Downtown Omaha Master Plan

[ShawJ]

- Add a 715ft Tower (conagra maybe?), This will be 1 feet higher than Denver's Republic Plaza and will also be higher than anything in Kansas City...
- That's two cities down. In the midwest region we are still up against Minneapolis' 792ft IDS Tower,   Detroit's 727ft GM Renaissance Center,  Cleveland's 947ft Key Tower, and Indianapolis'  844ft Chase Tower

You're selling Omaha way short. Chicago has a 1451 footer. We need to top that if we ever hope to compete. And why stop at the Midwest? New York is finishing up a 1787 footer and Dubai has a 2723 footer. Towers this tall would look great among Omaha's current skyline, and think about the economic impact the construction jobs would bring.

[jessep28]

- Add a 715ft Tower (conagra maybe?), This will be 1 feet higher than Denver's Republic Plaza and will also be higher than anything in Kansas City...
- That's two cities down. In the midwest region we are still up against Minneapolis' 792ft IDS Tower,   Detroit's 727ft GM Renaissance Center,  Cleveland's 947ft Key Tower, and Indianapolis'  844ft Chase Tower

You're selling Omaha way short. Chicago has a 1451 footer. We need to top that if we ever hope to compete. And why stop at the Midwest? New York is finishing up a 1787 footer and Dubai has a 2723 footer. Towers this tall would look great among Omaha's current skyline, and think about the economic impact the construction jobs would bring.

Might as well put a tower there with a space elevator.

[thenewguy]

I just want to see shamrock break ground (occupies part of dto plan) and something substantial at world herald site.  it doesn't need to be mega tall but something to fill in the void.

i would love to see more development in north down town to bring people in on a regular basis.  museum, apartments, something.  traffic is picking up there, but right now it is still lacking consistent activity outside of concerts or ball games.

i still see a lot of homeless people when i drive by downtown; i believe there needs to be a shelter and meal program to help them, but having them congregate in the heart of downtown around the most visible park doesn't create the best image for the city.  move the library to north downtown and put up a tower there.

you know, like the plan kind of recommends.

[iamjacobm]

The Mayor said on Grow Omaha that our current DT population is already above the population projected for 2030 in the Master Plan.

[MTO]

Which is ?

[iamjacobm]

2030 was projected to have 3700 living units in the master plan area.

[MTO]

It was once said many moons ago 4,000 was the threshold for full sized grocery stores and so forth. Perhaps soon downtown will get as much attention as one of the suburbs does.

[ita]

https://planning.cityofomaha.org/images ... rch/11.pdf

URBAN CORE HOUSING AND MOBILITY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN



Look at all those potential developments. This is a plan developed by the City of Omaha and planning department to create define a redevelopment area with focuses on mobility (streetcar and other improvements to multi-model infrastructure) and housing (producing thresholds and goals for affordable housing). The document defines the area, priorities in the urban core in the two areas, and funding sources, primarily through TIF in various forms. Anyway, I like the rendering of what the City wants downtown to development like. They rendered some recently made public projects/under construction developments like Steelhouse, MoO, Mercantile, and the Civic Site, some decent high rises on the lot east of the MoO site and the old UP site, and filed in some surface parking with low and midrises. Also, this rendering imagines a 16th street without the Double Tree and development where the I-480 20th street exit would be west of the Civic Site. Actually, if you look by the Capitol District, it doesn't look like i-480 is supposed to be in this rendering at all. Interesting. Anyway, I know these master plan renderings mean squat, but it's an interesting look into what the City is envisioning for downtown.

[iamjacobm]

The conceptual stuff is cool, could certainly hint at the scale of things in the works, but it's pretty easy to throw those boxes on vacant lots as placeholders.

I think it's really interesting they went out of their way to scrub out the DoubleTree and show 16th as a through street.

[ita]

The conceptual stuff is cool, could certainly hint at the scale of things in the works, but it's pretty easy to throw those boxes on vacant lots as placeholders.

I think it's really interesting they went out of their way to scrub out the DoubleTree and show 16th as a through street.

Yes, deleting the doubletree was surprising. I would hate to lose a high rise. Honestly, I think it's more important they open 16th for pedestrians than cars, especially with the street car possibly having a stop at 16th. Just have a public passthrough, and i would be good.

