Other Metro Area Projects

[JRS1]

^^

have, shmav... I hear ya...

all I'm saying it that transportation is paramount, period, and if sprawl is a consequence to it then so be it.

I'm not saying people want it; all I'm saying is that if people don't want it, then people shouldn't advocate halting roads from being built or improved.

[VistaLakes01]

They are all nested along Hiawasee Road. MetroWest are same as Winter Park, one of the more urban neighbourhood in metro Orlando. Metrowest is getting expensive. If I have to choose between Winter Park and Metrowest, I will choose Metrowest. Both area are close to downtown but Metrowest is also close to the attraction areas and huge mall. When the entire town center are built, the price of the condo will become outrages. The town center built in metrowest have store at gorund level with condo on the second and third level. This is different from Winter Park.

[VistaLakes01]

They are all nested along Hiawasee Road. MetroWest are same as Winter Park, one of the more urban neighbourhood in metro Orlando. Metrowest is getting expensive. If I have to choose between Winter Park and Metrowest, I will choose Metrowest. Both area are close to downtown but Metrowest is also close to the attraction areas and huge mall. When the entire town center are built, the price of the condo will become outrages. The town center built in metrowest have store at gorund level with condo on the second and third level. This is different from Winter Park.

Metrowest is a city of Orlando Neighborhood, it's actually not that sprawling, considering the date construction started. There is a lot of high-density housing so it's very populated. We have to wait and see how Orlando's two newest neighborhoods (Lee Vista and Lake Nona)develop in comparison. As far as Parramore, it would be perfect for jazz clubs etc. Kind of like you see in Atlanta on a Tyler Perry movie. Like Winter Park it needs something big to the West of it and then infill between East and West.

[demon]

Metrowest is a city of Orlando Neighborhood, it's actually not that sprawling, considering the date construction started. There is a lot of high-density housing so it's very populated. We have to wait and see how Orlando's two newest neighborhoods (Lee Vista and Lake Nona)develop in comparison. As far as Parramore, it would be perfect for jazz clubs etc. Kind of like you see in Atlanta on a Tyler Perry movie. Like Winter Park it needs something big to the West of it and then infill between East and West.

The thing about MetroWest is that it is all gated communities. While it is a nice area to go for a walk, there are no shops, resturants or anything else along the way except on Kirkman or Hiawassee you get the occasional strip mall. Might be one of the reasons I moved downtown too.

I think Lake Nona is going to be a bit better planned out. More parks, a town center, better walking and riding trails, more street access from your door.

[facilities man]

^^

I say it's all about access. When they extended Hiawassee north to Piedmont-Wekiva Rd., that was huge, b/c you didn't have to rely on 441 anymore. Then, the 429 opened. Now, 414 is extending out to 429, which is huge for the bypass issue. There already is development out there, just like when they extended 414 from Forrest City Rd. to 441, there was already development along Rose and Bear Lk. etc...

this will be huge in getting traffic off of 441 in Apopka, and it will put more cars and trucks on the toll road and bring in revenue... this makes total sense for NW Orange. it is so perfect. now, you have a complete road from 429/441 past Apopka coming in all the way to I-4 and 17/92. 414 has now been fully realized. too bad it couldn't go all the way to 436.

You get a nice view of the downtown skyline from 414 East bound right before you cross over 441. The elevated roadway gets you high enough that you see over the tree line.

[JRS1]

You get a nice view of the downtown skyline from 414 East bound right before you cross over 441. The elevated roadway gets you high enough that you see over the tree line.

OMG, you are so right!

I rode 414 for the first time on Saturday. it is mostly elevated I noticed... I mean, it's way up there by the treetops like you mentioned. you can totally see downtown from it, and this really large greenhouse type of development closer to Apopka just south of the expressway... I wonder if that's a UF facility or a private thing...

414 is incomplete where it hits 429 though. I think 414 WB to 429 north has a direct ramp, but to 429 south, you go right up to the big wall (future overpass hill), make a left, and then catch the SB ramp a little ways down. coming 429 SB to 414 EB, I don't know what kind of ramp is operational, or if you have to do the whole exit and make a left turn thing...

all I know, is that once the Wekiva Pkwy is built, this junction will be another large interchange with flyovers galore, and the spur that currently goes to 441 from that point will be relagated to just an auxillliary feeder highway.

great road, though. nice interchange at 441 and it's 6 lanes already. I was surprised.

[cwetteland]

OMG, you are so right!

