jjakucyk

Here's a couple more shots.

Of course it was much easier to do in Cincinnati because downtown sits on a terrace of land above the floodplain which drops noticeably from 4th Street down to 3rd, and historically continued dropping down to Pearl Street before leveling off. Today's garages, transit center, and maybe some day FWW caps serve to push that plain out towards the river, which is relatively easy to do because it's only a few blocks. Covington and Newport however slope much more gradually towards the river, with the notable exception of Covington's Licking Riverside district that's on another terrace, hence why the 4th Street bridge lands at grade in Covington but then nosedives into Newport. Anyway, there's not enough parking garages or fill available to raise that all up since you'd need to go at least twice as far inland, and there's no "sacrificial" park land on the riverbank to reduce the amount of land to be raised up. I think the advantage Covington has is that they aren't completely surrounded by flood wall like Newport is, but admittedly it's just as high and broad as Newport's wall by the time you get past the convention center. It's not so easy as just saying "do what Cincinnati did" because the terrain is so different.

Indeed, leadership that doesn't believe cheap motels and drive-thru fast food chains are the highest and best form of development.

I'd agree, but I bet most residents wouldn't. Many people seem to view "commercial creep" as some sort of nefarious cancer on the neighborhood. A specific example was on Facebook where someone showed a historic photo of the corner of Edwards and Erie where Sibcy Cline/Key Bank is now. It used to be a house like farther down Erie with a low hedgerow along the sidewalk not unlike how the Hyde Park School borders Edwards and Observatory. Pretty much everyone commented that it was a huge loss and that the Sibcy Cline building is a travesty. Never mind that it's a horrible corner for a large lot single family home (no privacy, noise, litter in the bushes, people trying to cut through the yard, etc.) and the Sibcy Cline building, while no masterpiece to be sure, is a perfectly competent participant in urban form that comes up to the sidewalk, has windows along said sidewalk, addresses the corner, is more than a single story tall, and even has a cornice, if rather abstracted. The one argument I can see being made, which applies to the adjacent 5/3 Bank and Michigan Terrace on the other side of the square is that previously all the buildings on Erie had a similar setback *from the centerline of the street* such that those directly on the square are right against the sidewalk because of how the street widens out, while the rest are back a good 30-40 feet. So there was something of a consistent street wall, per se, even though the street itself wandered back and forth between that. That's why there's yards and patios in front of Cock & Bull and down past Indigo where it turns into houses with the same front yards. The problem is that while this works nicely for restaurants, all the businesses between Cock & Bull and the post office have no use for that space in front, and actually want to see it stripped as barren as possible so people can see into their windows from the real sidewalk and maybe the street rather than the internal private sidewalk. The turnover of those stores has been pretty frequent, even art galleries have trouble making it there. The yard at the corner of Michigan and Erie at Hyde Park Baptist is also a total dud, and it hurts the retail visibility of southern Michigan Avenue itself, which is actually the most pleasant street to walk down because of its enclosed feel and narrow street. So while the setbacks in this case are an interesting study academically, I'd say breaking from that to properly orient the newer buildings to the sidewalk was a good move. I think the argument there is that the surface lots would develop before demand was totally satisfied because they're the low hanging fruit to begin with. The sharp rise in the tax rate when the land tax is implemented would be most punishing to those with empty lots, so they'd be the first to get sold or redeveloped before any other tear-downs or redevelopment projects. Many of the single-story "one part commercial blocks" from the 1900s-1920s (like where Oakley Cycles is, and along a lot of Montgomery Road in Norwood) were exactly the response to this sort of system. They were built at important sites, usually along streetcar lines, to "get something in the ground" until the neighborhood developed to a point where there was more demand for something bigger. The Great Depression and WWII and then suburbanization stopped that redevelopment in its tracks, but the result was a handful of inexpensive commercial storefronts that cater well to small businesses. Overall the idea of a land tax is that it will spread development out much more evenly rather than seeing huge "silver bullet" type projects land like spaceships.