[Louie]

The conceptual stuff is cool, could certainly hint at the scale of things in the works, but it's pretty easy to throw those boxes on vacant lots as placeholders.

I think it's really interesting they went out of their way to scrub out the DoubleTree and show 16th as a through street.

Yes, deleting the doubletree was surprising. I would hate to lose a high rise. Honestly, I think it's more important they open 16th for pedestrians than cars, especially with the street car possibly having a stop at 16th. Just have a public passthrough, and i would be good.

Like a pedestrian tunnel?

[NEDodger]

The conceptual stuff is cool, could certainly hint at the scale of things in the works, but it's pretty easy to throw those boxes on vacant lots as placeholders.

I think it's really interesting they went out of their way to scrub out the DoubleTree and show 16th as a through street.

Yes, deleting the doubletree was surprising. I would hate to lose a high rise. Honestly, I think it's more important they open 16th for pedestrians than cars, especially with the street car possibly having a stop at 16th. Just have a public passthrough, and i would be good.

Agreed. I think the Doubletree adds some nice visual depth with the old First National Building and the FNBO Tower as you're coming into the city from along Abbott Drive.

[ita]

The conceptual stuff is cool, could certainly hint at the scale of things in the works, but it's pretty easy to throw those boxes on vacant lots as placeholders.

I think it's really interesting they went out of their way to scrub out the DoubleTree and show 16th as a through street.

Yes, deleting the doubletree was surprising. I would hate to lose a high rise. Honestly, I think it's more important they open 16th for pedestrians than cars, especially with the street car possibly having a stop at 16th. Just have a public passthrough, and i would be good.

Like a pedestrian tunnel?

Sure. It would be less intrusive to the existing structure than a full blown tunnel for vehicles. As long as pedestrians, bikes, scooters, skateboards, whatever can get through, I think that would be great

[jomaha9]

The conceptual stuff is cool, could certainly hint at the scale of things in the works, but it's pretty easy to throw those boxes on vacant lots as placeholders.

I think it's really interesting they went out of their way to scrub out the DoubleTree and show 16th as a through street.

Yes, deleting the doubletree was surprising. I would hate to lose a high rise. Honestly, I think it's more important they open 16th for pedestrians than cars, especially with the street car possibly having a stop at 16th. Just have a public passthrough, and i would be good.

Agreed. I think the Doubletree adds some nice visual depth with the old First National Building and the FNBO Tower as you're coming into the city from along Abbott Drive.

I hear you on losing a highrise, but if we were ever to lose one, the DoubleTree is the one I would gladly sacrifice. It's well past it's useful life as a respectable hotel and cuts off a vital artery in downtown.

If the Doubletree was demoed, it would still be possible to fit a nice building on the western half of the current Doubletree footprint.

[Cermak]

If it does get torn down I don’t think it will be anytime soon. While it’s not my favorite building, it does add some height and density to the northern part of the core. I’m in no hurry to see it go. I’m not sure 16th street would be much better off if the Doubletree was removed.

[PotatoeEatsFish]

They better not try to touch the Doubletree until the old UP site and Civic are filled, we don’t need even more empty lots in that part of downtown

[Busguy2010]

If it does get torn down I don’t think it will be anytime soon. While it’s not my favorite building, it does add some height and density to the northern part of the core. I’m in no hurry to see it go. I’m not sure 16th street would be much better off if the Doubletree was removed.

I'm not either. Although I have never agreed with closing 16th, its not like making a jog over one block in either direction is some monumental obstacle, as some people in the past have claimed the Double Tree as the cause of north 16th's decline. I don't buy it.

[Athomsfere]

I still need to go through those documents too, but I don't mind the Double Tree where it is. A pedestrian tunnel would be perfect. A passthrough for cars would be not terrible too.

I know I've stayed there, and I've put relatives there. It's a fine hotel for the area. I'd say it has at least 20 years left. Ideally, it only get's demoed when it's density is too low for the area...

[buildomaha]

I still need to go through those documents too, but I don't mind the Double Tree where it is. A pedestrian tunnel would be perfect. A passthrough for cars would be not terrible too.

