Jump to content

Uptown


orlandoguy

Recommended Posts


There won't be a trail between the LYNX buses and the SunRail platforms.   There isn't room.  The Crescent portion of the trail comes right up on the east side of the platforms separated by a wall.  

 

http://www.cityoforlando.net/city-planning/wp-content/uploads/sites/27/2015/11/ARB2015-00070report.pdf

Edited by Jernigan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Jernigan said:

I didn't think the goal was to encourage pedestrians to use the bridge to cross Colonial.   I know it's being called a ped bridge but I'd hope it is treated as a trail overpass.   Let's not cave in and sacrifice the expectation to be able to cross a downtown street at steet level.

Why wouldn't you want peds to use the bridge to cross Colonial Dr though? Orlando is repeatedly cited as one of the worst cities for pedestrians, so why not take the opportunity to make crossing Colonial Dr a little safer? If anything, more bodies on the bridge would help liven up the bridge and provide the added bonus of more eyes on the trail. The stairs would need to flank both sides of Colonial for any of this to happen though.

Sadly, just this week a woman was killed crossing Central Blvd after leaving the library; and that's only a 2 lane road with a 25mph speed limit. In general, Colonial Dr has claimed more pedestrian deaths than OBT & 17-92 combined. With more and more people moving into developing Uptown North Quarter, that intersection of Colonial is bound to see more foot traffic so this this is the perfect time to take a step in the right direction regarding pedestrian safety.

I'm sure those of us who live downtown witness pedestrian/vehicle near-misses on a regular basis. Even at the intersections, cars ignore the pedestrian right of way and push through groups of people crossing the street.  A few weeks ago, I reached out to the city regarding our traffic cycles which basically force pedestrians & vehicles to share the same signal. I was advocating for pedestrian-only phases, but the city's signal engineer agreed to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) which gives pedestrians a head start when entering an intersection before the green signal. However, this change was only implemented at Washington & Rosalind, so I'm going to push all other major intersections downtown. It's a start, and my hope is that the city will eventually do more in the future. I'm not sure why LPI's were never implemented if the technology already exists, but I plan to make a stink about it because I'm tired of vehicles being prioritized over pedestrians and cyclists.

I don't mean to come off as preachy, but we don't need "more of the same" because it hasn't been working out for us very well...

Edited by nite owℓ
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I certainly wouldn't ban it.   I just mean I wouldn't consider eliminating crosswalks or any other pedestrian treatments along Colonial that would have gone in sans bridge.  The bridge can't be an excuse if a pedestrian gets hit crossing the street.   "Well, if they had used the bridge that we gave them this wouldn't have happened."

Asking someone to go up a flight of stairs and back down a flight of stairs so drivers don't have to pay as much attention didn't come across as preachy...

thanks for pushing forward LPIs - definitely agree that they should be the norm anywhere and everywhere.   I can't think of any why nots.

Edited by Jernigan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly, what FDOT presents for I-4 and Colonial Drive is simply unacceptable in an urban setting. We need less lanes and slower traffic on Colonial not more of the same things that have gutted downtown. Did you see those retention ponds? Jesus...... I don't want the bridge to be a cop out for ignoring the pedestrian experience on Colonial. Not to mention most people will probably still cross at Colonial and Orange. If that is the design of I-4 and Colonial that is a massive failure of anything Urban that we have been trying to cultivate. It will kill all connectivity. Get you head in the game FDOT. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup.  Pedestrians by and large don't use pedestrian bridges.   This comes up time and time again near UCF.

This overpass is part of a trail network and I'm very excited about it.   It will improve the convenience and speed of a cyclist coming from north of downtown or Winter Park getting to work or the venues.  If it wasn't part of the network it would be a giant waste of money 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Jernigan said:

Yup.  Pedestrians by and large don't use pedestrian bridges.   This comes up time and time again near UCF.

If it wasn't part of the network it would be a giant waste of money 

If they'd put one every 50' along every roadway in town and put escalators on them, people would use them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, cbejar93 said:

Exactly, what FDOT presents for I-4 and Colonial Drive is simply unacceptable in an urban setting. We need less lanes and slower traffic on Colonial not more of the same things that have gutted downtown. Did you see those retention ponds? Jesus...... I don't want the bridge to be a cop out for ignoring the pedestrian experience on Colonial. Not to mention most people will probably still cross at Colonial and Orange. If that is the design of I-4 and Colonial that is a massive failure of anything Urban that we have been trying to cultivate. It will kill all connectivity. Get you head in the game FDOT. 

