I Was Right. Sort Of. Up to a Point. Under Present Conditions.

Some of us have been talking about a possible 6th Avenue...adjustment.  That adjustment can include a few things.  Sixth Avenue is a state road, and it's state road 915.  No change of any kind can be made without the state's full backing, and it is only the state that can perform any work done.  I think maybe the one exception is watering the plants in the median.  We can do that.  But we can't choose, acquire, or install any plants.  Or do anything else at all.  Although we did do one thing several years ago.  It was back in Ana Garcia's time, and she exchanged some old and deteriorating benches for new, modern, and nice ones.  One or two of the new benches are on 6th Avenue.  I don't know if she had to ask the state for permission to do this, or if she just did it.

Anyway, some of our neighbors who live on 6th Avenue had their own ideas about what adjustments they would like.  One preference they communicated, as if they were a unified and possibly even unanimous group, was that they would like 6th Avenue to be a two-lane road, instead of a four-lane road, in BP.  Sixth Avenue (SR 915) is a 5.6 mile road, running from 186th St to about 88th St, and all of it is consistently four lanes (two lanes in each direction).  Some of our neighbors would like about 1/2 mile of that 5.6 mile road -- the 1/2 mile that runs through BP -- to be reduced to two lanes.

Essentially all of our neighbors' concern was what could be summarized as what they experience as a traffic hazard.  It is noteworthy that several years ago (maybe about 2007), the Village lowered the speed limit, which was 30 MPH on all Village roads, to 25 MPH.  That reduction took effect on every road in BP, except 6th Avenue/SR 915.  The state would not allow a reduction in the speed limit on that piece of that road from 30, which it is for the whole 5.6 miles, to 25, for the 1/2 mile in BP.  We asked.  The answer was no.

A couple of weeks or so ago, there was a virtual workshop with state planners regarding the state's plan.  And for a brief recapitulation of what this is all about, as the story goes, it was Harvey Bilt, when he was on the Commission, who took it upon himself to approach the state to request "improvements" to 6th Avenue in BP.  "Improvements" considered included sidewalks, better lighting, and better drainage.  It's a bit bizarre to imagine that Harvey would have reached out entirely independently (since Tracy Truppman was the wholly autocratic dictator of the Village then), and based on no Commission discussion, the state agreed to do an expensive study simply on the strength of one person's/Commissioner's request.  But that's the story we're told, and presumably asked to believe.

Well, as the story further goes, the state did in fact do a study, and it agreed to install sidewalks and improve lighting.  And improve drainage.  Since this was all secretive, it's not possible to know how much of this Harvey/Tracy requested, and how much was the state's idea.  The study reportedly cost the state of Florida $580K.  Right.  I don't get it, either.  At the virtual workshop, we were told a few things.  The state agreed to install sidewalks, although they learned there was essentially no foot traffic.  And they agreed to a certain level of lighting improvement, but they were willing to make an even better improvement, if we would pay the $400K difference.  And they would improve drainage.  Or, we had two options.  One was to decline part of the offer, and ask that the money the state was prepared to spend be used on some other part of the offer.  For example, we could decide we didn't need the sidewalks after all, but we would like the Cadillac-level lighting instead.  So we could get no sidewalks, but best lighting, and not have to spend our own $400K.  The other option was to ask the state to cancel the project altogether.

During this virtual workshop, a few BP residents introduced a request the state never offered, and that was to reduce the caliber of the road (from four lanes to two).  I very distinctly heard the state people repeatedly say that this was out of the question.  And I reiterated that recollection in public comment during the Commission meeting two days ago.  Two of our neighbors, one of whom lives on 6th Avenue, and who was the informal spokesman of the 6th Avenue group, very directly disagreed with me, and said the state did not say that reducing from four lanes to two was out of the question.  The moderator of the workshop also virtually attended our Commission meeting, and spoke, but he never corrected me.  Another of the state people did say something about possibly reconsidering the proposal, if we wanted a reduction in the number of lanes.

So today, I called the moderator.  He had repeatedly invited anyone with questions to call him.  I recapitulated what the issue was, what I very clearly remembered, and what some of our neighbors understood to have been the state's flexibility.  He told me that I was right -- that the state said that in accordance with the study already done, there is no possibility that lane reductions can happen.  The opportunity, though, is that we can request a new study, which will take a few years to get done, and as a result of that study, it is possible the state might be willing to reduce the number of lanes.  Or maybe they won't be willing to do that.  It depends on the study, and on how consistent the state wants to be about the caliber of that particular state road.