409 North Magnolia [Under Construction]

[Naqiy90]

8 hours ago, Uncommon said:

Don’t you think if most people in Orlando wanted to use public transportation, they’d move to a city that better supports it? I don’t think you can force anyone to do anything. If they don’t want to walk or bike, they’ll simply go somewhere else that offers what they prefer to do. I don’t know that Orlando residents want to use public transportation, even if it were readily available.

Idk what economy you’re living in, but people can’t just move to a different city whenever they feel like it, especially low income folks that are the largest users of transit. Wealthy professionals that prefer transit do move to other cities which is why Orlando ranks 50 out of 50 for median income.

The only cities with good transit are too expensive to live in for most people, which is a real catch-22 for low income people who rely on transit. The fact that cities like NYC or Boston are so expensive just shows the demand for walkable cities with good transit is not being met by supply.

[Uncommon]

1 hour ago, Naqiy90 said:

Idk what economy you’re living in, but people can’t just move to a different city whenever they feel like it, especially low income folks that are the largest users of transit. Wealthy professionals that prefer transit do move to other cities which is why Orlando ranks 50 out of 50 for median income.

The only cities with good transit are too expensive to live in for most people, which is a real catch-22 for low income people who rely on transit. The fact that cities like NYC or Boston are so expensive just shows the demand for walkable cities with good transit is not being met by supply.

Interesting points on all fronts. Unfortunately, the original argument that a lack of parking lots will somehow buoy better public transportation is still invalid. 

My point was that the people that only DESIRE to use public transportation but would never be caught dead on a bus might move elsewhere if it truly was a sticking point. On the other hand, the people that NEED to use public transportation do use buses, Uber, and perhaps Sunrail. And yeah, it sucks, but it sucks almost everywhere in the U.S., except places like NYC, Chicago, Boston, maybe San Francisco, and a small handful of others.

Also, Orlando doesn’t rank 50 out of 50 because of transportation lol. I’d have to fact-check you, but anyway, you just mentioned how only a handful of cities have adequate public transportation. Clearly, this isn’t an issue unique to Orlando and does not represent a correlation to median income. I hope you don’t truly believe this.

[jgardnerucf]

6 hours ago, jrs2 said:

Is this what is keeping to lot at Pine & Orange from getting developed?

We want the SLIDE!!!

[Naqiy90]

2 hours ago, Uncommon said:

Interesting points on all fronts. Unfortunately, the original argument that a lack of parking lots will somehow buoy better public transportation is still invalid. 

My point was that the people that only DESIRE to use public transportation but would never be caught dead on a bus might move elsewhere if it truly was a sticking point. On the other hand, the people that NEED to use public transportation do use buses, Uber, and perhaps Sunrail. And yeah, it sucks, but it sucks almost everywhere in the U.S., except places like NYC, Chicago, Boston, maybe San Francisco, and a small handful of others.

Also, Orlando doesn’t rank 50 out of 50 because of transportation lol. I’d have to fact-check you, but anyway, you just mentioned how only a handful of cities have adequate public transportation. Clearly, this isn’t an issue unique to Orlando and does not represent a correlation to median income. I hope you don’t truly believe this.

I do believe there is a direct correlation  between Transit and median income because big Fortune 500 companies want to move to regions with good transit like Amazon recently for example. Large companies bring higher paying professional jobs that raise median wage overall. While Orlando is not unique among cities with subpar transit, no other metropolitan area in the USA gets as many visitors as the Orlando region, and other cities are working to improve their transit service while Orlando is basically doing nothing, our  infrequent commuter rail being basically useless except for higher income professionals working downtown for conventional 9-5 shifts.

As far as my statement about Orlando's median income ranking, it was just something I recall reading, but doing a Google search I came across a recent ranking of median household income by the Census Bureau that had Orlando 23 out of 25, with Tampa and Miami ranking lower.  Of the top 25 metros, only Riverside, Orlando, San Antonio , Tampa, and Detroit have no rapid transit. and all 5 metros are at the bottom for median household income. I know correlation is not causation but regardless, the correlation of rapid transit to higher median incomes seems pretty clear.

https://www.orlandoweekly.com/Blogs/archives/2017/09/22/orlando-ranks-among-nations-worst-for-income-says-recent-census-survey

Edited March 21, 2019 by Naqiy90

[dcluley98]

 Large companies bring higher paying professional jobs that raise median wage overall. 