Seems like the more traffic engineers engineer highways the worse traffic gets (the more you tighten your grip the more traffic slips through you fingers?). OH-32 with its limited access points and distributor roads was supposed to be the more modern antidote to Beechmont/Ohio Pike with all the driveways and other streets directly off the highway. Instead it just seems to generate longer trips and more circuitous routings that exacerbate the problem. It's sort of like using longer signal timing, which I noticed when I started working in Blue Ash, where they use almost painfully long signals compared to Cincinnati's which are borderline too short. The logic, much like restricting access points and spacing everything out, is that longer signals mean more vehicles can get through on each green light. Of course, it also means that more vehicles HAVE to get through because they spent so much time stacking up at the longer red lights. By the same token, limiting access means that the few accesses there are now have to handle more of the load so they become bottlenecks. I flew out of Raleigh-Durham yesterday right at the height of the evening rush hour, and while all the highways and major arterial streets were jammed with bumper to bumper traffic, the overwhelming majority of the suburban streets were mostly if not completely empty. With the desire to make every housing subdivision, apartment complex, office park, and shopping center an isolated pod on a dead-end street, the local streets are being wasted while still engineered to be way too wide and for too high speeds, while the few through streets can never be made big enough to handle the load at peak times.

Spillover development certainly does happen, but I don't think it can go all that far. Oakley surely benefits from having a strong commercial corridor of its own, but like with Mt. Lookout and East Walnut Hills, they're still very close to HP Square too, which is the bigger draw for a lot of people. Other neighborhoods need to develop their own centers to be at least good enough or else the spillover will just peter out. Barriers such as valleys, highways, railroads, or even large institutions like hospitals, schools, or any superblock can be a wall against spillover development by making what's on the other side "just too far away." Sometimes it's just perception too. There's nothing really separating the mansions of East Walnut Hills from Evanston, but the demarcation line south of Fairfax Avenue is striking. I'm disappointed in the church site infill. There's only four houses going on that huge site that used to have a sizable building on it. I assume the idea of converting it onto condos was probably explored, ala the Windings in Clifton, but maybe it wasn't big enough or would've required too much reworking, but still that would've been preferable I think, even if it isn't exactly within easy walking distance of the square. Here's something to consider in the overall argument. What some describe as "losing what makes the neighborhood desirable in the first place" others would describe as reaching an equilibrium point in supply and demand. While I don't subscribe to the notion that densification automatically makes a neighborhood less desirable, even if it did, then it would only densify to the point that the market will allow. As it is, zoning is used to create artificial scarcity through what is essentially protectionism, something which is pretty universally frowned on in economic circles.

"Property values drop, people move out, developers further cheapen the street." Does it? I don't disagree about the subjective (or even objective) quality of the newer houses usually being inferior, but that's not a given and can be said about any new developments, whether infill or greenfield. It's an issue of our time to be sure, but not one that should be worth squelching all development because of it. The real question is what ACTUAL impact there is on property value or the ever-elusive "quality of life." If there is a net increase in property values, due to the new houses being worth a lot more than the single old one plus a lot of empty land, even after whatever reduction in values there may be to the immediate neighbors, then it's a win for the city and should probably be allowed. Of course the neighbors will raise holy hell, but they're a vested interest, as is the developer, yet nobody from the community at large can be bothered to speak for the greater good, except possibly for an impartial council member, because they have no personal stake in it, even if it will ultimately benefit everyone. As for Grandin Road, it's not really much different from the lower reaches of Victory Parkway, East McMillan, Taft, and the numerous side streets that abut the hillside in East Walnut Hills, and those have high rises now, usually in immediate proximity to older single-family homes. A fairly extreme example perhaps, but whatever reduction in value of those houses is more than offset by the enormous increase in value and thus taxes from the new high rise. I would also posit that while some people certainly don't want others looking down on their back yard, there's plenty of people who also don't care one bit, so while there may be turnover in ownership because of the new high rise, it isn't automatically a significant reduction in desirability and value. I'd value having a high rise block the hot western sun from my place, even though most people cry foul when such a thing comes up, c'est la vie. The other thing about Grandin Road is that while some houses certainly are set far back from the street on large lots, there's others that are almost frighteningly close to the street https://goo.gl/maps/WISFW and that inconsistency is actually charming and gives more of a mountain village feel, if only slightly. It enhances the neighborhood in my opinion, compared to say Indian Hill which is so zealous in its setbacks and large lots that you can barely see any of the best houses. Back to Carl's Deli and the few other stores there, a form-based code if applied similarly to a Euclidian code doesn't actually help much because those stores need actual storefronts on the sidewalk. They won't work set back 30 feet or more like the rest of the houses. That's why businesses like Lemon Grass, Hyde Park Meats, and the futon store that eventually became Wild Ginger, were built right up to the sidewalk, sometimes in front of the house, not only for practical layout purposes, but to entice passers by who could look right in the windows without having to trek down a pathway in the front yard. Being set back like all the rest of the houses is ok if you want to have a home office or maybe a salon or even a small apartment building within a single-family district (those 4-plexes from the 30s and 40s are masters at this), but it doesn't work for most commercial uses. Compatible scale is a more important factor than rigid positioning. That's what worries me about form-based zoning, in that it's still used to freeze the existing built form in amber, even if the use is allowed to be a tad more flexible. That's two steps forward and one step back. In practice, the way I see it being implement is merely substituting a highly specific and byzantine proscriptive (thou shalt not) system with a highly specific and byzantine prescriptive (thou shalt/must) system all with too many zones drawn with way too much surgical precision around preexisting development. Also the form-based codes that have already been implemented include just as many use restrictions as the Euclidian codes (retail/restaurants for example are limited to T5 main street zones, T4 allows some small office types, but the T3 zones that cover single-family development only allow home offices, daycare, bed and breakfasts, churches, and small art/dance/music studios in 500 square feet or less accessory structures. That's not really any different than what we have in the standard code. Same outcome, slightly different tool.

