Jump to content

sunshine

Downtown Orlando Project Discussion

Recommended Posts

so.....how do people get from home to the rail stations?

I know this sounds strange, but... maybe... walking?

Or if people are still a few miles from the stations, they could drive and park at the station.

The property values will soar around the stations, because that will be a great place to live. Only two minute walk from rail station. Hotels will crop up as well as highrise apartment buildings.

If you head down to Miami, you have to see the Dadeland/Downtown Kendall development. There is as much development just in this little corridor as all of downtown Orlando. And why??? Because there is a Metro station there and the rail travels from Kendall to downtown Miami/Brickell faster than the cars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


did MCO release official info on the 90% in 2014, or is that a guess? I thought they were going to start the new terminal within the next couple of years. the tram to it is already done.

The tram is not done.....the elavated platform for the tram is completed as far as the south jet overpass, and no further....it is it just a platform....no rails or anything.

The 2014 number was in a Sentinel Article a few months back.....I was estimated that by then, demand would be consistant for additional gates.

With Delta dropping 2/3rd's of their gates (although Southwest picked up a couple) the airport is a long time from needing expansion. One thing they want to avoid is having too large of a facility if airtravel decreases significantly again......which is good planning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this sounds strange, but... maybe... walking?

Or if people are still a few miles from the stations, they could drive and park at the station.

The property values will soar around the stations, because that will be a great place to live. Only two minute walk from rail station. Hotels will crop up as well as highrise apartment buildings.

If you head down to Miami, you have to see the Dadeland/Downtown Kendall development. There is as much development just in this little corridor as all of downtown Orlando. And why??? Because there is a Metro station there and the rail travels from Kendall to downtown Miami/Brickell faster than the cars.

It concerns me that rail could not fix the problem, it might just move the problem. There is a significant portion of the year where walking would not be comfortable unless you live in high-density development within a block or two from the station.

If people are going to take the light rail to downtown, they still need to get to the station, which would need to provide massive parking structures for people in cars, which could just move the traffic congestion from downtown to different areas around the city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. Commuter rail isn't needed. A rail system that runs around the full city is needed. A core in Orlando downtown with branches going up HWY50 to UCF/Waterford, Down HWY50 to Ocoee, Across on I-4 to Altamonte Springs and the other way on I-4 to Disney with a branch to the airport.

It's a huge undertaking, but unless it's built, our traffic troubles will be here forever.

Does the planned commuter rail not span the entire city/metro on a North/South axis? We must start somewhere (which clearly should have been the tanked lightrail proposal).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what misfortune for MCO. First, after explosive growth in the late nineties, we have 9/11. then, after a record comeback to over 31M passengers/year, Delta closes 2/3 of its gates. another setback. The larger this town gets and the more business that moves here, the less vulnerable MCO will be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

did MCO release official info on the 90% in 2014, or is that a guess? I thought they were going to start the new terminal within the next couple of years. the tram to it is already done.

I think they were at 90% in 2000 and were going to get started on the south terminal when 9/11 happened. With the original plan, I think the south terminal would have been complete next year. I thought that they were already above that level now and that the south terminal would start in the next year or two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they were at 90% in 2000 and were going to get started on the south terminal when 9/11 happened. With the original plan, I think the south terminal would have been complete next year. I thought that they were already above that level now and that the south terminal would start in the next year or two.

since 2000, they have added Airside 2...gates 100-129, plus added the new tower, created the new food court, and built the 4th runway.....they have a way to go before hitting 90% of capacity.

Airside 2 hase 16 gates currently, and is built to support 8 more, which is currently landscaping

see below:

gate_numbers.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It concerns me that rail could not fix the problem, it might just move the problem. There is a significant portion of the year where walking would not be comfortable unless you live in high-density development within a block or two from the station.

If people are going to take the light rail to downtown, they still need to get to the station, which would need to provide massive parking structures for people in cars, which could just move the traffic congestion from downtown to different areas around the city.

