Rush-hour traffic to/from Downtown

[kyle19125]

FYI, there's seems to be a misunderstanding regarding BRT. A legitimate BRT system does not run in regular traffic, rather it's own designated lane free of regular vehicular traffic. Construction of a barrier-divided left-side right of way lane could seemingly move along quickly. The only slowdowns along the route would be in city traffic, which would be minimal since there aren't cars to deal with with the inclusion of divided BRT specific lanes. A couple of BRT lines on I-4 would seriously slice commute time to/from downtown Orlando and the theme parks.

For example:

One BRT line running westbound from a park/ride facility at Lake Mary Boulevard with a couple of intermediate stops at Maitland Boulevard concluding in downtown Orlando with a few select stops terminating at the downtown terminal. Another could begin at the downtown terminal, with a stop at Kirkman Road/Universal Studios, another at Sand Lake Road/International Drive (Convention Center area) and ultimately onto Lake Buena Vista/WDW. From there as ridership increases, adjustments to route and possibly addition of others could begin.

It's probably a pipedream and certainly not aggressive, but definitely beats the current inertia.

[OrlFlaUsa]

Originally Posted by kyle19125

FYI, there's seems to be a misunderstanding regarding BRT. A legitimate BRT system does not run in regular traffic, rather it's own designated lane free of regular vehicular traffic. Construction of a barrier-divided left-side right of way lane could seemingly move along quickly. The only slowdowns along the route would be in city traffic, which would be minimal since there aren't cars to deal with with the inclusion of divided BRT specific lanes. A couple of BRT lines on I-4 would seriously slice commute time to/from downtown Orlando and the theme parks.

For example:

One BRT line running westbound from a park/ride facility at Lake Mary Boulevard with a couple of intermediate stops at Maitland Boulevard concluding in downtown Orlando with a few select stops terminating at the downtown terminal. Another could begin at the downtown terminal, with a stop at Kirkman Road/Universal Studios, another at Sand Lake Road/International Drive (Convention Center area) and ultimately onto Lake Buena Vista/WDW. From there as ridership increases, adjustments to route and possibly addition of others could begin.

It's probably a pipedream and certainly not aggressive, but definitely beats the current inertia.

Thanks for clearing that up, I didn't realize that dedicated bus lanes would have to be installed from say Deland all the way to DT Orlando and beyond. Correct me if I'm crazy, wouldn't that cost a lot rather than working with existing tracks from CSX? Plus I think people would riot if we spent money to widen I-4 just so a bus could go rushing by. I'm all for it, and prefer it to rail in some senses, but not sure about the implementation.

Originally Posted by annerk

Turnstyle boarding works great in an urban setting where the entire station is elevated and/or enclosed, it's generally impractical in a suburban setting where passengers board from ground level open air platforms.

Elevating or enclosing platforms adds tremendous expense to rail in terms of both capital and maintenance expense. You would still need to provide either conductors or transit police aboard to ensure the safety of passengers, so you might as well have them collect tickets.

Allowing conductors to sell tickets to disabled people on the train without an upcharge also saves a lot of money in ADA costs--you can use only ticket machines at the station, rather than having ticket clerks.

Of course the option is to build your train stations as fully enclosed with parking decks, to recoup capital and operating expenses. But I'm not sure that would pay off, if people have to pay for parking on top of train ticket's they'll probably just drive. Generally that only works in places where you can offer cheaper parking costs in the outer lying areas than they have in the urban centers (think $5 a day in a typical NJ Transit lot versus $35/day in NYC), in this case you'd never come close to recouping costs.

Yeah I assumed that would be the problem. We can debate this all day but it doesn't change the fact that rail, or any other public transit program for that matter, is going to be funded by Gov. Alienface.

[cparker73]

I don't think BRT is a good solution; especially if you have to widen I-4. Doesn't adding a lane to I-4 cost the same as building rail? That was one of the arguments I heard for/against the high-speed rail.

One reason I think BRT isn't a good solution is studies that have been done on ridership show that there are two different types of riders being served by mass transit. Buses tend to be used by people who can't afford a car or the elderly who've stopped driving. Rail tends to serve people who actually have a choice whether to use mass transit or not. There's a socioeconomic stigma to buses that would keep people from using them even if they had a dedicated lane.

[OrlFlaUsa]

Originally Posted by cparker73

I don't think BRT is a good solution; especially if you have to widen I-4. Doesn't adding a lane to I-4 cost the same as building rail? That was one of the arguments I heard for/against the high-speed rail.

One reason I think BRT isn't a good solution is studies that have been done on ridership show that there are two different types of riders being served by mass transit. Buses tend to be used by people who can't afford a car or the elderly who've stopped driving. Rail tends to serve people who actually have a choice whether to use mass transit or not. There's a socioeconomic stigma to buses that would keep people from using them even if they had a dedicated lane.

Not to mention these tracks already exist but I heard the cost from CSX is pretty steep.

[annerk]

Originally Posted by cparker73

I don't think BRT is a good solution; especially if you have to widen I-4. Doesn't adding a lane to I-4 cost the same as building rail? That was one of the arguments I heard for/against the high-speed rail.

One reason I think BRT isn't a good solution is studies that have been done on ridership show that there are two different types of riders being served by mass transit. Buses tend to be used by people who can't afford a car or the elderly who've stopped driving. Rail tends to serve people who actually have a choice whether to use mass transit or not. There's a socioeconomic stigma to buses that would keep people from using them even if they had a dedicated lane.

The psycology applies to typical city buses but not to commuter buses like BRT.

They don't need to add a lane to I-$, just dedicate one to HOV/BRT.

[JustinsMama]

I just finished up a temp job and traveled from Winter Springs to downtown Orlando via the 417. Traffic moved along pretty quickly but it always came to a standstill right after Goldenrod (before getting into the downtown area) because of roadwork/lanes closed and it doesn't look like that's going to be finished up anytime soon. I was getting tired of paying the tolls (got a Sunpass) but it beat driving on I-4 or 17/92 or Colonial. If the job paid higher, I obviously would gladly pay the tolls.

At any rate, from W.S. to downtown on Orange Avenue would take me about 25-30 minutes, but I'd rather find something closer to where I live.

Good luck!