Why? That's how every urban neighborhood throughout the entirety of human history has grown and matured over time. I'm largely in agreement with jjakucyk here. If nothing was allowed to change / become denser, then (as an example) Orchard St would still be an orchard. Definitely not advocating for pulling down old houses to build crap, but incremental development must be allowed to occur. And I'm a believer in a property owner largely being able to do what he or she wants with his/her property. Let's leave the big brother micromanagement in the form of homeowners associations to the suburbs. Even Hyde Park developed successionally to the point it's at now, though admittedly in a more spasmodic way than the core of the city due to the wave of development that came with the introduction of electric streetcar service. Nevertheless, what started out as large Revolutionary War land grants were subdivided into sizeable farm parcels and then smaller farms and land holdings plus some decent country estates. Few of the estate houses remain today but several of the old farmhouses do. These small farms were usually later subdivided as part of granting equal portions of the land as inheritance, and those were then subdivided into the residential streets and neighborhoods we have now. The large Nicholas Longworth estate next to the Cincinnati Country Club became the Rookwood subdivision. John Kilgour had a huge estate encompassing I think an entire "section" bounded by Observatory, Paxton, Wasson, and what would eventually become the line of Tarpis Avenue, totaling 159 acres. The Wulsin Estate became the site of the extension of Dana Avenue to Madison plus the Regency tower and whatever those low-rise condos or townhouses are behind it. The old Wurlitzer estate at Madison and Bedford Avenue was replaced with a few apartment buildings in the 50s through the 80s. Many of the short dead-end streets represent the subdivision of a single small farm or estate. So yes there wasn't as much of one house being replaced by three or four as there was a small farm being replaced by a dozen or two dozen houses, or an old run-down estate being replaced with a new subdivision or condominium, but there's been successional development going on pretty much continuously until it was all mostly stopped in its tracks by the 1970s when, as I understand it, zoning was significantly tightened down compared to what it was before. My guess is it was a response to the proliferation of the awful bland boxy apartments that started springing up in the 1960s throughout the city. This isn't to be confused with the so-called "brick boxes" of the 1920s through early 1950s that were mostly 4-plexes, and most usually of an Art Deco style. Those are at least well-built if not always the most attractive. These are the later shoeboxes that average about 20-40 units per building, usually with balconies, and often no windows at all on the ends except for the entrance doors. Think Clifton Colony or Mont Michel. There's not so much in Hyde Park, but they're all over Mt. Washington, Clifton, Westwood, Kennedy Heights, and a lot of the marginal hillside properties. They wouldn't be quite so bad except for the thoroughly unpleasant disposition of their parking lots and access drives, with ramshackle retaining walls, steep grades, poor asphalt engineering, all on top of a "cram the parking in wherever possible" mentality, none of which has aged well at all either. Of course, rather than opting for some sort of design review or material standards, they mostly just redlined the construction of any apartments at all through further downzoning.