I disagree that it would only move the problem. Of course, areas with stations could experience more traffic, but not to the extent that it wouldn't still be a better situation. At least all of the crowds wouldn't be congesting the same place - they'd be dispersed. And an all-or-nothing attitude is a part of the reason why nothing has happened so far, in terms of alternative transportation. Establishing a central artery is vital...then, if the traffic getting to particular stations becomes a huge issue, an argument could be made that there would be a high enough ridership to warrent building branches off of the central artery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree that it would only move the problem. Of course, areas with stations could experience more traffic, but not to the extent that it wouldn't still be a better situation. At least all of the crowds wouldn't be congesting the same place - they'd be dispersed. And an all-or-nothing attitude is a part of the reason why nothing has happened so far, in terms of alternative transportation. Establishing a central artery is vital...then, if the traffic getting to particular stations becomes a huge issue, an argument could be made that there would be a high enough ridership to warrent building branches off of the central artery.

yet part of light rail becoming sustainable (and by that, I mean getting decent ridership, paying for itself, and not becoming a hole that we throw tax money into) is ease of use.....people will not use it if it is a hassle.

If traffic/parking is a problem around the stations, it may discourage people from using it. If I am not oging to save time by using it (or only save a few minutes) why would I bother?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yet part of light rail becoming sustainable (and by that, I mean getting decent ridership, paying for itself, and not becoming a hole that we throw tax money into) is ease of use.....people will not use it if it is a hassle.

If traffic/parking is a problem around the stations, it may discourage people from using it. If I am not oging to save time by using it (or only save a few minutes) why would I bother?

Because while you are struggling through traffic and getting pissed off from someone cutting you off from two lanes over, someone that likes trains like myself will be reading my emails on my laptop.

Of course, there are people that like to drive in an SUV and look down at all the lower vehicles. These people will not let go of their image, because to them that is happiness.

To me, I would like to travel without stress and still get something done at the same time. That could be reading the paper or a magazine, perhaps a book, or reading emails. That choice is available.

AND SOMEHOW you act like the roadways aren't taking up tax money.

One final thing, have you ever sped on the highway??? (hint: everyone does) Why bother? You're only saving a few minutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because while you are struggling through traffic and getting pissed off from someone cutting you off from two lanes over, someone that likes trains like myself will be reading my emails on my laptop.

Of course, there are people that like to drive in an SUV and look down at all the lower vehicles. These people will not let go of their image, because to them that is happiness.

To me, I would like to travel without stress and still get something done at the same time. That could be reading the paper or a magazine, perhaps a book, or reading emails. That choice is available.

AND SOMEHOW you act like the roadways aren't taking up tax money.

One final thing, have you ever sped on the highway??? (hint: everyone does) Why bother? You're only saving a few minutes.

I am only trying to be realistic about light rail.....it is not the fix-all for our needs.

yeah....we need to diversify our transit systems....but before we go investing in unproven systems (light rail) I think we need to optimize our current systems, which are far from perfect.

I-4 needs more lanes, as do many roads.....but that itself does not fix the problems

We need more roads and highways.....but that itself does not fix the problems

We need a decent ITS system to manage traffic flow....but that itself does not fix the problems

We need a batter mass transit system (light/commuter rail)....but that itself does not fix the problems

And we needed it all YESTERDAY

There is NO one answer.....only a system of answers that will be able manage our transportation needs.....but politicians anymore are afraid to ask for the money, and "ax the tax idiots" would try to kill any proposed tax increase anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am only trying to be realistic about light rail.....it is not the fix-all for our needs.

yeah....we need to diversify our transit systems....but before we go investing in unproven systems (light rail) I think we need to optimize our current systems, which are far from perfect.

And we needed it all YESTERDAY

There is NO one answer.....only a system of answers that will be able manage our transportation needs.....but politicians anymore are afraid to ask for the money, and "ax the tax idiots" would try to kill any proposed tax increase anyway.

There is no one answer. It will take a variety of systems yet it's possible. As far as proving the success of lightrail, look outside our country and over to Europe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as proving the success of lightrail, look outside our country and over to Europe.

European countries are non-comparable...

1. The culture is not based as much on "self-entitlement"

2. The cities are much higher density.

Also....there is no logic in saying "It worked there, so it will work here"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

European countries are non-comparable...

1. The culture is not based as much on "self-entitlement"

2. The cities are much higher density.

Also....there is no logic in saying "It worked there, so it will work here"

Well, mass transit doesn't only work in Europe...besides I don't think we'll ever have an above-ground version of the Paris or Brussels Metro. But like someone else said, it's going to take a combination of solutions. I'm sure FDOT would love to endlessly expand some highways and I-4, but the simple fact is the land and money are not there, and elevating roads just makes them even more expensive. Now any downtown I-4 expansion must either be 'double-decker' or take considerable private land and construct millions (billions?) in sound walls, historic mitigation and stormwater treatment. I think part of the appeal of mass transit (besides removing cars from the existing roads) is there are alternate funding sources for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

European countries are non-comparable...