I know I've stayed there, and I've put relatives there. It's a fine hotel for the area. I'd say it has at least 20 years left. Ideally, it only get's demoed when it's density is too low for the area...

If residential buildup continues downtown, it could be a really cool spot for a pedestrian tunnel with some sort of retail lining the sides, like a mini Main Street. It would build upon 16th street history as one of the main retail thoroughfares historically.

[ita]

I still need to go through those documents too, but I don't mind the Double Tree where it is. A pedestrian tunnel would be perfect. A passthrough for cars would be not terrible too.

I know I've stayed there, and I've put relatives there. It's a fine hotel for the area. I'd say it has at least 20 years left. Ideally, it only get's demoed when it's density is too low for the area...

If residential buildup continues downtown, it could be a really cool spot for a pedestrian tunnel with some sort of retail lining the sides, like a mini Main Street. It would build upon 16th street history as one of the main retail thoroughfares historically.

That's exactly what I was imagining! Places in Asia have those types of passthroughs with retail and I think they're neat.

[Athomsfere]

I still need to go through those documents too, but I don't mind the Double Tree where it is. A pedestrian tunnel would be perfect. A passthrough for cars would be not terrible too.

I know I've stayed there, and I've put relatives there. It's a fine hotel for the area. I'd say it has at least 20 years left. Ideally, it only get's demoed when it's density is too low for the area...

If residential buildup continues downtown, it could be a really cool spot for a pedestrian tunnel with some sort of retail lining the sides, like a mini Main Street. It would build upon 16th street history as one of the main retail thoroughfares historically.

That's exactly what I was imagining! Places in Asia have those types of passthroughs with retail and I think they're neat.

That's my thinking with retail in a tunnel. Another "Passageway" for Omaha, and something that's all over Asia.

Just throw in a convenient store, a ramen shop, and a bike garage

[ita]

I still need to go through those documents too, but I don't mind the Double Tree where it is. A pedestrian tunnel would be perfect. A passthrough for cars would be not terrible too.

I know I've stayed there, and I've put relatives there. It's a fine hotel for the area. I'd say it has at least 20 years left. Ideally, it only get's demoed when it's density is too low for the area...

If residential buildup continues downtown, it could be a really cool spot for a pedestrian tunnel with some sort of retail lining the sides, like a mini Main Street. It would build upon 16th street history as one of the main retail thoroughfares historically.

That's exactly what I was imagining! Places in Asia have those types of passthroughs with retail and I think they're neat.

That's my thinking with retail in a tunnel. Another "Passageway" for Omaha, and something that's all over Asia.

Just throw in a convenient store, a ramen shop, and a bike garage

Nice. Bike garage would actually be kind of neat. Is the lobby where 16th should be?

[ita]

Urban core plan aims to add 30,000 jobs, residents to downtown and midtown over decades

Cindy Gonzalez
A City of Omaha urban core plan reveals an overarching goal: to lure up to 30,000 jobs and 30,000 residents over 30 years to the downtown and midtown area.

The “Urban Core Housing and Mobility Redevelopment Plan” to be presented to the City Planning Board Wednesday states outright that the urban core should reign as the city’s “clear and positive image center.”

It identifies the urban core area as a roughly 50-block area bounded by Cuming Street to the north, Woolworth Avenue to the south, the Missouri River to the east and 50th Avenue to the west.

It says one of the most challenging trends to confront is the loss of over 21,000 downtown jobs since 1963, along with a related decline in surrounding neighborhoods.

And it advocates for a $306 million modern streetcar system, free for riders, as a key way to recharge the area that’s benefiting from the ongoing $400 million riverfront parks revitalization project.

‘Snapshot’ of recommendations

Kevin Andersen, Mayor Jean Stothert’s deputy chief of staff for economic development, described the 17-page plan (not including maps and graphics) as a “snapshot” of more detailed plans to come on urban core projects such as the proposed streetcar system.

“It’s the first official action to kick off this entire project,” Andersen said.
...

• Proposed urban core revitalization efforts are dependent on using the sometimes controversial TIF tool, a subsidy and economic incentive allowed under state law. The city projects raising $356.4 million to finance the streetcar. Three streams of TIF money will bring in the cash, including the creation of a TIF district that will capture a chunk of commercial property values.