^Then how do you propose to allow a neighborhood that is in high demand to grow to meet that demand? Zoning is about stasis, and in the long run stasis is almost always a bad thing. Economic stasis, cultural stasis, technological stasis, these are all bad things. It's no big leap to suggest that neighborhood stasis is also undesirable, even if it is a fine line between so-called stability or predictability. Regardless, not allowing any redevelopment or densification only serves to make the neighborhood less accessible to anyone but the increasingly wealthy. The thing about not conforming with neighboring properties is where do you draw the line? Hyde Park Square certainly doesn't embrace the built form of the majority of the neighborhood, but that's what really makes Hyde Park special compared to say Westwood or North Avondale, both of which have a similar if not in some cases better housing stock and overall density. Even within the neighborhood itself there's several different levels of density from the large-lot single family mini-estates along Grandin Road and in the Rookwood subdivision to the still generous homes on Observatory, Handasyde, parts of Erie, Portsmouth, and Bayard, plus relatively dense streetcar suburb type "city" homes on modest lots throughout much of the west and north side of the neighborhood to pretty darn dense courtyard apartments on Madison Road. So it's really not "out of character" to have different densities of buildings right next to each other. Nobody's collapsing in the street writhing in agony because Carl's Deli and Element Cycles plus a few apartments overhead are plunked in the middle of a predominantly single-family area of the neighborhood, in fact they're much the better for it. Residents don't have to walk all the way to the square to get a sandwich or soda. Most of Hyde Park, however, isn't within walking distance of such amenities, but zoning precludes their construction not only outright, but also by restricting any densification of the residential development that might support more of such establishments. What bugs me the most about this whole situation is that zoning is by definition a centralized governmental construct that distorts the real estate market in ways that are quite perverse and destructive. Yet it's usually conservative "cities should be run like a business" types that fiercely defend zoning and want free roads and subsidized mortgages and cheap gasoline, effectively destroying the free market forces that operate on land, housing, and transportation. At the same time these "don't tread on me" types are quick to call the building inspector if their neighbor's fence is three inches too high or they want someone's Little Free Library or front yard garden deemed a public nuisance. Strange isn't it that the more liberal smart growth advocates are the ones pushing for less regulation and market-based solutions in order to build more traditional neighborhoods? Anyway, moratoriums on development and downzoning only serve to push prices up and make development more catastrophically out of proportion where an available parcel of land that can be developed as a PUD is secured. San Francisco has been a disaster on this front, and New York right there behind them. We have an opportunity here in Cincinnati to try to nip this thing in the bud since prices aren't up to the insane levels of those cities, but the goal should be to allow growth and development to happen broadly and deliberately, not to try to restrict it on every front to the point where it'll be impossible to deal with in the future.

Why? That's how every urban neighborhood throughout the entirety of human history has grown and matured over time.

Wow that's red.

It's just as charming as Cincinnati Gardens :lol:

Is it really a good tactical move to close a downtown store within spitting distance of your corporate headquarters? It's one thing if there wasn't one there in the first place, though it's still pretty crappy *cough*Kroger*cough*. Even though the convoluted corporate merger history only brought their headquarters here by accident, it'd still be a dick move.

Of course where it really gets complicated is when you have not only property taxes, but then tax abatements or TIF situations, and federal and state income tax, some of which comes back locally with strings attached, local income taxes, sales tax which are collected and redistributed at the county level, plus maintenance and operational costs which aren't just money down the drain but can be viewed in a sense as a subsidy to local companies and employees to the point that you start chasing your tail and the calculations spiral out of control.

The thing to watch out for in any benefit/cost analysis, whether it's for a stadium, highway, transit, subdivision, sewer system, or any project that the government is paying for, is that the returns have to be measured in tax receipts. Usually the benefits are measured as the sum total of improved land value, additional retail sales, restaurant income, or the ever-fraudulent "time savings" used to justify road projects. So say the government pays $100 million for some new project, and it generates $200 million in spin-off development and economic activity. Sounds great right? But those numbers only work if the government can recapture more than that $100 million in *taxes* over the life-cycle of that facility, on top of ongoing maintenance and operations. So if a city can only capture property tax revenue to fund itself (just to keep things simple), that $100 million outlay will take 25 years to pay off at a 2% property tax rate assuming no interest, no maintenance or operational costs, and that all the spinoff development landed immediately on day 1 and maintains value throughout that entire period of time. This is why many road projects whose benefit/cost ratio comes out to something measly like 1.05:1 or something are in fact huge money losers, because usually 90-95% of the supposed benefits are those "time savings" multiplied by the prevailing wage, even though people don't actually earn any money from having a faster commute or quicker drive to Wal-Mart, nor does the government get to tax any of those benefits to pay back the real hard cash used to build that road. This is why the streetcar's benefit/cost ratio came out to about 3:1 if I recall. The $120-some million cost requires over $1 billion in improved land values, additional sales, jobs, etc. to generate enough property, sales, and income taxes to pay back that expenditure. A ratio of 3:1 doesn't sound all that impressive, but if this was a highway project they'd be touting an 8:1 ratio instead. So back to the topic at hand, that's the critical component to watch out for when evaluating the benefits of something like a stadium.