This is not true at all. 

Our wages are low mostly because we are a tourist destination, with low wage service industry jobs being the majority. 

Edited March 21, 2019 by dcluley98

[Uncommon]

10 hours ago, Naqiy90 said:

I do believe there is a direct correlation  between Transit and median income because big Fortune 500 companies want to move to regions with good transit like Amazon recently for example. Large companies bring higher paying professional jobs that raise median wage overall. While Orlando is not unique among cities with subpar transit, no other metropolitan area in the USA gets as many visitors as the Orlando region, and other cities are working to improve their transit service while Orlando is basically doing nothing, our  infrequent commuter rail being basically useless except for higher income professionals working downtown for conventional 9-5 shifts.

As far as my statement about Orlando's median income ranking, it was just something I recall reading, but doing a Google search I came across a recent ranking of median household income by the Census Bureau that had Orlando 23 out of 25, with Tampa and Miami ranking lower.  Of the top 25 metros, only Riverside, Orlando, San Antonio , Tampa, and Detroit have no rapid transit. and all 5 metros are at the bottom for median household income. I know correlation is not causation but regardless, the correlation of rapid transit to higher median incomes seems pretty clear.

https://www.orlandoweekly.com/Blogs/archives/2017/09/22/orlando-ranks-among-nations-worst-for-income-says-recent-census-survey

You’re sort of dispelling your own theories. There are hundreds of reasons that all coagulate to determine a city’s median income, and cherry-picking one reason like transit is pretty short-sighted. Have you ever been outside of Florida? I don’t say that disparagingly, I only ask because I want to know. So many people think once they step out of these borders that every other part of the US is a walkable haven, and it simply isn’t true. The entire country except for a few select cities (like 7 or 8 in total) are almost TOTALLY CAR-DEPENDENT. Major cities I’ve been to with higher median incomes like San Jose, Bridgeport CT,  Dallas, and Pittsburgh all have awful to no public transportation. Cities like Charlotte, Atlanta, and Portland, god love ‘em, are trying, but their public transportation still stinks to high heaven. Yet it hasn’t affected their median incomes. 

Like I said, this is a NATIONAL issue, and punishing Orlando’s transit for “basically being useless” or “doing nothing” is extremely prejudicial. Orlando IS trying. Sunrail was built, and no it isn’t perfect, but Orlando didn’t have to even bother. They could have said, “no, we’re not building anything,” like Tampa or San Antonio or Nashville, which have absolutely NO rail at all.

Orlando is a very new city, with an explosive, unexpected population increase compared with its inception. It’ll take time to catch up to much bigger and more established cities that have been doing this for decades upon decades. We simply have to be patient.

Edited March 21, 2019 by Uncommon

[JFW657]

10 hours ago, dcluley98 said:

This is not true at all. 

Our wages are low mostly because we are a tourist destination, with low wage service industry jobs being the majority. 

Well it is and it isn't. Which is to say it isn't necessarily true rather than "not true at all".

Some big companies do bring higher paying jobs, but of course, it depends on what the company does and what kind of available jobs they bring.

Big hotel and restaurant chains, theme parks and retail establishments, which as you correctly said, comprise the majority of our employment, are big companies that offer mostly low wage employment. High tech manufacturing companies and defense contractors etc, are big companies that bring high paying jobs.

So neither statement is completely true or completely false.

[dcluley98]

How about, "this is generally false."  
 

[Dale]

15 hours ago, Naqiy90 said:

Idk what economy you’re living in, but people can’t just move to a different city whenever they feel like it, especially low income folks that are the largest users of transit. Wealthy professionals that prefer transit do move to other cities which is why Orlando ranks 50 out of 50 for median income.

The only cities with good transit are too expensive to live in for most people, which is a real catch-22 for low income people who rely on transit. The fact that cities like NYC or Boston are so expensive just shows the demand for walkable cities with good transit is not being met by supply.

Charlotte is booming and attracting professionals from all over, precious few of whom prefer transit. 

[JFW657]

1 hour ago, dcluley98 said:

How about, "this is generally false."  
 

Personally, I would have described the statement as being "partly true".