1. The culture is not based as much on "self-entitlement"

2. The cities are much higher density.

Also....there is no logic in saying "It worked there, so it will work here"

"self entitlement" is definately an issue in the US and probably one of the reasons we are not popular around the world.

The europeans look at the 5.0 and 6.0 liter gas guzzling cars americans drive, when they drive 1.0 and 2.0 liter cars (with much better performance I may add). They see the 2000-5000 sqft houses amercians have when they are content with 700-1000 sqft homes/condos. The amount of energy America consumes to satisfy that "self entitlement" is a bit excessive. The europeans have been paying $4 a gallon for many years and thus are trained to think in terms of conserving energy and our environment. Now that the gas prices are up in the US I think people will start to feel the impact in their pockets and begin the transformation to smaller and more efficient.

Therefore, light rail connecting the densely populated neighborhoods of Downtown, College Park, Winter Park, Altamonte, Metro West/Universal/Convention Center, Waterford Lakes/UCF, and the Airport should be a no brainer. It's an investment for the future, the environment, our kids/grandkids.....even if it won't solve all the traffic issues. You have to start somewhere. You can make a case against almost any proposal for growth....but that is not very visionary.

I think an elevated light rail train system connecting the populated area is a good move for metro Orlando. Lets get out of cars a start walking more. Americans are consistently on top of the overweight category. Let's stop living our lives in our cars!! A stress free train ride to and from work everyday while catching up on work/bills/phoncalls is just what the doctor ordered. Just a european perspective.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"self entitlement" is definately an issue in the US and probably one of the reasons we are not popular around the world.

The europeans look at the 5.0 and 6.0 liter gas guzzling cars americans drive, when they drive 1.0 and 2.0 liter cars (with much better performance I may add). They see the 2000-5000 sqft houses amercians have when they are content with 700-1000 sqft homes/condos. The amount of energy America consumes to satisfy that "self entitlement" is a bit excessive. The europeans have been paying $4 a gallon for many years and thus are trained to think in terms of conserving energy and our environment. Now that the gas prices are up in the US I think people will start to feel the impact in their pockets and begin the transformation to smaller and more efficient.

Therefore, light rail connecting the densely populated neighborhoods of Downtown, College Park, Winter Park, Altamonte, Metro West/Universal/Convention Center, Waterford Lakes/UCF, and the Airport should be a no brainer. It's an investment for the future, the environment, our kids/grandkids.....even if it won't solve all the traffic issues. You have to start somewhere. You can make a case against almost any proposal for growth....but that is not very visionary.

I think an elevated light rail train system connecting the populated area is a good move for metro Orlando. Lets get out of cars a start walking more. Americans are consistently on top of the overweight category. Let's stop living our lives in our cars!! A stress free train ride to and from work everyday while catching up on work/bills/phoncalls is just what the doctor ordered. Just a european perspective.....

I agree....we are energy hogs. SUVs are useless, and only increase our energy issues.....4WD is not ever needed on our roads....neither is a V8 engine.

I have maintained that people will not give up driving unless it is overly convenient (i.e. a VERY short walk to the station, then a very short walk from the station to the final destination) or until driving becomes to painful (traffic is too bad, gas is too expensive, parking is not easy).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ I did catch it as well. I was glad to see it given such prominence. It's gotten to the point where I feel like we have to just shove it down people's throats before they'll get a clue. In fact, I showed the article to a co-worker of mine, who lives in Ocoee. After reading it, she said "Well, that's not really the case. I have everything I could dream of right near my house." She was referring to the endless strip centers and Wal-Marts, etc. along HWY 50. Of course she has to drive to them, lest be killed trying to cross 50. Not to mention, she neglected to consider she drives 15 plus miles to her job in Clermont. The whole exchange just reinforced to me that people just don't get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ I did catch it as well. I was glad to see it given such prominence. It's gotten to the point where I feel like we have to just shove it down people's throats before they'll get a clue. In fact, I showed the article to a co-worker of mine, who lives in Ocoee. After reading it, she said "Well, that's not really the case. I have everything I could dream of right near my house." She was referring to the endless strip centers and Wal-Marts, etc. along HWY 50. Of course she has to drive to them, lest be killed trying to cross 50. Not to mention, she neglected to consider she drives 15 plus miles to her job in Clermont. The whole exchange just reinforced to me that people just don't get it.

