5/20/2015 – Traffic ideas sent to Orange County

---

The Lake Pickett Community Meeting has been scheduled!
June 2nd at 6:30 pm – Corner Lakes Middle School.  

Please attend!

PDF versions of the announcement:

2015-2-A-5-1 LPS Community Meeting Notice 06-02-2015 (updated)
2015-2-A-5-2 LPN Community Meeting Notice 06-02-2015 (updated)

---

Before we delve into the middle of these ideas, indulge me for a minute. Imagine you have been instantly teleported onto a huge aircraft carrier out in the middle of the ocean.  You don’t know anyone, you have no idea where you are or where you are going.  All you know is what you see around you and the ship is moving but you don’t know where. All you want to do is get home.  If you walk up to someone and tell them to turn the ship around and take you home, they will probably look at you with a strange look or tell you to go talk to someone else, maybe lock you up or most likely just ignore you because your request sounds ludicrous.

We are on that aircraft carrier.  The ship is called USS Orange County and the direction has already been set long before we got on this boat.  To think that we, who might just be getting involved, can turn this mammoth vessel just because we want to would be preposterous.   It takes time, effort and a good deal of work to convince the captain to turn the ship.  We need to keep this in mind when we tell Orange County we want the ship reversed when the course has already been set many years before.  There is already a plan for these roads that we really don’t fully comprehend.  We first need to understand the plan and analyze it and then make suggestions on how it might be improved or what should be prioritized first.  As a very good example, I was unaware of a term called, “partnership roads” until just recently. Do you know what a “partnership road” is?  This is the type of education and awareness that needs to take place before we have the right to demand what we want.  First we must listen to what is being proposed, analyse it and understand the whole plan. We can share our ideas anytime but without a picture of the whole puzzle our ideas might not fit into the puzzle.

Below is an email I sent to Orange County with my traffic ideas. You can also view this 7 minute video that shows it graphically. My video is a bit slow going at times and also somewhat crude but if you stick it out, you will learn a lot. I did receive feedback on these ideas and have some information that is valuable to understand why some of this will or will not be considered.  I will share more of why some of my ideas cannot be considered at this time in my next blog.

PDF of Video presentation in preparation for 20150512 community meeting

---

From: []
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 7:52 AM
To: District 5 Commissioner’s Office; Rummel, Lynette; Vargas, Alberto A; Testerman, Chris; Weiss, Jon; Hardy, Blanche V; Nastasi, Renzo; Souvorova, Janna; ‘Dwight Saathoff'; ‘Froelich, Sean'; ‘Lee Kernek'; Subject: RJ’s traffic ideas for the area

I do not have Olan’s email so if a staff member could please forward this to him, I would appreciate it.

As you know there was a traffic plan proposed by the applicants that would add a road that is being called the “Woodbury extension” that links to Lake Pickett.

I would like to throw out a possible alternative solution for your review.  I have pretty thick skin so I would very much appreciate very constructive candid feedback as to why the plan I am proposing would not work.  I understand there are some issues with Research Park roads being private but I need to look at this purely from what I think is best for this area.  Please understand this is from the point of view of a resident who lives in this area and has studied the roads and patterns.  I am not a traffic expert and am far beneath the level of expertise all of you have when it comes to this area.  It is simply an idea to be considered or modified but may give you ideas that perhaps can help.

From a novice perspective, here is my thinking regarding traffic.  The details are listed below but I also put together a video explaining my idea.  You can view it here:  https://youtu.be/Gw9povg2rgM.  It is crude but it gets the point across.  I also attached a pdf of the slides from the video.  The other attachments are distances using each route that a commuter would take to get to UCF.

PDFs:

First let me review what I think the pros and cons of the road network solution offered from my point of view.  Refer to the map below the bullet points.

• 4 laning McCulloch does not fix N. Tanner and cements it in stone as one of only two east-west corridors.
• The Research Park extension would probably never be considered if McCulloch is 4 laned.
• The Woodbury extension only alleviates traffic on Hwy 50 for a certain period of time and then Hwy 50 fails again as I am told
• 4 laning Lake Pickett to the east will drive more traffic up S. Tanner to Lake Pickett and drive traffic down Lake Pickett through the Woodbury extension to the 408 to circumvent the 9 lights.
• 4 laning Lake Pickett will also drive more traffic towards McCulloch
• Accelerating Hwy 50 to 419 is a good thing
• 4 laning 419 from Lake Pickett to Hwy 50 is good because it drives traffic to Hwy 50
• 6 laning Hwy 50 is good because in the short term it will help traffic
• No one is discussing bicycle and pedestrian traffic
  • The applicants show slides showing this development helping housing for employees and students at UCF and Research Park, Siemens and other companies in the area.
  • The Woodbury extension does not help this as it goes to the south end of Research Park and far from UCF
  • This is outside the distance for a cycling commuter.
    • I commute with a bike and I feel the maximum distance a commuter is willing to ride a bike one way is below 5 miles and that’s a stretch. My commute is 1.5 miles and it could easily be double that without ill effects.
    • From Lake Pickett and S. Tanner to the Student Union on campus going Woodbury extension is almost 5.83 miles.  (see attachments on distances)
    • In my opinion this is outside the range for a cycling commuter.
• The cost of the Woodbury extension would most likely be 20+ million
  • This is important because with reduced density there is less money for roads
  • This severely impacts the money the applicants can apply to the roads
  • It is possible there will not be enough money for these changes
• The Woodbury extension will promote cut-through traffic through the entire length of Research Park
  • Challenger Pkwy is already red according to Google traffic maps