[HankStrong]

 

[Jvest55]

3 hours ago, Uncommon said:

You’re sort of dispelling your own theories. There are hundreds of reasons that all coagulate to determine a city’s median income, and cherry-picking one reason like transit is pretty short-sighted. Have you ever been outside of Florida? I don’t say that disparagingly, I only ask because I want to know. So many people think once they step out of these borders that every other part of the US is a walkable haven, and it simply isn’t true. The entire country except for a few select cities (like 7 or 8 in total) are almost TOTALLY CAR-DEPENDENT. Major cities I’ve been to with higher median incomes like San Jose, Bridgeport CT,  Dallas, and Pittsburgh all have awful to no public transportation. Cities like Charlotte, Atlanta, and Portland, god love ‘em, are trying, but their public transportation still stinks to high heaven. Yet it hasn’t affected their median incomes. 

Like I said, this is a NATIONAL issue, and punishing Orlando’s transit for “basically being useless” or “doing nothing” is extremely prejudicial. Orlando IS trying. Sunrail was built, and no it isn’t perfect, but Orlando didn’t have to even bother. They could have said, “no, we’re not building anything,” like Tampa or San Antonio or Nashville, which have absolutely NO rail at all.

Orlando is a very new city, with an explosive, unexpected population increase compared with its inception. It’ll take time to catch up to much bigger and more established cities that have been doing this for decades upon decades. We simply have to be patient.

 

Well said

[Dale]

Meanwhile, over on SSC, the dearly-departed “I Am Reality” is screaming in his basement about this thread.

[jrs2]

16 hours ago, Naqiy90 said:

I do believe there is a direct correlation  between Transit and median income because big Fortune 500 companies want to move to regions with good transit like Amazon recently for example. Large companies bring higher paying professional jobs that raise median wage overall. While Orlando is not unique among cities with subpar transit, no other metropolitan area in the USA gets as many visitors as the Orlando region, and other cities are working to improve their transit service while Orlando is basically doing nothing, our  infrequent commuter rail being basically useless except for higher income professionals working downtown for conventional 9-5 shifts.

As far as my statement about Orlando's median income ranking, it was just something I recall reading, but doing a Google search I came across a recent ranking of median household income by the Census Bureau that had Orlando 23 out of 25, with Tampa and Miami ranking lower.  Of the top 25 metros, only Riverside, Orlando, San Antonio , Tampa, and Detroit have no rapid transit. and all 5 metros are at the bottom for median household income. I know correlation is not causation but regardless, the correlation of rapid transit to higher median incomes seems pretty clear.

https://www.orlandoweekly.com/Blogs/archives/2017/09/22/orlando-ranks-among-nations-worst-for-income-says-recent-census-survey

I read everyone's comments on this...

well, I will tell you what we do know...when Sunrail was planning stations, Adventist wanted a station at their FH South campus for their workers, whether they are using the station religiously or not now; but that was what Adventist intended.  Those companies do want those amenities for their workers.

[spenser1058]

4 minutes ago, jrs2 said:

I read everyone's comments on this...

well, I will tell you what we do know...when Sunrail was planning stations, Adventist wanted a station at their FH South campus for their workers, whether they are using the station religiously or not now; but that was what Adventist intended.  Those companies do want those amenities for their workers.

“...religiously”? I see what you did there *giggles*.

[Jernigan]

1 hour ago, jrs2 said:

I read everyone's comments on this...

well, I will tell you what we do know...when Sunrail was planning stations, Adventist wanted a station at their FH South campus for their workers, whether they are using the station religiously or not now; but that was what Adventist intended.  Those companies do want those amenities for their workers.

It’s my understanding that FH had a choice if partnering on SunRail or paying into I-4 if they wanted to expand their campus.

[aent]

On 3/20/2019 at 10:12 AM, Jernigan said:

Chicken and egg given or lack of acceptable transit.   That said, removing parking requirements doesn’t force anything.  It allows the market to respond in a way it can’t now.  Maybe nothing would change but I have a feeling it would.  Besides, Freedom!

I agree with this so strongly. I really don't understand why either side wants to keep the parking requirements on new buildings. The Republicans claim they're anti-regulation, so this is an easy one to remove that shouldn't get pushback. The Democrats claim to be pro-public transit, and removing the parking requirements will increase the need for transit, forcing the funding of the systems they claim they want to fund.