• The plan calls for roughly 1,000 new units of “affordable and workforce housing” in the urban core in the next 20 years. That could include new construction or renovation of existing stock.

• The urban core should be the job hub for the region, featuring 24-hour housing, retail and restaurant activity. But desired jobs and housing can’t fit in the area without raising the height and density of new development and making fundamental changes in parking and mobility. More efficient use of public parking and decreased dependency on cars are key to returning lost jobs and building housing.

• Though downtown Omaha lost about 21,000 jobs in the past five decades, the area added 14,000 parking stalls. There are nearly 43,000 parking stalls downtown. At peak occupancy, there are often around 17,000 vacant parking stalls in the urban core.

[ricko]

I've been around long enough to have lived through at least 3 "master plans" before. The first one, in the late 1960's, called for a series of "super blocks", combining 2 blocks into one (i.e., the Double Tree, built originally as a Hilton, and including the old FNB hq, was the first one). Another would have included the Kutak-Rock (Metropolitan Life) building, which was originally scheduled to be destroyed and replaced with a 30-plus story Transamerica regional hq----glad that one didn't happen. The Central Park Mall (later re-named after Gene Leahy) was part of that plan, as was the library. I guess it's good to have a blueprint for downtown to facilitate its development, and I think that today's urban planners have a much more user-friendly, 'new urbanism' vibe that focuses more on a human scale type approach. I don't think the DoubleTree is going anywhere soon---I haven't seen all that much traffic on 16th St. since the 1970's, and it was never bumper to bumper anywhere downtown, except maybe after an event/festival. The inconvenience was (and is) nominal compared to traffic in other cities I've been to/lived in. I think Omaha's steady growth will continue to attract people who want a decent life in a mid-sized metropolis with amenities that, frankly, outshine most of its peer cities.

[Mapguy]

Im going to post something crazy here I know youll all hate but lets really think about this streetcar.

Does it make sense to place a 3 mile streetcar 2 blocks south of an existing BRT line (ORBT)?

For the average rider would they prefer a line that goes 3 miles or 10? Traffic happens and BRT buses can navigate around accidents and slow cars, can the same be said of a streetcar on fixed rails?

The cost is enormous. 100 million per mile for the I.O.S. for that price we could have 10 BRT lines crisscrossing the city in every direction at 30 million a piece.

The current streetcar as planned runs on streets with no dedicated ROW. This is not light rail, and at 300 million for 3 miles we should get public transportation thats actually fast.

Theres the development argument that this project is less about transportation and more about development. But if this is the goal, why put it on a street thats practically 100% developed throughout midtown? Put the line on Cuming or Leavenworth and i promise you would see much more ridership because it would be a service improvement over whats existing and you would see these other corridores develop into densly developed urban streets.

What happens to the existing protected bike lanes on Harney? Its a pilot that was just put in 2021 at a cost of a couple hundred thousand. All of that will have to get riped up and completely removed making the city less transit friendly. Im not sure the slow moving streetcar would pull those riders in.

I dont love the streetcar price. I dont love its location which is on top of investments the city has already made in other transportation modes. The footprint of this city is huge, if we MUST have a streetcar lets run it up and down leavenworth Cuming or 13th st where it would actually spur development and make sense.

I just dont see the average rider picking the streetcar over the BRT. The BRT goes farther, will be faster, has less frequent stops. The streetcar just feels like a white elephant to prop up Mutual and UNMCs property values and prestige and less about getting people where they need to go in a fast way.

Feel free to skewer me. I want to be proved wrong. I want this to be successful---I just dont see it being that way with no dedicated ROW and being literally on top of a faster option (ORBT)

[OmahaOmaha]

Im going to post something crazy here I know youll all hate but lets really think about this streetcar.

Does it make sense to place a 3 mile streetcar 2 blocks south of an existing BRT line (ORBT)?

For the average rider would they prefer a line that goes 3 miles or 10? Traffic happens and BRT buses can navigate around accidents and slow cars, can the same be said of a streetcar on fixed rails?