I would bet that the maintenance of overhead utilities in highly urban neighborhoods where there's little to no mature tree canopy is surprisingly low. It's long suburban runs through wooded neighborhoods that are always having trouble with fallen tree limbs. Of course, the urban wiring is much more exposed to view and cluttered up by much more closely-spaced service drops and other appurtenances, which only makes it look worse in such an environment.

1,000-1,200 cars or 25-30 buses. I'd like to see one of these kinds of comparisons done for numbers like that, except instead of an urban street it's set in the

Savannah and Charleston, and to some extent New Orleans, seem to have taken a similar trajectory to Prague in that they fell on hard times enough that redevelopment of old buildings was minimized, but not such hard times that they had wholesale abandonment and blight either, so they just kind of sat and pickled. That left a cohesive urban (and urbane) fabric that itself is pleasurable to be in, and which also happens to be from a pretty narrow time range, giving it something of a "frozen in amber" quality that also exhibits a strong local vernacular. OTR has many of those same benefits, but it's hurt in that it has seen a fair amount of blight and demolition, and it has more typical post-industrial hypertrophic (excessively large) streets than you find in Savannah or especially Charleston and Boston. Other neighborhoods around the city are much more broken up and incoherent, which doesn't help their appeal. Plus OTR and Cincinnati in general just isn't quite as old, and there's some subtle but still important differences in our Italianate Victorian architecture which is a stylistic import that's not as well liked by the general populace as the older and more genuinely American Federal/Georgian/Colonial styles. San Francisco seems to be a whole separate ballgame in and of itself, and I'm not really sure what the explanation is there. It could be that the very regular urban fabric is part of the story, where anything contrary to what's already been built is viewed suspiciously. I tend to view historic preservation there as more of a NIMBY tool to prevent change rather than a strong preference for preserving historic architecture and urban form, but it's a fuzzy line to be sure. There's also the case that SF is about the only city in the west that has much old stuff at all, so it's a victim to simple supply and demand forces, because they certainly haven't been building any new places out there that aren't positively dreadful from an urbanistic standpoint.

Straying a little bit into a tangent here, but it seems that Cincinnati's "embarrassment of riches" is a big part of the problem too. With a few exceptions to be sure, many cities didn't really start focusing on preservation until much of what was worth preserving was already gone. It was sort of a "wow we only have this little bit left, we better protect it to make sure we don't lose it all." Cataclysmic events tend to galvanize people, like Penn Station obviously. Cincinnati hasn't really had any major losses of that scale, such as if Union Terminal or Music Hall had been demolished, or the suspension bridge replaced with something more utilitarian. The significant loss of Kenyon-Barr/Queensgate is tragic yes, but it's not a singular monument that people could keep in their mind's eye, so it's a bit easier for most to overlook. Plus, even today there's so much historic architecture that the general perception is there's more than enough to go around. There's already not enough people to keep up all these buildings, so what benefits do you really get by slapping on more historic designations? There's also the issue that the greater stock of historic buildings and neighborhoods means more historic review, hearings, paperwork, etc. for an already small staff of people to document and coordinate. Less than a decade ago you could chat with the Urban Conservator on the phone at length and get personal attention for any historic project you were doing. Now that office is so overworked they can't even keep track of what's in for permit and review right now. Same goes for the Preservation Association, their attention is divided between many more projects and buildings and issues than just about any similar sized city, so it's difficult to keep up. At the same time it's also difficult to expand staff and resources because as I said before the general perception is that there's so much historic stock around that it's not like we're going to lose it all. Of course the trick is to make sure we don't end up like the frog being slowly boiled or dying from a thousand cuts, which can certainly happen too.