I rode 414 for the first time on Saturday. it is mostly elevated I noticed... I mean, it's way up there by the treetops like you mentioned. you can totally see downtown from it, and this really large greenhouse type of development closer to Apopka just south of the expressway... I wonder if that's a UF facility or a private thing...

414 is incomplete where it hits 429 though. I think 414 WB to 429 north has a direct ramp, but to 429 south, you go right up to the big wall (future overpass hill), make a left, and then catch the SB ramp a little ways down. coming 429 SB to 414 EB, I don't know what kind of ramp is operational, or if you have to do the whole exit and make a left turn thing...

all I know, is that once the Wekiva Pkwy is built, this junction will be another large interchange with flyovers galore, and the spur that currently goes to 441 from that point will be relagated to just an auxillliary feeder highway.

great road, though. nice interchange at 441 and it's 6 lanes already. I was surprised.

I believe that once the parkway is built (which has it's own new interchange with 441 west of the current 441 intersection) 429 will begin to jog west begining further south. A section of 429 south of 414 will be removed but the spur you refer to (north of 414) will remain.

[JRS1]

I believe that once the parkway is built (which has it's own new interchange with 441 west of the current 441 intersection) 429 will begin to jog west begining further south. A section of 429 south of 414 will be removed but the spur you refer to (north of 414) will remain.

you're right. the realignment begins south of that interchange... but that is a sweet road, 414 that is...

[mgsports]

Good a new Interchange and bigger road.

The Altamonte Springs Mall now has a Magic Team Shop.

[VistaLakes01]

you're right. the realignment begins south of that interchange... but that is a sweet road, 414 that is...

I agree. Except for the tolls, Metro Orlando definetely has a beautiful expressway system. The 408 is looking pretty sweet, the Turnpike, and Beachline as well. the 417 is nicely landscaped and a safe raod to navigtate on, aws well as the 429 on the west side. Many beautiful exways here and my friends from outr of town all comment on how nice they are, except tor the toll, but it is a beautiful system.

[lala67]

I don't agree with that age old argument of keeping roads narrow to curtail new traffic, and that's coming from someone with an MAURP. If we would've done that with I-4 at the St. John's River, I-d hate to think back to driving into Orlando from Volusia on a 2 lane highway, a narrow shoulder-less bridge, and 2 lanes all the way to 434 exit in Longwood. THat's a reality I don't want to be in. I say built the roads that need to be built and fix the roads that need to be fixed; but don't neglect roads and new road corridors b/c you want to curtail new traffic and development. that's crazy.

you do realize there are other modes of transportation besides the automobile, right? I-4's ultimate configuration is being designed to handle the capacity from the year 2000. Meaning it will already be OVER capacity the day that the ultimate configuration is completed. I don't care if people want to pave the entire landscape from here there and everywhere, but not at the expense of places that have a tight grid and are close in. That's the big problem with sprawl - people move out where it's cheaper or to get away from it all and then want to bring it all with them but only a mere 20 minute drive from wherever it is they want to go.

[JRS1]

you do realize there are other modes of transportation besides the automobile, right? I-4's ultimate configuration is being designed to handle the capacity from the year 2000. Meaning it will already be OVER capacity the day that the ultimate configuration is completed. I don't care if people want to pave the entire landscape from here there and everywhere, but not at the expense of places that have a tight grid and are close in. That's the big problem with sprawl - people move out where it's cheaper or to get away from it all and then want to bring it all with them but only a mere 20 minute drive from wherever it is they want to go.

like I said in prior posts, I fully support rail, Sunrail, LRT, and any other type of rail. But that doesn't mean we should keep I-4 narrow b/c "the wider it gets the more people use it." (which is the war cry of anti-sprawlers. that's it; nothing more.

As long as I-4 is 10 lanes through downtown (like the 408 widening BTW), and 8 lanes up and over the St. Johns River Bridge to the east, and 192 to the west, then there's no problem. But the darn thing keeps cutting off lanes at different points which slows traffic down.

If the year 2000 plan accounts for the lanes I'm talking about above, then it will be ok. But b/c FDOT are a bunch of jackasses when it comes to road widening projects, they've got everyone rallying around this anti-wide road/anti-sprawl stance which clouds the issue.

I-4 is now 6 lanes from Tampa to Orlando nonstop. What a relief that extra couple of lanes has given commuters and travelers alike- that's what I'm talking about. I-4 connects I-75 to I-95, no matter how much sprawl is in Orlando metro, there are going to be thousands of travelers per day using that road regardless. Widening has to account for that. And this has nothing to do with keeping development more dense or implementing CRT or LRT within an urban area.