The cost is enormous. 100 million per mile for the I.O.S. for that price we could have 10 BRT lines crisscrossing the city in every direction at 30 million a piece.

The current streetcar as planned runs on streets with no dedicated ROW. This is not light rail, and at 300 million for 3 miles we should get public transportation thats actually fast.

Theres the development argument that this project is less about transportation and more about development. But if this is the goal, why put it on a street thats practically 100% developed throughout midtown? Put the line on Cuming or Leavenworth and i promise you would see much more ridership because it would be a service improvement over whats existing and you would see these other corridores develop into densly developed urban streets.

What happens to the existing protected bike lanes on Harney? Its a pilot that was just put in 2021 at a cost of a couple hundred thousand. All of that will have to get riped up and completely removed making the city less transit friendly. Im not sure the slow moving streetcar would pull those riders in.

I dont love the streetcar price. I dont love its location which is on top of investments the city has already made in other transportation modes. The footprint of this city is huge, if we MUST have a streetcar lets run it up and down leavenworth Cuming or 13th st where it would actually spur development and make sense.

I just dont see the average rider picking the streetcar over the BRT. The BRT goes farther, will be faster, has less frequent stops. The streetcar just feels like a white elephant to prop up Mutual and UNMCs property values and prestige and less about getting people where they need to go in a fast way.

Feel free to skewer me. I want to be proved wrong. I want this to be successful---I just dont see it being that way with no dedicated ROW and being literally on top of a faster option (ORBT)

Bravo!!!

[PWL73316]

I just dont see the average rider picking the streetcar over the BRT.

Pure nonsense, to be honest.

Just facing reality, a streetcar is neat and cool, buses are lame and smelly. That's what the 95% of Omaha that never rides the bus thinks.

[Doctor Fate]

I just dont see the average rider picking the streetcar over the BRT.

Pure nonsense, to be honest.

Just facing reality, a streetcar is neat and cool, buses are lame and smelly. That's what the 95% of Omaha that never rides the bus thinks.

And the streetcar will be free. I think the streetcar is a better transportation option for the area it is supposed to serve, especially as the area from the Riverfront to UNMC gets more dense and populated with stores, employers, and residents.

[TitosBuritoBarn]

Im going to post something crazy here I know youll all hate but lets really think about this streetcar.

Does it make sense to place a 3 mile streetcar 2 blocks south of an existing BRT line (ORBT)?

For the average rider would they prefer a line that goes 3 miles or 10? Traffic happens and BRT buses can navigate around accidents and slow cars, can the same be said of a streetcar on fixed rails?

The cost is enormous. 100 million per mile for the I.O.S. for that price we could have 10 BRT lines crisscrossing the city in every direction at 30 million a piece.

The current streetcar as planned runs on streets with no dedicated ROW. This is not light rail, and at 300 million for 3 miles we should get public transportation thats actually fast.

Theres the development argument that this project is less about transportation and more about development. But if this is the goal, why put it on a street thats practically 100% developed throughout midtown? Put the line on Cuming or Leavenworth and i promise you would see much more ridership because it would be a service improvement over whats existing and you would see these other corridores develop into densly developed urban streets.

What happens to the existing protected bike lanes on Harney? Its a pilot that was just put in 2021 at a cost of a couple hundred thousand. All of that will have to get riped up and completely removed making the city less transit friendly. Im not sure the slow moving streetcar would pull those riders in.

I dont love the streetcar price. I dont love its location which is on top of investments the city has already made in other transportation modes. The footprint of this city is huge, if we MUST have a streetcar lets run it up and down leavenworth Cuming or 13th st where it would actually spur development and make sense.

I just dont see the average rider picking the streetcar over the BRT. The BRT goes farther, will be faster, has less frequent stops. The streetcar just feels like a white elephant to prop up Mutual and UNMCs property values and prestige and less about getting people where they need to go in a fast way.

Feel free to skewer me. I want to be proved wrong. I want this to be successful---I just dont see it being that way with no dedicated ROW and being literally on top of a faster option (ORBT)

The main benefit is that, just as you mentioned a BRT can drive around a crash on a roadway, with the way our BRT is setup, the entire route can be moved with a few months of prep. A streetcar is more permanent. So transit oriented development is more of a sound investment for both developer and tenant when there is less of a chance the transit the development is oriented to could go away.