Not attempting to attack, but this is the mindset I get frustrated with.  Yes, all of us on this forum want urbanism to be a priority, and to some degree probably would prefer that cars don't exist.  But it isn't reality.  Suburbs are a thing, and people work, live, & play downtown.  It is what allows us to have a great urban environment because let's be honest.  We aren't self-sustaining.

That interchange looks like a MAJOR upgrade from the current complete mess of a layout, will get people in and out of downtown faster, and lessen the typical rush hour backups on I-4, lessening my commute from I-Drive back to my lovely urban environment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AndyPok1 said:

Not attempting to attack, but this is the mindset I get frustrated with.  Yes, all of us on this forum want urbanism to be a priority, and to some degree probably would prefer that cars don't exist.  But it isn't reality.  Suburbs are a thing, and people work, live, & play downtown.  It is what allows us to have a great urban environment because let's be honest.  We aren't self-sustaining.

That interchange looks like a MAJOR upgrade from the current complete mess of a layout, will get people in and out of downtown faster, and lessen the typical rush hour backups on I-4, lessening my commute from I-Drive back to my lovely urban environment.

Suburbs do not "allow" urban environments to exist. 

Read The Death and Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs, for starters. And if you don't have time for that, there are plenty of scholarly articles online dealing with the impact that suburbs have on the inner city.

I don't think anyone here is under the illusion that we have to find solutions for Orlando's horrible sprawl problem. Yet bending over and pledging allegiance to ex-urban FDOT so that people who chose to live in car-oriented East Orange get a more comfortable commute to downtown (while pedestrians get hit by those commuters) is misguided.

I don't see South Beach widening its roads and creating dangerous 2-lane off ramps so that the good people of Kendall have a quicker route to and from Miami Beach. You won't see it in NYC either, for what it's worth. Why then settle for less in Orlando?

 

Edited by prahaboheme
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I phrased that poorly.  I HATE suburbs. But the people living in the urban areas of Orlando-alone aren't enough to sustain an NBA team, or an MLS team, or a brilliant new Performing Arts center, etc...

I'm of the opinion cars and people can co-exist quite easily.  Hence my also opposition to the narrowing of Robinson.  I cross all these roads just fine, don't see a need for change.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real issue here is that 50 is an extremely busy HIGHWAY running straight through an urban core at-grade. The only way to address that is to make it a less attractive route to commuters. I don't know how you do that, but some combination of the following might help:

  1. Do not widen it any further.
  2. Provide alternative toll-free routes moving east-west.
  3. Find a way to reduce tolls on 408 or provide better access to it.
  4. Build some type of bypass through downtown. Tunnel? I've been to cities where these types of roads go underground to allow uninterrupted flow. A bridge could work as well but as we've experienced with the division between north of 408 and south of 408, they can be just as disrupting to the pedestrian experience, even if it is just "perception".

I tend to think commuters are going to follow the path of least resistance. Resistance comes from traffic, tolls, and time spent. Tweak those 3 things until you get the results you want.

Of course, I am no civil engineer. But I do believe that you can address the concerns of the pedestrians without negatively impacting the drivers who depend on 50. Given how painful 50 is to drive on at times, there may even be opportunities for addressing the pedestrian concerns WHILE improving driver safety and commute times. Just have to be willing to invest in the infrastructure. Which we won't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bridge is for the trail, not pedestrians. Virtually no pedestrians cross colonial at that spot, as there is nothing north of coloinial on Garland to cross for or from. Everybody on foot crosses at Orange or Magnolia. The main purpose of the overpass is to bring the OUT all the way in to downtown as a connector from DT Core/mass transit to outlying neighborhoods and redeveloping Ivanhoe & Mills area. Master planning has similar future plans for green bike/walking trails connecting to Cadyway, greenway, and others. I love the idea of a dedicated bridge for the trail, but honestly, most pedestrians are crossing at street leve and will continue to do so.