^^

I don't understand the 'paving at the expense of places that are close in grid-wise' thing;

[lala67]

In order to widen I-4 through downtown approximately 300 homes in the College Park area will be taken. That's what I mean - giving up 300 DUs in a fairly dense environment close to the CBD so that folks from Altamonte & Lake Mary have an easier commute. Bleh.

I-75 is 19 lanes wide in some sections in Atlanta's downtown core and congestion hasn't gotten any better because of it, it's just an even bigger mess. You can't build your way out of congestion and adding lanes doesn't really work. Congestion also isn't necessarily a bad thing.

[JRS1]

In order to widen I-4 through downtown approximately 300 homes in the College Park area will be taken. That's what I mean - giving up 300 DUs in a fairly dense environment close to the CBD so that folks from Altamonte & Lake Mary have an easier commute. Bleh.

I-75 is 19 lanes wide in some sections in Atlanta's downtown core and congestion hasn't gotten any better because of it, it's just an even bigger mess. You can't build your way out of congestion and adding lanes doesn't really work. Congestion also isn't necessarily a bad thing.

well, then we'll agree to disagree. ped friendly vs hotel rooms in no matter what form is one thing, but cutting off lanes b/c Atlanta has 19 lanes thru their downtown and its still congested? Atlanta has 5 million people metro. All of FLorida's highway freight to the midwest moves thru I-75; it has to be that wide (BTW, I don't think it's that wide; the most I remember was 7 & 7 including the HOV lane continuous lanes, not counting exit to exit lanes).

I've seen the easement thru College Park. I never said to widen I-4 thru College Park. It's already 8 lanes from Lee Rd. to Ivanhoe.

What they need to do is widen it from Ivanhoe to 408 to something like 12 lanes instead of the 6 it has now; the easement is there. Then, widen the JYP Bridge to 8 lanes, so I-4 is 8 lanes from OBT thru Conroy exit. Then, widen I-4 past the Turnpike exit to 8 lanes all the way to 528 or C Fla Pkwy (wherever it cuts off), and widen the SLR Bridge to allow for it. Then, widen the 535 bridge to allow 8 lanes, and then widen it to 8 lanes to World Drive by Celebration to avoid backups to 192.

To the north, widen the Lee Rd. Bridge. Replace the 436 Bridge. Widen the 434 Bridge. Then widen the St. John's Bridge. Then, get I-4 to 8 lanes all the way into Deltona. You think there will still be backups then? I don't think so.

Cutting off lanes within the metro is the worst idea that FDOT could've ever come up with. Just look at the Turnpike and 408 where they've widened it and see what a success those two highways are now.

That being said, we still need commuter rail. Just like Chicago, and every other major city.

[lala67]

riddle me this, what's the point of widening roads if you're going to put in light rail/commuter rail? You'll get your wish in regards to I-4. It'll be 8 lanes wide from one end of the metro to the other, probably 10-12 through downtown. It'll still be gridlocked.

[JRS1]

riddle me this, what's the point of widening roads if you're going to put in light rail/commuter rail? You'll get your wish in regards to I-4. It'll be 8 lanes wide from one end of the metro to the other, probably 10-12 through downtown. It'll still be gridlocked.

The point is that I-4 needs to be improved; it isn't improved as it stand now, with the exception of several new interchanges built over the past decade and some exit to exit lanes, the longest of which goes from Ivanhoe to Lee Road.

You're talking about two different things; Commuter rail doesn't take freight off of semis between I-75 and I-95, nor does it move out of towners passing through town. This is pretty much the point I was trying to make in my last email. I-4 isn't just a local road, and people need to remember that. That's why the junction of I-75/85 is so huge; it's not b/c of Atlanta solely, it's b/c those two interstates criss-cross there and move tens of thousands of vehicles per day notwithstanding local traffic.

you can't forsake a road that has statewide significance just because some Deltona residents want to take CRT to Fla. Hosp., and b/c some people in Waterford Lakes want to take LRT someday to downtown. One has nothing to do with the other. Even if it was all local traffic one would have nothing to do with the other-- when you consider all of the work/company vehicles on the road-- are they going to take a train to their next job or delivery? no, they aren't.

