WAJAS

Yup, it used to go through downtown Oviedo (you can see buildings that interacted with it in Google Maps) along the current trail. It went south to Downtown as well on the current Urban Trail route.

New services refer to the routes that would be funded by the Infrastructure Bill (80%) and states served by the new route(20%). Enhanced service refers to increases in frequency, stops, etc. that would enhance already present service along those routes, which would be funded through the same split mentioned previously.

I was hoping they'd locate where the Town Center is to increase the urban foot print there. Guess they appreciate the direct connection to the airport and WDW more.

I'm honestly astounded by the amount of good BBQ in Jax.

Omg that things huge!!! I hadn't seen the tree before, but now I understand the movement to save it. I'm going to be contacting my local rep to voice my support for relocating it. If the Bungalower guy still checks the forums, we'd all appreciate an article pushing to move the tree.

Big fan of this idea

Not in this phase. I believe they're saving those lots for later development that will hopefully have more appeal due to the activity from the other buildings, which means they can be denser (aka. taller).

FDOT said that the deadline is more soft now b/c of Sunrail's inclusion in ROW planning, which has complicated the lease agreements with CFXA and IOA. I wouldn't expect an update by the end of the month at this point.

It's definitely not the same difference. Burden of proof plays a key role in innocent until proven guilty. I don't know the details of the previous lawsuit, and I also know that frivolous lawsuits do not always get hit with a 57.105. I don't know the timeline here. Did the ROW restriction occur before/after/during IRC's first case? All I know is based on @codypet's characterization of the IRC's position, their reasoning doesn't make sense. I realize I've gotten in the middle of a discussion that I don't care to contribute to, so let me bow out now.

I know this is not extremely relevant, but it would be on IRC to prove that his statements were not backed by facts. He doesn't have the burden of proof there. Also, IRC's position doesn't make sense using publicly assessable information. The ROW given to Brightline on the 528 specifically disallows freight traffic with some specific exceptions, like track maintenance.

I disagree on this (not strongly btw). The post is the first unique identifier of the page, so it should be as far up as possible. If I'm skipping around pages and looking for a specific one, then I can't identify that with the statistic bar on top because the first post gets pushed out and requires scrolling. This fixed the problem. Thanks for the help!

I like the idea, but its confusing. If I get this right, the sequence is: Pedestrian hits signal activator button Yellow goes on for vehicles Red goes on for vehicles Flashing and alternating red goes on (yield to pedestrians) The concept is sound, but step 4 introduces a new signal type, which can be confusing. It'd be better if they just had a blinking red or yellow to indicate a stop sign or yield, like what occurs when signal power goes out or at some intersections during off-peak ours. Also, adding a green light would make this more consistent with other traffic signals. TL;DR: Using a normal signal with a flashing red phase would be simpler and work just as well.

If you actually read my post, you'd see that I reference already existing development and development under construction in addition to future plans.

I use Edge (the newer Chromium one). This is the only site I've had problems like this on. Clearing the cache hasn't solved it. It's only the threads that were started by @sunshine. It seems to be a problem with the profile picture.

@Neo I'm still getting this problem by the way. No worries if you're still working on updates.

I think the additional light would not be to serve a road but to provide pedestrian crossings, so it could just be a pedestrian activated light, which shouldn't change the commute times significantly.

That's a bit disingenuous. The most recent developments are not characteristic of an office park, and the current plans/construction have a very urban setting. I'd say the future of Lake Nona is less like the Lake Mary and Maitland office parks and more like Creative Village.

The Hunger's Creek suit is ridiculous. There is no crossings, and the train is quieter than the traffic it will be next to. The only valid complaint is the construction noise, which is something they have already dealt with and will continue to with every project on the 417 in that area. From the article: “The proposed route through the SR-417 would impose all of the burdens of a high-speed train on the Hunter’s Creek community with none of the benefit.” Lol what. They get two high speed rail stations close to their residences with the possibility for a commuter rail right in their neighborhood connecting to both. I'd say they got more benefits than most of the people on the route. I'm not necessarily against the 528 route, but I much prefer the 417 one. The increased costs for the 528 route will likely require public investment, which could be much better spent on other projects, such as the OIA Connector and Sunrail East/West. There's other reasons as well, like that the increased distance and additional OCCC station would increase the time from Orlando to Tampa, which would make users less likely to utilize the service.

Especially with Lymmo offering a free ride onto campus. I don't see the appeal.

The airports location right between Lake Nona and many other nodes, like Downtown, doesn't help the intraregion transportation problem either. Any grid network would be cutoff there anyways.

I like the idea of Lake Nona, but you can't ignore that it is yet another node in a region that has tons of them. If you want density, invest in a single CBD. Then again, Orlando has always been multi-nodal since Disney arrived.

It isn't just the size that makes it semi friendly. It's mostly the truck apron in the center. The size just increases the speed people can go through it. A larger roundabout has slighter turns and higher speeds. On a very tight roundabout, the truck would go through the center lane with the trailer mounting the truck apron. Also, while it wouldn't need this much space, most roundabout implementations do require more space that a typical intersection, which is one reason why they don't tend to be used in constrained ROWs, like downtown areas.

There's some underutilized space in the park that could be fenced off for a dog park. For instance, a large portion of the north side. Maybe that new land that the Orlando Land Trust purchased could become an interim dog park until the other parcels are acquired.

This is true. In fact, one of the roundabouts FDOT likes to highlight is heavily used by semitrucks daily:

I'm a big fan of all of the changes except the parking change on Eola Drive. Is 4 additional spaces really worth the cost of loosing that part of the tree canopy? The Thornton Park Garage provides tons of parking for that side of the park. Some other points: Absorbing Washington St. and the Osceola Circle into the park is a great easy way to increase the effective useful area. The boardwalk around the amphitheater does a good job at connecting the two sides of the park there. Also, it makes private events at the amphitheater easier and less annoying. I'm all for the plan to decrease the stink from The Rookery. I'm indifferent on getting rid of International Bridge.