City's transport plan to get update

[omaja]

The two systems don't seem very comparable.  How much of Denver's system actually runs along major city streets (not just crossing at certain intersections)?  Boston's Green Line runs for miles along major densely-packed mixed-use corridors that are also important auto links between Boston and the inner suburbs.  We aren't talking about running light rail along a secondary street downtown, we're talking about putting light rail along the busiest corridor in Omaha.  That is much more comparable to Boston than Denver.  Look at the high accident rates in cities where light rail has been installed along city streets.  You're kidding yourself if you think Omaha would be any different.

[Omababe]

P.S. You guys talking about a subway in Omaha need to put down the crack pipe.

ROFL, best comment on the subject I've heard in a long time!

None of this likely matters though, as I see it unlikely that Omaha gets light rail in my lifetime. Omaha's good ol boy network of "leaders", combined with the fact of being in conservative Nebraska, will likely keep Omaha transportation in 1970s mode for a long while.

I see it as a cultural inbreeding of the car thing for 2-3 generations. Omaha's trolley network was dismantled in the mid 1950s, 50+ years ago, and the private car is really the only viable transportation option that most Omaha residents know. (Yes, yes, I know about bikes, but anyone who thinks that was viable this last weekend is on the same drugs as the subway fans!)

[StreetsOfOmaha]

(Yes, yes, I know about bikes, but anyone who thinks that was viable this last weekend is on the same drugs as the subway fans!)

Was driving a car viable last weekend? (I really don't know - I wasn't there)

Because generally if travel by car is viable, so is travel by bicycle - ie. the same weather that hampers bicycle travel hampers car travel. In some ways bicycles actually handle snow better than cars for that matter (curved wheels vs. flat wheels).

[TechnicalDisaster]

(Yes, yes, I know about bikes, but anyone who thinks that was viable this last weekend is on the same drugs as the subway fans!)

Was driving a car viable last weekend? (I really don't know - I wasn't there)

Because generally if travel by car is viable, so is travel by bicycle - ie. the same weather that hampers bicycle travel hampers car travel. In some ways bicycles actually handle snow better than cars for that matter (curved wheels vs. flat wheels).

Is bike travel safe in 50mph winds & snow? A sedan can stay in its own lane, but can a cyclist keep from being blown over?

[S33]

In some ways bicycles actually handle snow better than cars for that matter (curved wheels vs. flat wheels).

Streets, you can't just keep sitting here talking about bicycles like none of us have ever seen one.

[Omababe]

Was driving a car viable last weekend? (I really don't know - I wasn't there).

Yes. I did some shopping in the Papillion and Bellevue areas in the early afternoon and went out that evening. As long as you were paying attention you were fine. There were no bikes out, powered or pedal, and I seriously doubt if anybody seriously attempted it!

Of course if you wanted an excuse to skip doing something, you had it, and if you wanted to play that "OH NO! IT'S SNOWING! I'M GONNA MELT! CANCEL EVERYTHING!" ritual, this was your yearly opportunity.

[Seth]

P.S. You guys talking about a subway in Omaha need to put down the crack pipe.

ROFL, best comment on the subject I've heard in a long time!

Agreed

(Yes, yes, I know about bikes, but anyone who thinks that was viable this last weekend is on the same drugs as the subway fans!)

I haven't rode my bike to work lately (because I'm close enough that it doesn't save much time over walking), but I did almost every day last year in Illinois.  I pass a Mutual of Omaha employee every morning who commutes by bike.  I have no idea how far away he lives, but he's been pretty bundled up lately!

[mrdwhsr]

(Yes, yes, I know about bikes, but anyone who thinks that was viable this last weekend is on the same drugs as the subway fans!)

Was driving a car viable last weekend? (I really don't know - I wasn't there)

Because generally if travel by car is viable, so is travel by bicycle - ie. the same weather that hampers bicycle travel hampers car travel. In some ways bicycles actually handle snow better than cars for that matter (curved wheels vs. flat wheels).

BS. I've operated both in snow and ice. 4-wheels trumps 2-wheels every time. Maybe you are riding a tricycle? And yes I did travel by car last weekend - the only problem was dodging other drivers who didn't have the good sense to slow down.

[S33]

[Brad]

last weekend we had FIFTY MILE PER HOUR WINDS and ZERO DEGREE TEMPS, screw the bike!

Cars got around just fine last weekend, however my walk from 11th and Dodge to the Qwest Center froze me to the bone and I was properly dressed!

[almighty_tuna]

So, we might reasonably assume you'll be riding your bike in Albany tomorrow, Streets?

[StreetsOfOmaha]

So, we might reasonably assume you'll be riding your bike in Albany tomorrow, Streets?

Yes.

Regardless of if people do it, 50 mph winds with ice and snow are not safe conditions to be driving, and certainly not cycling.

The point is merely that bicycling through the winter is just as feasible as it is during the milder months. One need only allow a little extra time and have proper gear - just like driving a car in winter.

Lets not forget that MINNEAPOLIS just dethroned Portland as America's #1 bike city. They didn't achieve that by leaving their bikes in the garage six months out of the year.

[Big E]

[StreetsOfOmaha]

If only...!  