Edited by dcluley98
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all the new residential construction that's happening North of Colonial it seems that the time is nigh for a regular old pedestrian bridge over it as well.

I would wager that before too much longer, there will be a large increase in foot traffic crossing back and forth at Orange.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, dcluley98 said:

 most pedestrians are crossing at street leve and will continue to do so.

I don't know, after someone experiences obscenely long traffic lights giving way to Colonial they will look for other options to cross.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/1/2016 at 0:41 PM, AndyPok1 said:

Not attempting to attack, but this is the mindset I get frustrated with.  Yes, all of us on this forum want urbanism to be a priority, and to some degree probably would prefer that cars don't exist.  But it isn't reality.  Suburbs are a thing, and people work, live, & play downtown.  It is what allows us to have a great urban environment because let's be honest.  We aren't self-sustaining.

That interchange looks like a MAJOR upgrade from the current complete mess of a layout, will get people in and out of downtown faster, and lessen the typical rush hour backups on I-4, lessening my commute from I-Drive back to my lovely urban environment.

 

If we can't even get an urban road at the Colonial interchange, where can we get it? How long are we going to let FDOT ruin our cities to shave off a couple minutes for commuters. You can forget about any future pedestrian/bike activity at street level if this goes in. It will encourage more driving and more sprawl which increases congestion. Urban areas are the only one's that make fiscal sense in the long run. Urban areas are, healthier, greener, and all around better than the suburbs. 

 

Its not about getting people in and out of downtown faster. Its about moving people to downtown.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, cbejar93 said:

Urban areas are the only one's that make fiscal sense in the long run. Urban areas are, healthier, greener, and all around better than the suburbs. 

With this sentence, I couldn't agree more.  However, the rest of it I don't agree with.

Improving the interchange isn't going to encourage more driving, and leaving as-is isn't going to lessen the amount of driving.  Orlando is a unique city with an urban core that most people do NOT work in.  All of the people like myself that work in the tourist area, or Nona, or Research Park, or Darden, or Lake Mary etc etc, we all have to drive OUT of our downtown for our jobs.  Sure, can we do a better job of encouraging companies not to build out there?  Definitely.  But for most places, that ship has sailed or was never a possibility to begin with.  We're gonna be on the road every day even though we don't want to be.

Do I wish there was rail included with the Ultimate project?  Of course.  But is Ultimate desperately needed since I-4 was built in a time when Orlando LITERALLY wasn't on the map and is now the epicenter of a major region?  Yes.  We don't live a utopia, realism is necessary.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the ship has sailed for most places in terms of walkability. I don't care what FDOT does at the John Young Parkway intersection. In downtown though, the first and most important user is the pedestrian. The design FDOT has given us is the same sloppy suburban design. It has no place there. I think FDOT can do better in terms of incorporating other modailities. We have to look at the plans again, and sometimes, yes, it is worth it to make commuters sit through a bit of traffic rather than destroying an important future growth section of our city. Downtown's were destroyed because of suburban highways tearing them up.  Colonial has so much potential as a great urban boulevard, but if plans like these move forward. Forget about it.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose.  I just don't really see the intersection of Colonial and I-4 as a massive growth area.  

I spent a decent amount of time dissecting the actual detailed PDFs showing all the ramps, its somewhat annoying because the Amelia exit is in one file and Colonial is in another.  And even if there is some growth, I don't see a SPUI at that spot really massively decreasing pedestrian flow, and IMO probably even increasing.  The larger concern would be the cavern effect of the bridge going over which is always going to be there.

And if I'm wrong?  The increase of livability along South St and the Bridge District more than makes up for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SPUI's are pretty hostile to the pedestrian experience. Have you ever seen the one at colonial and semoran? I think there is going to be a lot of growth in this area. Creative Village and the boom of the North Quarter is going to put a lot of people in the area. This will just divide them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, cbejar93 said:

SPUI's are pretty hostile to the pedestrian experience. Have you ever seen the one at colonial and semoran? I think there is going to be a lot of growth in this area. Creative Village and the boom of the North Quarter is going to put a lot of people in the area. This will just divide them. 

I agree they aren't great, but right now it's crossing an uncontrolled right turn, a 3 lane Garland, a cloverleaf on-ramp, and a 3 lane Hughey.... It's pretty wretched.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.