just to get an idea of how they compare.
Or heck, who knows. Maybe if we designed something that was more equally accessible by bike, bus and feet then auto traffic would decrease and shift to other modes.
The forum ‘General Columbus Discussion’ is closed to new topics and replies.