 

Orlando does have one of the top transit systems in the country... The Disney World Transit system. The monorail moves 150,000 people a day, they have an even larger bus system then that, along with their watercrafts and other systems. And who is using that system the most? The wealthiest, the rich, the ones who can afford to stay in the coveted monorail resorts. And Disney Skyliner is expected to massively expand that, and cause those resorts to become higher end. And the buses are one of the biggest reasons why people stay at Disney's cheapest resorts rather then over on 192, and pay a premium for that. If transit is done well, and its more convenient then the other options, people are fine with transit, from nearly all income levels. The key is it being convenient. When I lived in South Florida, my family was always super anti-transit, especially my dad. But when he was flying around for work a bit and having to drive an hour to  Miami airport, pay for parking (or drag my mom and me along with him to drop him off to avoid paying for parking on multi-week trips), then drive an hour back when he returns,  and being frustrated at the traffic, I mentioned "why not just take Tri-Rail to the airport, it will make it easier for us to drop you off and you'll probably get there in the same time". He tried it once, and now no one in my family in South Florida would drive anyone to the airport anymore. You HAD to take Tri-Rail, because it was so convenient for the person dropping you off, and you wouldn't have to pay for parking. My family used it whenever it was convenient after that (which basically meant anywhere there was direct, easy transport or walking distance from Tri-Rail or Metrorail, but if it involved looking at schedules or any sort of more complicated transfer then to metrorail or one single bus, it would not be considered). The area requiring paying for parking or long lines/difficult to find spots, was a huge motivator to strongly consider transit for my family that was traditionally anti-transit.

In Orlando, when there was both a Magic game and a OC game, the Sunrail trains were all full, because everyone knew it would be both difficult and expensive to park.  When I went to UCF, I had the same complaint as everyone else "NOT ENOUGH PARKIING"... and I learned to take the shuttle. When I went there, they started with 4 garages, and the shuttles were often packed. Parking was bad. While I attended, they built an additional 4 or 5 parking garages. Every time a parking garage opened, the shuttles got less packed. It didn't get any easier to park at all. And when I've gone back to visit campus, with another couple parking garages opened or expanded, they now made the shuttles smaller, and reduced the scheduling due to decreased ridership (which probably further decreased ridership)... which no doubt is because it became more convenient  and faster to park then ride the shuttle. And if you look at the ridership numbers, its pretty clear, building parking spots decreases shuttle ridership in each year a garage opens.

 

I'm in the "don't require parking anywhere but don't ban it" camp, because I know some businesses do feel they need the parking. But if they don't feel they need it, it will push to boost transit. And some people may decide "hey, I can save money not having parking spots, I can give my customers or employees free transit tickets instead". If they have to have those parking spots, there is less incentive for them to do that. We shouldn't turn away any business, whether they feel they want to building parking spots, or... not build them.

[JFW657]

Anyone who'd invest tens of millions of dollars into erecting a high rise office building, condo or hotel without including an attached, secure parking garage wouldn't be investing in another one any time soon.

They'd lose their shirts after going bankrupt.

[aent]

3 minutes ago, JFW657 said:

Anyone who'd invest tens of millions of dollars into erecting a high rise office building, condo or hotel without including an attached, secure parking garage wouldn't be investing in another one any time soon.

They'd lose their shirts after going bankrupt.

Its not necessarily about saying no parking, but it could be about reducing the quantity of it. And I've seen a number of hotels in other cities where they don't have any parking, and you were left to find nearby municipal parking garages or other private lots, or use public transit.

[spenser1058]

3 minutes ago, JFW657 said:

Anyone who'd invest tens of millions of dollars into erecting a high rise office building, condo or hotel without including an attached, secure parking garage wouldn't be investing in another one any time soon.

They'd lose their shirts after going bankrupt.

DPAC was built without an attached, secure parking garage. Impending doom was predicted. 

So far, it’s been more successful than forecast.

Former Orange County Commissioner Lou Treadway (a Republican, no less) made the argument that for every parking spot erected downtown, you were losing two potential transit patrons.

He lost that argument to Mayor Bill but he was right. Had he succeeded in the ‘80’s, the middle-management types would have demanded better transit.

You don’t have to accept this as a pipe dream. In New York, transit thrives because the ridiculous cost of parking makes driving a car into Manhattan ridiculous.

I was born and raised in suburban Orlando where you had to get in a car to even get to a 7-Eleven. When I moved to Atlanta, I jumped at the chance to use MARTA because it is easy, convenient and there’s precious few places to park affordably near the Capitol.