Its really sad that people dont get it, their lives could be so much more convenient if we lived in a clustered format. And I can understand peoples arguments that they want their own private yard and such... and if they want that then they shouldnt move to the suburbs of some city which are bout to be LA-ish in a few decades. I am not talking Tokyo density (though I would welcome that), its just ridiculous to drive everywhere and be so dependent on cars. Especially when the weather outside is beautiful like in Florida... they walk around Portland and Seattle all the time, and it is raining and cold!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ I did catch it as well. I was glad to see it given such prominence. It's gotten to the point where I feel like we have to just shove it down people's throats before they'll get a clue. In fact, I showed the article to a co-worker of mine, who lives in Ocoee. After reading it, she said "Well, that's not really the case. I have everything I could dream of right near my house." She was referring to the endless strip centers and Wal-Marts, etc. along HWY 50. Of course she has to drive to them, lest be killed trying to cross 50. Not to mention, she neglected to consider she drives 15 plus miles to her job in Clermont. The whole exchange just reinforced to me that people just don't get it.

I pretty much agree with everyone on this forum regarding a lot of issues. Sprawl usually is one of them. But in this case, living in Ocoee and working in Clermont- how is this the result of sprawl? Clermont is its own town in Lake Co. and Ocoee is its own town as well in Orange. Wal-Mart is in Winter Garden next to HealthSouth in an area that for over 30 years has been Winter Garden with retail on 50.

If people choose to commute from one city to the next, instead of buying in the city where they work, how is that sprawl? Is it sprawl in Chicago if I work downtown and commute from Skokie? Is it sprawl in Miami if I live in Miami Lakes and commute to downtown? In both cases, there's no noticeable break in population density between the two points.

Or is the answer that every single retail store has to be downtown and everyone has to live in a row house like in Brooklyn for it not to be sprawl. Because in that case, you still have miles of commercial boulevards with neighborhoods bordering them.

Is sprawl all non-PUD's, or are PUD's the result of sprawl also? Or is it sprawl only when there is undeveloped land between PUD's? Or is the real issue that desireable land is being developed that we would prefer be left rural?

I pose these questions b/c I've got an MAURP (urban planning) and I'll tell you what. In Gainesville, they are anti sprawl and Gainesville/Alachua hasn't grown at all compared to Ocala/Marion which was less populated in the early nineties.

I think many who are anti-sprawl are also anti-growth. I say that, b/c in 10 years, when all the vacant lots in Orange County get filled up with uniform density, will you all still be saying that there's urban sprawl in OC?

Many say there is sprawl in South Fla. But if you look at Broward, every urban development belongs to a specific township; its like a county of giant PUD's. Is that sprawl? Dade County-- with the exception of Homestead, the rest of the county maintains a uniform density-- is that sprawl?

I think that if there's a rush hour and there's heavy traffic, you all will call it sprawl.

For example, if a new town is created in the middle of nowhere because of a nearby city center, then, yes, I agree. But I don't agree if satellite cities already exist and they continue growing all the while attracting new residents who happen to commute for work miles away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You will never change the vast majority of people's minds about living on a large lot in a community like Hunter's Creek versus living downtown in a tract home.......you reallly have to "hit them where it hurts".....but we are doing that so backwards right now.

Why is it that the most expensive homes (sans Isleworth and like areas) are being built downtown....where it is "cheaper" for the city to have residents live?

Why is it the least expensive homes are being built in Groveland, Polk County, or south of St Cloud, where all new homes require new roads, utilities, and schools?

I am not a homeowner....I am priced out of Orange county if I want to buy a home, unless I buy in a blighted area. My only choice if I want to buy a house is to sprawl out to an area that I personally can afford. I am all for clean air and a nice environment.....but like everything, it too has a price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I pretty much agree with everyone on this forum regarding a lot of issues. Sprawl usually is one of them. But in this case, living in Ocoee and working in Clermont- how is this the result of sprawl? Clermont is its own town in Lake Co. and Ocoee is its own town as well in Orange. Wal-Mart is in Winter Garden next to HealthSouth in an area that for over 30 years has been Winter Garden with retail on 50.

If people choose to commute from one city to the next, instead of buying in the city where they work, how is that sprawl? Is it sprawl in Chicago if I work downtown and commute from Skokie? Is it sprawl in Miami if I live in Miami Lakes and commute to downtown? In both cases, there's no noticeable break in population density between the two points.