There's still a lot of opportunity for more development along the streetcar route. You also want to start a rail-based transit system where there is a moderate level of ridership at the start so it's not just going around empty for awhile. Furthermore, you want the initial phase to be visible. Leavenworth, for example, may have more development opportunities, but if people don't know it's there, you're going to struggle to draw interest. There's a balance to all of it and it helps to view it as a starter pack - an initial phase leading to future expansion of streetcar or other rail-based transit in Omaha as demand and opportunity increases. Is it fast? No. Will it take you all the way to Westroads? No. But it will shuttle UNMC and MofO employees from downtown/Midtown residences to their jobs and nightlife patrons between Blackstone, the Old Market, and other places. That's enough to get started.

There's also the novelty of it. If you go to Walt Disney World and visit the Magic Kingdom, do you ride the bus from the parking lot to the gate? (Did you even know there was a bus?) Of course not. You jump on the monorail, even if the monorail is super crowded while the bus isn't (and never is).

That said, I don't love that it won't have it's own ROW. That will hinder it somewhat. But then you have cities like Zurich, which is among the best for transit, with a system that is largely based around trams (streetcars) that run in mixed traffic in many areas. Zurich also has a solid network of bike lanes, many of which run along the same streets as the trams (see here: https://goo.gl/maps/BZZCypDtYJwjArGs8). So there's a way to do it successfully. My concern is that whoever is tasked with moving the route from concept to design might not think about it intelligently and be able to strike the delicate balance necessary for it to be successful.

As an aside, UNMC doesn't really care about property values. They're a government entity and are not really impacted by it.

[Greg S]

I just dont see the average rider picking the streetcar over the BRT.

Pure nonsense, to be honest.

Just facing reality, a streetcar is neat and cool, buses are lame and smelly. That's what the 95% of Omaha that never rides the bus thinks.

This probably applies to me. Grew up in Omaha taking the bus everywhere. Rode the number 2 up and down Dodge (including to Central). Used the one that went north and south on 72nd. I have no desire to ever ride the bus again.

I will however use the streetcar.

Greg

[djc311]

I just dont see the average rider picking the streetcar over the BRT.

Pure nonsense, to be honest.

Just facing reality, a streetcar is neat and cool, buses are lame and smelly. That's what the 95% of Omaha that never rides the bus thinks.

This probably applies to me. Grew up in Omaha taking the bus everywhere. Rode the number 2 up and down Dodge (including to Central). Used the one that went north and south on 72nd. I have no desire to ever ride the bus again.

I will however use the streetcar.

Greg

I rode to Central, too! And before that, it was to Lewis & Clark (from the Dundee-ish area). I'd have no desire to get on a city bus today. Although the ones that can bend in the middle are a bit interesting.

[Athomsfere]

Im going to post something crazy here I know youll all hate but lets really think about this streetcar.

Does it make sense to place a 3 mile streetcar 2 blocks south of an existing BRT line (ORBT)?

For the average rider would they prefer a line that goes 3 miles or 10? Traffic happens and BRT buses can navigate around accidents and slow cars, can the same be said of a streetcar on fixed rails?

The cost is enormous. 100 million per mile for the I.O.S. for that price we could have 10 BRT lines crisscrossing the city in every direction at 30 million a piece.

The current streetcar as planned runs on streets with no dedicated ROW. This is not light rail, and at 300 million for 3 miles we should get public transportation thats actually fast.

Theres the development argument that this project is less about transportation and more about development. But if this is the goal, why put it on a street thats practically 100% developed throughout midtown? Put the line on Cuming or Leavenworth and i promise you would see much more ridership because it would be a service improvement over whats existing and you would see these other corridores develop into densly developed urban streets.

What happens to the existing protected bike lanes on Harney? Its a pilot that was just put in 2021 at a cost of a couple hundred thousand. All of that will have to get riped up and completely removed making the city less transit friendly. Im not sure the slow moving streetcar would pull those riders in.

I dont love the streetcar price. I dont love its location which is on top of investments the city has already made in other transportation modes. The footprint of this city is huge, if we MUST have a streetcar lets run it up and down leavenworth Cuming or 13th st where it would actually spur development and make sense.