 By the way, “free parking” ain’t free. It just drives up the cost of development. We are seeing the results of those decisions in the price of real estate.

Economics 101 drives it - always has, always will.

 

[Jernigan]

FWIW - the fact that even in this thread full of urbanists - the concept of non-mandated parking can’t be fully separated from banning parking or forcing people onto public transit doesn’t bode well for the larger conversation and perhaps answers @aents question 

[aent]

43 minutes ago, Jernigan said:

FWIW - the fact that even in this thread full of urbanists - the concept of non-mandated parking can’t be fully separated from banning parking or forcing people onto public transit doesn’t bode well for the larger conversation and perhaps answers @aents question 

lol yup, although if nobody would build anything without parking anyways, why again do we need the requirements? its still unnecessary, and its something all sides should agree on no matter where you stand, because ya know, companies will always build it no matter what.

[Naqiy90]

14 hours ago, Dale said:

Charlotte is booming and attracting professionals from all over, precious few of whom prefer transit. 

Charlotte has light rail that they're expanding however, which could have been Orlando if we didn't blow it in 1999. My argument wasn't that professionals use transit heavily, but rather that large corporations prefer to locate in cities with good transit, which is something executives usually mention as a deciding factor for locating  somewhere.

Edited March 22, 2019 by Naqiy90

[prahaboheme]

3 minutes ago, Naqiy90 said:

Charlotte has light rail that they're expanding however, which could have been Orlando if we didn't blow it in 1999. My argument wasn't that professionals use transit heavily, but rather that large corporations prefer to locate in cities with good transit, which is something executives usually mention as a deciding factor for locating  somewhere.

To think that Orlando could have already had a full fledged light rail running from downtown through the tourist cooridor (where 50 million guests visit every year). Shamefully short sighted.

[Naqiy90]

15 hours ago, Uncommon said:

You’re sort of dispelling your own theories. There are hundreds of reasons that all coagulate to determine a city’s median income, and cherry-picking one reason like transit is pretty short-sighted. Have you ever been outside of Florida? I don’t say that disparagingly, I only ask because I want to know. So many people think once they step out of these borders that every other part of the US is a walkable haven, and it simply isn’t true. The entire country except for a few select cities (like 7 or 8 in total) are almost TOTALLY CAR-DEPENDENT. Major cities I’ve been to with higher median incomes like San Jose, Bridgeport CT,  Dallas, and Pittsburgh all have awful to no public transportation. Cities like Charlotte, Atlanta, and Portland, god love ‘em, are trying, but their public transportation still stinks to high heaven. Yet it hasn’t affected their median incomes. 

Like I said, this is a NATIONAL issue, and punishing Orlando’s transit for “basically being useless” or “doing nothing” is extremely prejudicial. Orlando IS trying. Sunrail was built, and no it isn’t perfect, but Orlando didn’t have to even bother. They could have said, “no, we’re not building anything,” like Tampa or San Antonio or Nashville, which have absolutely NO rail at all.

Orlando is a very new city, with an explosive, unexpected population increase compared with its inception. It’ll take time to catch up to much bigger and more established cities that have been doing this for decades upon decades. We simply have to be patient.

I've been to pretty much every major city in the US, and yes most cities are not overall walkable and are car dominated. but still have much better transit than Orlando. San Jose, Dallas, and Pittsburgh all have rapid rail transit . DART in Dallas is the biggest Light rail system in the country! Bridgeport might not have good local transit, but it has a direct train line into the best city in the world! Atlanta and Portland all have very good transit for the urban core, although not necessary the entire region. MAX and MARTA are great, i've ridden them many times.

It is a national issue but also Orlando is falling behind in transit investment to cities much smaller, we don't even have BRT like many smaller cities such as Richmond, Kansas City, Jacksonville have, except for the downtown  LYMMO which  is mostly useless because it's so short   Tampa just passed their transit funding, so their transit is about to improve dramatically, plus they have the short streetcar which is technically rail. San Antonio has a much better bus system than Orlando, i've ridden it! And Nashville just had a failing transit funding vote which was poisoned by the Mayor having to resign for sleeping with her bodyguard lol, since she was the biggest promoter of the bill. Also Nashville has infrequent commuter rail too, called the Music City Star!

Edited March 22, 2019 by Naqiy90