My solution.  Refer to the map below the bullet points.

• McCulloch should remain 2 lane
• Extend Research Parkway over to N. Tanner
  • It effectively 4 lanes McCulloch by adding 2 east-west lanes
  • It will alleviate traffic on McCulloch as well as N. Tanner
  • There are no houses to take down as it is a utility easement
  • This is already slated as a County Partnership Project
  • It provides a south entrance into UCF from the east that is sorely needed
  • It provides an easier route to University Blvd
  • It will alleviate north-south cut-through traffic through Research Park that would be there if the Woodbury extension is put in
  • The cost would probably be somewhere around 10 million
  • This would activate another north-south road for traffic which is Percival
    • Commuter would have a choice of either Percival or N. Tanner to take to the new road
    • This will alleviate the traffic at Lake Pickett and N. Tanner interchange
  • This is just inside the range for a bicycle commuter.
    • From Lake Pickett and S. Tanner to the Student Union on campus going the Research Pkwy extension is about 4.52 miles
    • Going all the way up to McCulloch and then back down to the Union is about 5.09 miles so it cuts .5 miles off a commute
• 4 lane Lake Pickett from Percival to Hwy 50 to entice commuter to use this road in lieu of Lake Pickett and S. Tanner
• 6 laning Hwy 50 will help traffic in the short term
• 6 laning Hwy 50 from Old Cheney to 419 will help traffic in the short term also
• 4 laning 419 from Lake Pickett to Hwy 50 will also help traffic head towards Hwy 50
• Hopefully the 408 study will come back positive and a road can be built to fix the long term east-west traffic problems that are sure to come
• This whole plan is designed to focus commuters into the USA and onto the main arterial roads and away from the RSA country roads
• Woodbury south of Hwy 50 has to be 4 laned as it is a failing road

---

From: Renzo.Nastasi@ocfl.net [mailto:Renzo.Nastasi@ocfl.net]
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 6:48 PM
To: rj@rjmueller.net; District5Commissioner’sOffice@ocfl.net; Lynette.Rummel@ocfl.net; Alberto.Vargas@ocfl.net; Chris.Testerman@ocfl.net; Jon.Weiss@ocfl.net; Blanche.Hardy@ocfl.net; Janna.Souvorova@ocfl.net; dwight@pfdllc.com; sfroelich@traylor.com; Lee.Kernek@ucf.edu; Fred.Kittinger@ucf.edu; Olan.Hill@ocfl.net
Subject: RE: RJ’s traffic ideas for the area

RJ,

All ideas are appreciated  and valued –

I’m not sure if you are proposing the concept you describe as part of the LPS & LPN projects or not.  At any rate, your proposal is fairly consistent with the east-west road concept that the County has identified in our Long Range Plan (although we would want to avoid impacting Research Park and University property).  In addition, it’s important to note that the Long Range Plan is just that, and is not intended to identify a specific alignment but just a conceptual corridor location for further evaluation.

Having said all that, the County’s immediate concern is to address roadways that are currently over capacity as required by our Comprehensive Plan.  In this case, where we already have failing segments of roadways (Lake Picket, SR 50, Culuota and McCulloch).  Although, an east west connection as depicted in your concept or the one in the Long Range Plan would provide for an alternative, it would not negate the need to undertake improvements to the failing network.  In essence, the failing segments of roadways would continue to fail even with the east west road.  Moreover, in order to meet the Comprehensive Plan requirements, our first responsibility, as already intimated, is to address the currently failing segments of roadways and preserve the investment we have already made there.

The traffic distribution issue you describe below will have to be assessed in context to the traffic analysis that these developers will be submitting (we receive LPN but waiting on south).  By the time the next community meeting takes place we hope to have traffic distribution results available.

As to the issue of bike/ped facilities, the County has been very clear about having an interconnected multimodal system – which is required by a series of Comprehensive Plan requirements – and as I understand it, both developers are well aware of these issues and are prepared to meet our requirements/standards.

Please let me know if I did not sufficiently answer your questions or need additional information.

Renzo