I just noticed the other day that Duke finally removed the last couple of utility poles at DeSales Corner this spring or summer, and that streetscaping was done in 2008! https://goo.gl/maps/Ypk1n

Indeed. With the borders of the neighborhood being Victory Parkway, Lincoln/DeSales/Dexter, Torrence Parkway, and the hillside, there's not really a whole lot of undeveloped land per se compared to Walnut Hills. Even Evanston, dowdy as it may be, isn't really bombed out in any appreciable way like farther west along the MLK corridor. It's more a case of needing densification, but the majority of the neighborhood is so solidly upper-middle/upper class, large-lot single-family, and historic district, that it's a much tougher sell to redevelop in any way than a couple of lots in Hyde Park. That's a shame because Madison Road is a natural transit corridor, with two good NBDs anchoring either end. The Anthem site is the big opportunity, there's other parcels and parking lots on Woodburn that can support some redevelopment too, and Ashland Avenue needs help. All the cruddy parking lots and office buildings on Madison by Victory that have infected Myrtle Avenue are prime for something better. The thing is that aside from Anthem and maybe the Madison Road sites, the rest are small enough parcels that they really need the small scale developer, like someone looking to do maybe a dozen units at a time, perhaps in two or three buildings. The trouble is that this scale of developer has been mostly excised from the market due to restrictive zoning, NIMBY opposition, and difficult financing criteria. What few were left before the economic downturn have been pretty thoroughly eradicated since. Single-family owners just have to work within the system, but they usually have the time and patience to navigate that. The big guys have the resources and overhead to deal with setting up a PUD, variance hearings, and community council presentations, but they need to do big projects to reap the economies of scale. The guys in between can't make it work. That's why we end up with either nothing happening, or huge projects that invariably invoke neighbor outrage. Nothing in between is feasible, if even allowed at all.

The only reason 2770 got through was because it replaced older apartments ("poor" people) with new high-end condos (rich people). I forget the numbers but it might even be a net loss in density. Even if it's not, the numbers are very close. Hyde Park needs the ability to replace single-family houses with townhouses and apartment buildings, and that's not happening because single-family houses and large lots are sacrosanct. Existing apartments are mostly left alone, but zoning precludes their expansion, even along Madison Road at Burch, Besuden, and Mooney where the houses are kind of dumpy for the neighborhood. In fact, there's quite a few 2-family and 4-plex apartments that are only grandfathered in, no longer allowed by right, even right there on Madison. So the only real trajectory for those buildings is stagnation at best, and more likely decline. The front/back houses on Observatory are not really a "problem" in any sense of the word. They were built like that because the 5 houses there are on much bigger lots than everything else on the street, and the zoning was set up to be consistent with all the other houses. The house in back is really nobody's business, and the house in front is consistent with all the other houses just two doors east and across the street. It's the large-lot estate houses that are anomalous, yet all the hand wringing by the neighbors and community council got those lots downzoned, although the front/back houses still meet the square footage requirements for the new zoning, but maybe not the setbacks. Anyway, several houses across the street also had their zoning reduced (I believe) to the point that the originally platted lots are no longer buildable. Those houses were built on two 50' wide lots generally, so where there's three houses now there could be six, just like the blocks behind them, but no, "neighborhood character" and all that.

Prove it Jake. As bad as the injuries in this case were, that's a very unusual situation. The worst crash on a bike path between a cyclist and a pedestrian is going to be much less severe than the majority of bike/car crashes. It's like when a roundabout is installed and the total number of crashes goes up slightly, everyone cries "ermagherd teh traffic circle is so unsafe!" without noticing that the number of serious and fatal crashes has dropped nearly to zero while trading for a few more fender benders. Or like when helmets were introduced for soldiers in WWI the number of head injuries coming into hospitals increased markedly, "wow these helmets increase head injuries!" No, the soldiers were getting hurt rather than killed. According to the 2012 National Survey on Bicyclist and Pedestrian Attitudes and Behaviors, nearly a third of all injuries are caused when bicyclists are struck by cars. Six most Frequent Sources of Injury: 29% Hit by car 17% Fell 13% Roadway/walkway not in good repair 13% Rider error/not paying attention 7% Crashed/collision 4% Dog ran out http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/factsheet_crash.cfm http://www.nhtsa.gov/nti/811841

Just sent you an e-mail.

Here's a few photos from this morning.