I-4 being widened isn't a "wish" of mine b/c of some grand vison for Orlando that I have, it is an objective necessity. Of course my viewpoint is not "politically correct" on these boards, since most everyone here loves the arts, trains, high density urban living, and detests suburban development, sprawl, and asphalt. personally, I really don't care. Look at Chicago. They have the El and METRA and they still made I-94 super wide with express lanes down the middle of it. Why would they do that with all of the mass transit infrastructure that they already have? WHy would NYC build so many bridges and tunnels to Manhattan with the Subway as expansive as it is? The answer is b/c it is necessary.

For anyone else out there reading this: shoot the messenger if you like, but first take a look at those two cities before you do. And I don't want to hear the fallacy argument that we need to keep the highways narrow to keep people closer to increase density to warrant the construction of mass transit rail, b/c that's a flawed argument, and it doesn't apply to an interstate even if it was a valid one.

[prahaboheme]

^Or you could look at a city like NYC which has not widened its highways in years, have no plans to do so, and invest a majority of their transportation dollars in mass transit alternatives.

Widening I-4 is not an object of necessity, not really.

[demon]

The point is that I-4 needs to be improved; it isn't improved as it stand now, with the exception of several new interchanges built over the past decade and some exit to exit lanes, the longest of which goes from Ivanhoe to Lee Road.

You're talking about two different things; Commuter rail doesn't take freight off of semis between I-75 and I-95, nor does it move out of towners passing through town. This is pretty much the point I was trying to make in my last email. I-4 isn't just a local road, and people need to remember that. That's why the junction of I-75/85 is so huge; it's not b/c of Atlanta solely, it's b/c those two interstates criss-cross there and move tens of thousands of vehicles per day notwithstanding local traffic.

you can't forsake a road that has statewide significance just because some Deltona residents want to take CRT to Fla. Hosp., and b/c some people in Waterford Lakes want to take LRT someday to downtown. One has nothing to do with the other. Even if it was all local traffic one would have nothing to do with the other-- when you consider all of the work/company vehicles on the road-- are they going to take a train to their next job or delivery? no, they aren't.

I-4 being widened isn't a "wish" of mine b/c of some grand vison for Orlando that I have, it is an objective necessity. Of course my viewpoint is not "politically correct" on these boards, since most everyone here loves the arts, trains, high density urban living, and detests suburban development, sprawl, and asphalt. personally, I really don't care. Look at Chicago. They have the El and METRA and they still made I-94 super wide with express lanes down the middle of it. Why would they do that with all of the mass transit infrastructure that they already have? WHy would NYC build so many bridges and tunnels to Manhattan with the Subway as expansive as it is? The answer is b/c it is necessary.

For anyone else out there reading this: shoot the messenger if you like, but first take a look at those two cities before you do. And I don't want to hear the fallacy argument that we need to keep the highways narrow to keep people closer to increase density to warrant the construction of mass transit rail, b/c that's a flawed argument, and it doesn't apply to an interstate even if it was a valid one.

A city needs roads, I don't think anyone will deny that. But study after study all come back saying the more roads we build, the more traffic we will have.

[JRS1]

^^

NYC is it's own animal. NYC has highways everywhere in and around each of their burroughs-- that's why they haven't widened them, b/c they've had these roads for over half a century and NYC had that population even back then. Orlando is different. It's newer for one thing. There is no alternative to I-4 that people consistently take to avoid downtown, so, if there was a bypass close in, those extra travel lanes would factor into the equation. Instead, those extra lanes will have to go to I-4. 417 and 429 may form a loop, but their purpose is to afford alternate N/S access for east and west Orlando metro- mainly, and secondarily, offer an alternative to I-4 for travelers (they probably marketed them differently, though,at the beginning).

Chicago is a better example. I-94 cuts through town like I-4 does here. That's why they widened it the way they did in the '90's, to give commuters and travelers the express option to avoid local traffic (for a non-local oriented road). I-4 is a non-local oriented road in the same manner as I-94. Chicago's other N/S option is LSD which is way in or 294 which is way out west.

^^

"More roads- more traffic" studies point: well, you have to improve as a city. CRT would be attractive for new companies looking to open up shop. As- not an alternative, though, to better highways; we need better highways as well; this is a pro-growth perspective. not necessarily pro-sprawl, but sometimes sprawl is a byproduct if regs aren't in place... but in lieu of regs to control growth, we can't neglect our main highway through town b/c some feel that sprawl will ensue, or that it will still be congested- fine, I'll take the congestion, so long as the road is up to specs-- just like Atlanta... I don't mind rush hour on 285 when it's 8-10 lanes of pavement as opposed to I-95 in suburban DC en route to Richmond which is decades behind where it needs to be.

