Ray McNulty’s “compromise” in last week’s 32963 does nothing to resolve the heated divide on Twin Pairs.  It’s frustrating that the city has no effective way of countering the press’ lack of fact and often-erroneous conclusions.  Helpful as the city-sponsored public forums have been, they only touch a small handful of residents compared to the press’ megaphone. If Ray’s proposed compromise, which he admits is a meaningless token refinement of the current state, is adopted, proponents of HW60 lane repurposing will argue that we still have as wide a roadway going through downtown as is I95, and developers will not invest in the residential units that experts say are needed to make Historic Vero Downtown vibrant.   Conversely, opponents will claim that the changes, ignoring that they are trivial, did not lead to a revival of our city center.  Bottom line, a token compromise like the one proposed by Ray McNulty, will keep residents fully divided on an issue that is pivotal to Vero’s future. With further decay to historic downtown, a future council will commission yet another study to tell us what they have repeatedly told us. A real compromise would be to initially implement the Twin Pairs concept, without the most controversial but not essential parallel parking feature, via painted bump outs, corner posts and potted plants.  That can be accomplished well before HW60 is resurfaced, ideally while the VB Downtown Redevelopment Plan is being shaped and act as a real a proof of concept on lane repurposing.  A painted interim solution probably could be fully funded by the historic downtime business organization.  I fear that the redevelopment plan will just become another binder on the shelf if the city does not commit to lane elimination. If it turns out that lane reduction leads to the feared bottlenecks on HW60, it simply can be reversed when the resurfacing project happens in 2027 or even sooner.  If the traffic calming measures work the way experts claim they will, then the City can establish permanent raised bump-outs, wider sidewalks and more extensive landscaping in an incremental way as a key component of the Downtown Redevelopment Plan.  The cost could be funded by the properties and developers benefiting directly from the wider sidewalks.  We may be able to avoid expensive rainwater system changes by retaining current road width at segments that have a drain, and use them to get delivery truck drop offs and the occasional disabled vehicle out of the two through lanes. Other cities with similar urban street challenges have implemented such softer, lower cost solutions. Let's embrace a real proof of concept compromise while spending as little as is possible.

I take issue with Ray McNulty’s 32963 columns arguing against the proposed lane reduction of HW60 for half a mile through Vero’s Historic Downtown.  Readers will benefit from an alternate position on this highly polarized debate.   Residents’ view on twin pairs.  I am not aware of any fact-based tally of greater Vero residents’ position on the proposal, yet Mr. McNulty makes unsubstantiated statements that most of us oppose it.  Further, we are in the middle of a series of public meetings aimed at educating residents on the concept.  There remains a huge amount of confusion, with many falsely assuming that all of HW60 would be narrowed rather than just a few blocks through downtown.  There are various ways the proposal may change, including eliminating parallel parking and bike lanes.   Main corridor number of lanes in peer cities.  Why does Vero need a seven thru lane main corridor and evacuation route when similar-sized cities — Sebastian, Melbourne, Daytona, and St. Augustine — have only four thru lanes?  Particularly, since the proposal only narrows lanes in a half mile downtown stretch.  Ft. Lauderdale has six lanes, but it is many times larger than Vero ever will be.  Perhaps we should promote Vero as “The Only Mid-sized Florida City with a Seven Lane Main Corridor!”   Root cause of HW60 back-ups.  Almost all tales of backups on HW60 that I have heard relate to stretches well west of downtown Vero.  They are likely caused by traffic from the north and south funneling into HW60 in route to the major stores, the mall, outlet shops and I-95.  Other possible issues may include: too short left turn-only lanes, stoplight timing/synchronization, accidents and seemingly-forever construction.  I expect that Kimley Horn will offer their expertise on current HW60 backups in an upcoming public meeting.   Minimal increase in travel time through Twin Pairs. Though counterintuitive, traffic flow experts assert that an orderly two thru-lane city street with 30-35 mph speeds actually can accommodate more vehicular thru-put than a four lane 50 mph one because cars need to space out with increased speed, and the chaos of drivers seeking the fastest of four lanes so they can save a few seconds as they transit through downtown.  Kimley Horn’s analysis concludes that lane reduction will increase peak period travel time 40 seconds.   Prerequisites for Vero downtown renewal.  Stantec Consulting Services’ presentation very clearly tied lane reduction and traffic calming to property owners’ and developers’ willingness to take the commercial risk associated with building residential apartments and condos downtown.  They also said that an expanded downtown residential community is necessary to provide sufficient activity for businesses to strive there.     Demand for downtown residential units.  It’s my personal belief that there is plenty of demand for middle-income rental apartments and condos, particularly in a walk-able, shaded and vibrant city center.  One where couples can survive with one car; where seniors can prosper without one; where Cheers-like spontaneous social interaction happens without joining private clubs; where Vero business workers can live without having to commute an hour.   Cost of Twin Pairs.  It is unclear the extent to which the $2 million cost of twin pairs will be paid for by the Vero Beach taxpayers, the property owners or business operators.  Further, this is an early estimate that may be imparted by changes in scope that come out of the current process.  In last weeks’ City Council meeting on the Vero Beach Downtown Renewal Plan, a funding mechanism was discussed, and property owners expressed a willingness to participate in the cost of shared downtown infrastructure development and maintenance.  Further, the downtown market study said there will be $36 million in incremental yearly retail revenue to downtown businesses.   Maligning respected civic leaders.  Anyone questioning whether the current Vero Council Members support the twin pairs proposal for personal reasons do not know them the way I do.  They love our city and truly believe lane reduction is key to reversing decades of city center decline without materially impacting travel time.                    *   Clearly, there are multiple points of view on the HW60 lane reduction issue, and Mr. McNulty only presented his personal opinion.  We all owe it to the community to understand the facts as well as the points of view of both sides.  I hope this helps a bit.  Please attend the next public session on November 16th at the Community Center which starts at 5:30.   Robert (Bob) Jones Vero Central Beach resident and homeowner Retired; no business interests in Vero Beach

Given the conflicting objectives between traffic flow and creating a safer and more inviting Downtown Vero, it would seem there is a compromise around which a consensus could be built. I am moved by the fact that Sebastian accommodates a higher amount of traffic on HW1 than Vero does on Twin Pairs with only two thru lanes in each direction; Vero does the same on HW1 south of HW60. I would be interested in Mr. Good's idea relating to how the three thru-lanes that would be eliminated could be cost-effectively repurposed to promote safety, thruput and ambience were the city to decide against HW60 parking and bike lanes. For example: 1. Reduce HW60 thru-only lanes to two east and two west per the proposal; lower and enforce a lower speed limit 2. Eliminate the proposed parallel parking on both branches of HW 60 3. Ideally, eliminate the bike lane; if FDOT requires it, discourage use and strengthen/promote alternate bike routes on secondary streets 4. Create right and left turn-only lanes at key cross streets to assure that turning cars do not restrict the two remaining thru lanes in each direction 5. Establish pedestrian-friendly and aesthetically pleasing bump-outs where right or left turn-only lanes are not needed