Or is the answer that every single retail store has to be downtown and everyone has to live in a row house like in Brooklyn for it not to be sprawl. Because in that case, you still have miles of commercial boulevards with neighborhoods bordering them.

Is sprawl all non-PUD's, or are PUD's the result of sprawl also? Or is it sprawl only when there is undeveloped land between PUD's? Or is the real issue that desireable land is being developed that we would prefer be left rural?.....

I'm sure there are 100 different opinions on what exactly sprawl is, although some large subdivisions in Ocoee would likely fit many people's definition. And some would not. 50 is going to be made more pedestrian friendly in that area but if you're 2 miles and a gatehouse from it, then does it help? At least there are services around and have been for years.

As for vacant land, I can name 100's of parcels in Orange County that could be built on or it's density increased, and those are just in relatively nice areas. That won't change that much in 10 years. There's still plenty of under- or unutilized land that isn't a swamp or miles from a sewer line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I pretty much agree with everyone on this forum regarding a lot of issues. Sprawl usually is one of them. But in this case, living in Ocoee and working in Clermont- how is this the result of sprawl? Clermont is its own town in Lake Co. and Ocoee is its own town as well in Orange. Wal-Mart is in Winter Garden next to HealthSouth in an area that for over 30 years has been Winter Garden with retail on 50.

If people choose to commute from one city to the next, instead of buying in the city where they work, how is that sprawl? Is it sprawl in Chicago if I work downtown and commute from Skokie? Is it sprawl in Miami if I live in Miami Lakes and commute to downtown? In both cases, there's no noticeable break in population density between the two points.

Or is the answer that every single retail store has to be downtown and everyone has to live in a row house like in Brooklyn for it not to be sprawl. Because in that case, you still have miles of commercial boulevards with neighborhoods bordering them.

Is sprawl all non-PUD's, or are PUD's the result of sprawl also? Or is it sprawl only when there is undeveloped land between PUD's? Or is the real issue that desireable land is being developed that we would prefer be left rural?

I pose these questions b/c I've got an MAURP (urban planning) and I'll tell you what. In Gainesville, they are anti sprawl and Gainesville/Alachua hasn't grown at all compared to Ocala/Marion which was less populated in the early nineties.

I think many who are anti-sprawl are also anti-growth. I say that, b/c in 10 years, when all the vacant lots in Orange County get filled up with uniform density, will you all still be saying that there's urban sprawl in OC?

Many say there is sprawl in South Fla. But if you look at Broward, every urban development belongs to a specific township; its like a county of giant PUD's. Is that sprawl? Dade County-- with the exception of Homestead, the rest of the county maintains a uniform density-- is that sprawl?

I think that if there's a rush hour and there's heavy traffic, you all will call it sprawl.

For example, if a new town is created in the middle of nowhere because of a nearby city center, then, yes, I agree. But I don't agree if satellite cities already exist and they continue growing all the while attracting new residents who happen to commute for work miles away.

It's funny - you were generally responding to my post, yet I very much agree with you in many respects. It's even more funny that you mentioned Skokie:Chicago, as I grew up in Skokie, and commuted to downtown Chicago for a year & 1/2 prior to moving here. But I do agree with you that the whole sprawl concept is very loaded and some people do take it to the extreme. But I truly don't consider myself to be one of them. I just get very frustrated when I see these massive subdivisions being built here in Central FL farther and farther out. You're right, Clermont is it's own city and enjoys the rights entitled to it. But the develolpment going on there is not generally "smart-growth" friendly. Nor is Clermont really an economic center where those who are buying houses there will be working there as well. I have no data to back it up, but I would presume a vast portion of those folks living there work in or around the metro core, with no real way to get there but drive. Comparing that with Skokie, where I could walk a block from my house to pick up the Pace 215, which took me to the Howard St station to catch the El from there, the concept of "suburban" or "sprawly" gets kind of blurred.

I've rambled on. But anyway, my point was I agree with you, but only to an extent with respect to Orlando. We just have so much open and underutilized space/land that is being ignored in favor of tracts of land farther and farther out. And as I've stated int he forum before, I am not suggesting every new residential development be a gigantic highrise. I respect people may wish to live in a traditional home as opposed to a condo unit. But again, there are better ways to accommodate that then what we are doing.

Share this post


Link to post
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.