[lala67]

my point JRS is not to forsake the highway system as you suggest, but that you need a critical mass for ridership on CRT or LRT or any form of mass transit. The majority of traffic on I-4 during peak hour is not freight or delivery trucks, but commuters. Take the commuters off of I-4 and you really don't have to widen it all that much.

Atlanta got severely penalized for focusing all it's transportation dollars on highway improvements. Because they didn't do anything to correct their air quality issues, due to congestion on their highways and them only encouraging more driving due to their construction of more lane miles, the feds took their highway dollars away. This forced them to invest in MARTA and get serious about managing the movement of goods and people.

As much as you would like it to be true, you can not build your way out of congestion. That statement has nothing to do with my opinion regarding improvements to I-4 - there are definitely improvements needed in terms of better flow and design, not necessarily additional lane miles.

[JRS1]

my point JRS is not to forsake the highway system as you suggest, but that you need a critical mass for ridership on CRT or LRT or any form of mass transit. The majority of traffic on I-4 during peak hour is not freight or delivery trucks, but commuters. Take the commuters off of I-4 and you really don't have to widen it all that much.

Atlanta got severely penalized for focusing all it's transportation dollars on highway improvements. Because they didn't do anything to correct their air quality issues, due to congestion on their highways and them only encouraging more driving due to their construction of more lane miles, the feds took their highway dollars away. This forced them to invest in MARTA and get serious about managing the movement of goods and people.

As much as you would like it to be true, you can not build your way out of congestion. That statement has nothing to do with my opinion regarding improvements to I-4 - there are definitely improvements needed in terms of better flow and design, not necessarily additional lane miles.

Atlanta- well, MARTA has been there since the early '80's. Atlanta's population back then was maybe 2M. Atlanta's highway system has doubled in size since they began investing in MARTA, as has their population, over these past 30 years.

I'm not saying you can build your way out of congestion, all I'm saying is that I-4 needs to be 8-10 lanes wide through the city. You can't be the size Orlando is in 2009 and have the main highway going through town be only 3 lanes each way through downtown (Ivanhoe through the 408 ramp). That's a joke. That stretch needs to be 10-12 lanes wide.

And again, I ask why does it? B/C I-4 is not a local road. Neither is the Turnpike, and, finally, they are widening it from 528/441 to Beulah Rd. in west Orange, over 13 miles of 8 lane highway, as it should be, since that is a major Florida highway cutting through town- just like I-4 does. Now, 408 is a local road, but its the only E/W highway in central Orlando, and 50 and Lake Underhill aren't wide.

As for the critical mass for a CRT or LRT to work, I think everyone here is in fact (for the most part) suggesting to forsake improving the highway system to create a need for mass transit. I don't agree with that rationale. Improving I-4 is akin to improving OIA, as both are the first thing visitors see when they come into Orlando, whether by car, bus, or jet. The Turnpike is the other road people use to get in, and those improvements are about a year away from completion.

CRT is still alive for now... which makes this discussion moot unless the proposal finally dies.

[JFW657]

Speaking of Other Metro Area Projects, Florida Hospital seems to be building something on that empty lot fronting Orange Avenue. It looks like they've got large footers poured with rebar sticking out of them, & I saw what looked like a pile driver on site last week.

Brasfield & Gorrie has signs up around the fence, but I couldn't find anything on their website about it.

Could just be yet another parking deck.

[JRS1]

^^

I hope not... not fronting Orange Ave... hopefully it's another medical bldg with parking behind it.

[JFW657]

Anyone else get this email from Alan Grayson?

Sounds like it could be something pretty impressive for this area.

Wonder if it'll be out near UCF.....

Grayson Delivers $50M National Hurricane Center to Orlando

Can't wait to hear more about it.

[spenser1058]

Anyone else get this email from Alan Grayson?

Sounds like it could be something pretty impressive for this area.

Wonder if it'll be out near UCF.....

Grayson Delivers $50M National Hurricane Center to Orlando

Can't wait to hear more about it.

More power to Alan if he can get this done, but the cart is waaaaay before the horse here. Climate change just squeaked by the House, which is infinitely more progressive at the moment than the Senate. With such a slim margin (219-212), I'm not at all excited by what the Senate is liable to do with it, and even if the Senate manages to pass something, this is the sort of thing that could easily be lost in conference. Hopefully, since the DCCC has Alan on its most vulnerable list, they'll try to keep something like this in there, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Stay tuned....

Edited June 27, 2009 by spenser1058