I just dont see the average rider picking the streetcar over the BRT. The BRT goes farther, will be faster, has less frequent stops. The streetcar just feels like a white elephant to prop up Mutual and UNMCs property values and prestige and less about getting people where they need to go in a fast way.

Feel free to skewer me. I want to be proved wrong. I want this to be successful---I just dont see it being that way with no dedicated ROW and being literally on top of a faster option (ORBT)

I think all of us would prefer light rail over that has grade separation and right of way. I still have nothing but praise for finally getting this far though.

The street car is meant to be the first and last mile, but there are those of us who live, work and play on the loop.

With Omaha, any rail project will help get more and hopefully even better rail projects.

There is a confidence thing with rail in the ground where the developer trusts the line will be there for a life of a building, and the public can trust it will be running and on time.

In any case, I see it as a first step. One we needed. Adding more lines / modes is best. And figuring something out North / South would be great too.

[Greg S]

I just dont see the average rider picking the streetcar over the BRT.

Pure nonsense, to be honest.

Just facing reality, a streetcar is neat and cool, buses are lame and smelly. That's what the 95% of Omaha that never rides the bus thinks.

This probably applies to me. Grew up in Omaha taking the bus everywhere. Rode the number 2 up and down Dodge (including to Central). Used the one that went north and south on 72nd. I have no desire to ever ride the bus again.

I will however use the streetcar.

Greg

I rode to Central, too! And before that, it was to Lewis & Clark (from the Dundee-ish area). I'd have no desire to get on a city bus today. Although the ones that can bend in the middle are a bit interesting.

I went to L and C too, but live south of Dodge on 68th (west of UNO) so I had to walk.

[daveoma]

I think the appeal of the streetcar can't be understood from an engineering perspective. It's purpose is not to be efficient, rather it's to provide variety, novelty, and choice in transportation (in my opinion).

I do however agree with the gentleman's questions with respect to the motive of the streetcar. Although I think the streetcar is a good thing, it's no coincidence that M of O own a lot of land along the route and made their new HQ contingent upon it's construction. It appears that they'll benefit from the streetcar by inflating the price of their land. It's a bit sinister in fact that residents and other businesses along the route (presumably) will pay more in taxes to build and maintain the new infrastructure. It's indirect corporate welfare. Giving their tax money to a large corporation that is already profitable.

[mgoett]

I think the appeal of the streetcar can't be understood from an engineering perspective. It's purpose is not to be efficient, rather it's to provide variety, novelty, and choice in transportation (in my opinion).

I do however agree with the gentleman's questions with respect to the motive of the streetcar. Although I think the streetcar is a good thing, it's no coincidence that M of O own a lot of land along the route and made their new HQ contingent upon it's construction. It appears that they'll benefit from the streetcar by inflating the price of their land. It's a bit sinister in fact that residents and other businesses along the route (presumably) will pay more in taxes to build and maintain the new infrastructure. It's indirect corporate welfare. Giving their tax money to a large corporation that is already profitable.

Mutual built Midtown Crossiing during the MORTGAGE meltdown. Unmc attracts 9000 jobs for pandemic response in 2020, Unmc made Mutuals decision and streetcar possible IMHO. I fail to see anything sinister about that.

[Omaha Cowboy]

Mutual built Midtown Crossiing during the MORTGAGE meltdown. Unmc attracts 9000 jobs for pandemic response in 2020, Unmc made Mutuals decision and streetcar possible IMHO. I fail to see anything sinister about that.

Agreed…

Ciao..LiO…Peace

[ita]

I think the appeal of the streetcar can't be understood from an engineering perspective. It's purpose is not to be efficient, rather it's to provide variety, novelty, and choice in transportation (in my opinion).

I do however agree with the gentleman's questions with respect to the motive of the streetcar. Although I think the streetcar is a good thing, it's no coincidence that M of O own a lot of land along the route and made their new HQ contingent upon it's construction. It appears that they'll benefit from the streetcar by inflating the price of their land. It's a bit sinister in fact that residents and other businesses along the route (presumably) will pay more in taxes to build and maintain the new infrastructure. It's indirect corporate welfare. Giving their tax money to a large corporation that is already profitable.

