[ZPaul]

Rolling acres traffic already growing due to the new residential developments. As a minimum, zoning should require the developer to pay for an in/out ramp on rolling acres and a right turn lane to smooth traffic flow through the intersection.

[Howdy]

Originally Posted by lsavron

The new Walmart has a gas station at that corner already! And a convenience store? Give me a break! The Walmart has more than you could ever want!

The also have very good >> Donuts, Clam Chowdea (r), Hot Dogs>11AM+, Filler Up.

[jimhoward]

Originally Posted by defrey12

Just become a member at one of the three big-box stores. Easily 25-30 cents lower than anywhere else. We've seen as much as 50 cents difference.

I am a member. But, I buy gas based on convenience, not cost. I buy at Costco, for example, only if I happen to be there and need gas.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by ZPaul

Rolling acres traffic already growing due to the new residential developments. As a minimum, zoning should require the developer to pay for an in/out ramp on rolling acres and a right turn lane to smooth traffic flow through the intersection.

Yes all that is included - if you'd gone to the meeting, or read the documents available online, or watched the streaming video of the meeting, you'd see a lot of details and discussion about the details, including an extended left exit lane on Rolling Acres that leads to a driveway up the road, which drivers would then follow to the 7-11 parking lot.

That still doesn't make it any safer for pedestrians.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

Yes all that is included - if you'd gone to the meeting, or read the documents available online, or watched the streaming video of the meeting, you'd see a lot of details and discussion about the details, including an extended left exit lane on Rolling Acres that leads to a driveway up the road, which drivers would then follow to the 7-11 parking lot.

That still doesn't make it any safer for pedestrians.

Are there actually pedestrians in that area to be concerned about?

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

I believe you are thinking of a different corner.

Couple miles Up 466 at race track road and 466 where the new neighborhood Walmart and gas station at.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Topspinmo

Couple miles Up 466 at race track road and 466 where the new neighborhood Walmart and gas station at.

Micro Race Track road doesn’t intersect with 466 but okay.

“Couple miles away” = “not the same intersection”

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Are there actually pedestrians in that area to be concerned about?

As mentioned - Recreation Plantation is RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET from this property. By right across the street, I mean - they share the intersection. Literally. It's right there. Recreation Plantation is a really big trailer park. Pedestrians don't cross the street currently, because there's no convenience store across the street currently.

If you had a convenience store immediately across the street from your house, would you get into your car and drive two miles to Walmart just because you're running low on milk for coffee in the morning, or would you walk across the street and buy a half-pint and then go grocery shopping the next day?

In addition, the soccer field, town dog park, and driving range are all clustered together, half a block from that intersection. Before and after soccer games, people will be inclined to walk across the intersection to get a soda or quick bite to eat. That's something they wouldn't even think of doing right now, because the property is currently a vacant lot.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

As mentioned - Recreation Plantation is RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET from this property. By right across the street, I mean - they share the intersection. Literally. It's right there. Recreation Plantation is a really big trailer park. Pedestrians don't cross the street currently, because there's no convenience store across the street currently.

If you had a convenience store immediately across the street from your house, would you get into your car and drive two miles to Walmart just because you're running low on milk for coffee in the morning, or would you walk across the street and buy a half-pint and then go grocery shopping the next day?

In addition, the soccer field, town dog park, and driving range are all clustered together, half a block from that intersection. Before and after soccer games, people will be inclined to walk across the intersection to get a soda or quick bite to eat. That's something they wouldn't even think of doing right now, because the property is currently a vacant lot.

So your answer is no, there currently are no pedestrians in that area but the new gas station might draw them.

I am very well aware of the relative location of Recreation Plantation, the dog park, the soccer fields, the existing sidewalks, the wood shop, the driving range, etc. I am also aware that the lot is currently vacant - almost as if I drive through that area quite a few times.

The soccer fields, dog park, and driving range are all on the same side of the road as the proposed gas station. People will NOT be inclined to cross the street twice when there is a perfectly good driveway to follow. That is if anyone chooses to walk at all. I would be much more inclined to drive my vehicle to the store rather than making a round trip before getting in my vehicle to leave.

As for Recreation Plantation folks.... If I desperately needed milk for coffee then time is of the essence so yes, I would drive my car. I might stop at the close convenience store even though it would cost me more or I might drive the mile down the road to save money. But in either case, I would be in a hurry so I would drive.

If I wasn't looking for milk for my coffee and had some extra time then I might take a stroll to the gas station (I might also wander to the Walmart for extra steps). In that case I would might use the mid-block crosswalk to get to the driveway but I would probably use the crosswalk at the controlled intersection at 466 where I would be protected by the lights.

The risk to pedestrians at a controlled intersection does not increase with the number of cars stopped at a light. The only increased risk would be due to increased pedestrians but if the intersection is dangerous for five pedestrians then it is dangerous for one pedestrian and shouldn't have a crosswalk at all.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

So your answer is no, there currently are no pedestrians in that area but the new gas station might draw them.

I am very well aware of the relative location of Recreation Plantation, the dog park, the soccer fields, the existing sidewalks, the wood shop, the driving range, etc. I am also aware that the lot is currently vacant - almost as if I drive through that area quite a few times.

The soccer fields, dog park, and driving range are all on the same side of the road as the proposed gas station. People will NOT be inclined to cross the street twice when there is a perfectly good driveway to follow. That is if anyone chooses to walk at all. I would be much more inclined to drive my vehicle to the store rather than making a round trip before getting in my vehicle to leave.

As for Recreation Plantation folks.... If I desperately needed milk for coffee then time is of the essence so yes, I would drive my car. I might stop at the close convenience store even though it would cost me more or I might drive the mile down the road to save money. But in either case, I would be in a hurry so I would drive.

If I wasn't looking for milk for my coffee and had some extra time then I might take a stroll to the gas station (I might also wander to the Walmart for extra steps). In that case I would might use the mid-block crosswalk to get to the driveway but I would probably use the crosswalk at the controlled intersection at 466 where I would be protected by the lights.

The risk to pedestrians at a controlled intersection does not increase with the number of cars stopped at a light. The only increased risk would be due to increased pedestrians but if the intersection is dangerous for five pedestrians then it is dangerous for one pedestrian and shouldn't have a crosswalk at all.

So - I just re-checked the map - they had it turned a different way at the meeting, and it felt like I was looking at things upside down (from the perspective of me, going to the intersection from my current location). Now it makes sense that the soccer field is where the map says it is. Thanks for pointing that out and making me look again at the map!

So yes - pedestrians from the field will be able to walk without risk of harm (there's a path some people use, already, from the field to the empty lot).

But now it's even worse, for others. Presently, there's a problem with golf carts from Recreation Plantation (I'll call it RC from now on) crossing Rolling Acres illegally to get to the Tuesday marketplace, or to cut into The Villages back entrance, or driving range, etc.

Pedestrians already cross at that area, and it's already hazardous.

Imagine that you're coming from 441 up Rolling Acres, and want to turn right onto 466. Now imagine there's parking for a festival or parade, and people need to be in that far-right lane to get into the parking area. That lane has been extended beyond that parking area. So now, that lane is being shared by people wanting to turn right into the parking area, and people wanting to get onto the driveway to 7-11, and people wanting to actually take a right at the intersection.

Meanwhile - there are pedestrians AND illegally-driving golf carts all trying to cross the road in the same spot.

Most of the time this won't be a big deal. But a few times a year - it'll be pretty horrible.