dwSouthEola

Right ? I'm glad they're there but how did Lake qualify ? In January Comm. Sheehan said of the request for Church/Eola "A four way stop is not warranted because in order to qualify traffic must be equal in volume as it approaches the intersection, which is not the case." So by that reasoning traffic on Lake exceeds that of Osceola & Eola across Church ? ... and before 420 or Citi went up bc the 4-way was there before both, say it was placed 10yrs ago when Paramount was built ? I have a hard time believing the numbers were there. I think it's odd anyway, that safety is somehow tied to an equal level of cross traffic. Seems like a requirement that sets us up to fail, simply bc of the huge traffic counts on Church from people going out downtown, daily commuters, etc. (4900 AADT per DDB 2018 retail brochure). When you look at what residents use, Osceola = Post Parkside and 420 Church garage, Paramount and Star Tower both close.. Eola Dr = 530 Central and Jackson garage, with 101 and Sanctuary both close.. it just doesn't add up that they refuse to place stop signs on these two streets. Heck, Eola Dr didn't even have crosswalks until last year and they even made that difficult. And has anyone else noticed the crosswalk signs at Church/Osceola look like this ? .. on both sides of the road. I requested ROW tree trimming during a meeting July 5th, idk how long it takes to make happen but it just adds to what's going on here.

Agreed, a study now will not give realistic results.. and sadly to your 2nd point - not likely. At my last meeting about this intersection I said the same thing and they refused to accept the increased number of residents/traffic will *without question* surpass their requirements to implement the 4-way stop. They even said that the last study results "were close" to qualifying but kept repeating "there are rules we need to follow and at this time it does not meet our requirements" so that was that.

Saw a pole with some equipment on it, prob doing another study for the requested 4 way stop at Church and Eola Dr So if you want to see it happen maybe tell everyone you know to drive their car down South Eola Drive and *cross* Church Street since they keep denying it for lack of cross traffic.

The view 2 days ago through the fence at Church/Eola Drive

That part of Thornton Park ... isn't Thornton Park, it's South Eola but they sure do have a huge sign on Pine St claiming the area for Thornton Park. Lol

Driving on Church last night I was behind 3 cars who all stopped one after another at Osceola and again at Eola as if there were stop signs. I appreciate the gesture but the city has even said this causes "good samaritan accidents" bc the cross traffic thinks "Should I go??" and there's a standoff until someone or often both people end up going, causing an accident and/or a lot of near misses. A comment on the South Eola fb page was "public perception that there are stop signs where there aren't may itself be justification to place them" bc it removes the good samaritan scenario. I also think if the condo boards were to float a petition about this to residents it would help. My street level pics aren't that exciting but I took this yesterday morning, the flags along Osceola remind me of a used car lot.

At the Abbey info mtg there was an ask for 4-way stops at Church/Osceola & Church/Eola, was there any straight answer why they refuse to place them? I think the side-step was something about the larger downtown plan (made for all of downtown in the 1990s) somehow approved the development without requiring a traffic plan or study. Seems any traffic plan made in the 90s couldn't be relevant to the neighborhood today, or surrounding intersections of this project where the land was rezoned in 2004/14yrs ago.

new to the site, joined to follow the info and pics from everyone on this project. i'm glad they listened to feedback at the info meeting and pulled the blue plastic sheeting off the fence at church/eola that was blocking visibility.. that intersection is scary enough!