Mutual built Midtown Crossiing during the MORTGAGE meltdown. Unmc attracts 9000 jobs for pandemic response in 2020, Unmc made Mutuals decision and streetcar possible IMHO. I fail to see anything sinister about that.

I would add that existing owners within the special TIF district will only pay into the streetcar insofar as their property valuations increase as a result of the project. The remaining TIF funding comes from future development in the district (projected to be about $200 million) and current TIF projects in the district. It's not like property owners in the district don't benefit from having the streetcar either. They have an effective last mile transit option, increased valuations of property, and, if your a business, increase in foot traffic, hopefully.

One thing that will be interesting to watch is when more residential is built and new people move in, will parts of the area continue to be a "blighted"? You would think that eventually with new market rate projects the designated TIF subdistrict would no longer have the necessary poverty/low income levels. However, if the city is able to get affordable housing units in the TIF subdistrict, it could offset market rate units, thus allowing continued availability of TIF even as the area gets more popular and expensive to live in.

[Mapguy]

MoO made 742 million in profit last year after taxes and payroll---thats more than some European countries national defense budgets. They are moving their HQ 3 miles east and getting 62 million in direct TIF subsidies and 300 million in indirect subsidies that will increase the value of their existing land holdings in midtown.

The tower is projected to cost 440 million and is leveraging 362 million in tax subsidies. This HQ move creates 0 long term jobs at MoO. The public is also losing its central library which will probably cost 50-100 million to replace and take 10 years

Isnt this kind of a pyric victory for Omaha financially? I mean yea a new skyscraper and streetcar have a wow factor but its not like MoO is doing this out of altruism for local residents. All of these local improvements directly help their bottom line through lowered construction costs or raised property values. The least they could do is pay for their own tower without asking for a massive subsidy.

MoO is a highly profitable company with huge profit margins on 11 billion in sales. Do they really need 62 million from Omaha to make this skyscraper happen?

[Dundeemaha]

I think the appeal of the streetcar can't be understood from an engineering perspective. It's purpose is not to be efficient, rather it's to provide variety, novelty, and choice in transportation (in my opinion).

I do however agree with the gentleman's questions with respect to the motive of the streetcar. Although I think the streetcar is a good thing, it's no coincidence that M of O own a lot of land along the route and made their new HQ contingent upon it's construction. It appears that they'll benefit from the streetcar by inflating the price of their land. It's a bit sinister in fact that residents and other businesses along the route (presumably) will pay more in taxes to build and maintain the new infrastructure. It's indirect corporate welfare. Giving their tax money to a large corporation that is already profitable.

Mutual built Midtown Crossiing during the MORTGAGE meltdown. Unmc attracts 9000 jobs for pandemic response in 2020, Unmc made Mutuals decision and streetcar possible IMHO. I fail to see anything sinister about that.

I would add that existing owners within the special TIF district will only pay into the streetcar insofar as their property valuations increase as a result of the project. The remaining TIF funding comes from future development in the district (projected to be about $200 million) and current TIF projects in the district. It's not like property owners in the district don't benefit from having the streetcar either. They have an effective last mile transit option, increased valuations of property, and, if your a business, increase in foot traffic, hopefully.

One thing that will be interesting to watch is when more residential is built and new people move in, will parts of the area continue to be a "blighted"? You would think that eventually with new market rate projects the designated TIF subdistrict would no longer have the necessary poverty/low income levels. However, if the city is able to get affordable housing units in the TIF subdistrict, it could offset market rate units, thus allowing continued availability of TIF even as the area gets more popular and expensive to live in.

There's no automatic mechanism to undesignate a blighted district. The city council has removed a blighted designation, but they'd have to choose to do so.

[ArchStanton]

Mapguy does bring up some great points and is probably right about a lot in the big picture, but all I can come back to is that it is a rigged game and ultimately this is most likely a good way for Omaha to play it. It does also help keep the city core/downtown strong which is necessary for a city to thrive and prosper (while also seeding the way for good things to happen at their former HQ while Mapguy is likely correct that they will make a profit from that).