[S33]

I didn't want to create a new thread for this article, but it's an interesting correlation between quality of life and "smart growth" practices (from an angle suggesting that smart growth actually reduces important quality of life indicators)

http://www.newgeography.com/content/001 ... ality-life

[Big E]

No arguments there.

The argument starts over value, and, in my opinion, ends at long term effects.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

The opinion expressed in the article basically relies solely on cost of living and affordable housing (as E pointed out).

This would not be the case if smart growth were being adopted on a federal policy level, because the playing field would be leveled. This is the case with many such issues.

But that's socialism. Ooooooooh. Dirty word.

[S33]

The opinion expressed in the article basically relies solely on cost of living and affordable housing (as E pointed out).

This would not be the case if smart growth were being adopted on a federal policy level, because the playing field would be leveled. This is the case with many such issues.

But that's socialism. Ooooooooh. Dirty word.

Yep, still annoying.

[omaja]

Saw this article in a thread over at Skyscraper Page.

Transport study derails thinking on outer suburbs

RESIDENTS in the outer suburbs should not have to wait for higher housing densities before getting better public transport, according to research that could defuse one of the most bitter controversies in urban planning. In a paper for the journal Australian Planner, Dr John Stone, of the University of Melbourne, and Dr Paul Mees, of RMIT University, argue that many city dwellers have been presented with a false choice - live in apartments and enjoy good public transport or retain the house and land and rely on cars.

...

''Many planners, and other commentators on urban issues, appear to believe that getting significantly more people on public transport will not be possible until massive changes in suburban densities are achieved,'' they write. ''The evidence challenges this view.'' Their study - which is part of a collection being prepared for the Council of Australian Governments on the dangers of relying on diminishing supplies of oil - finds that cities with densities comparable with Melbourne and Sydney, such as Toronto, Ottawa and greater New York, have better public transport than Australia's two biggest cities.

...

Dr Mees said higher densities did not always mean better mass transit, citing the relatively low rail and bus use in Los Angeles, even though it is the most densely populated city in the United States. ''There is no doubt that a compact and connected urban form enhances the potential for oil-free mobility through walking, cycling, and greater public transport use,'' the authors write.

...

''However, we … argue that it is not necessary to intensify land-use across the whole city before significant improvement in both patronage and economic efficiency of public transport becomes possible.'' The keys to increasing public transport use in outer suburbs are more frequent buses, running at least every 10-15 minutes, and not just in peak hour; better co-ordination with rail services; more convenient transfers; and fares that allow free transfers between modes.

Other than the fact that LA is not the densest city in the country, I found this article pretty interesting.  Having grown up in West Omaha, I have always found it irritating that people assume that transit is basically pointless in the suburbs.  It isn't that people don't want transit and refuse to use it; for many people, we were simply born into an environment that has literally never had it and have become accustomed to that reality.  In that sense, transit has turned away from the suburb as much as the suburb has turned away from the downtown core, if not more so.

Hopefully the City's supposed transportation plan update includes completely overhauling and expanding Metro as a bare minimum.  Perhaps a moratorium on widening roads in West Omaha would be helpful as well, diverting those funds to catch up on deferred maintenance, expand the bus system and lay foundational work for a regional rail system.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

Perhaps a moratorium on widening roads in West Omaha would be helpful as well, diverting those funds to catch up on deferred maintenance, expand the bus system and lay foundational work for a regional rail system.

Hallelujah! Amen! Right on! Here here! Yes, yes, and yes!

Interesting points about the suburbs and public transport and the issues of being born into an environment where transit is not an option.

The thing is, of course better public transit in the suburbs is possible without having higher densities... it just costs a lot of money, and where is that going to come from? I love your idea above, but would that be politically viable? Almost definitely not.

There are also other key factors that have little to nothing to do with housing densities - perhaps first and foremost in my opinion: parking policy. As I've mentioned before, in cities like Omaha and in most all suburbs, the availability of free parking at the end of a car trip is as sure a thing as the sun rising in the East and setting in the West.

What if all of a sudden tomorrow people learned that anywhere they drive their car it would cost a minimum of $2 every time they parked somewhere, whether for two minutes or two hours. Even something not so extreme like incentivising private businesses to a) dedicate less money, resources, and land to parking facilities and b) to charge nominal fees for the parking spots they do provide.

If there were more built-in, every-day user fees for motorists (in stead of just the occasional direct cost of fuel and maintenance), I think drivers would be much more likely to leave their cars at home and consider other transportation alternatives - even in lower density suburbs.

Yes, you are totally right about that reference of LA being the densest city in the US... I was like, "what!"

What else is interesting is that this is an Australian perspective - and although it references North American cities of comparable density (not total metro population - which is very important here), they failed to note that even Australian cities' suburbs have much higher densities than the suburban standards we are used to in the US, and, I would argue, are comparatively much better served by transit.

To me a great apples to apples comparison is Brisbane to Kansas City. Yes, Brisbane is the third most populous city in Australia, but the two cities have nearly identical metro populations of just over 2 million people. But look at the density differences and look at the differences in public transit opportunities and walkable, interconnected neighborhoods. I've experienced both cities first hand and Brisbane blows KC out of the water (and don't get me wrong, KC has its own great walkable neighborhoods).

I'm sure there are discrepancies in methods of measurements, but here is a statshot c/o Wikipedia:

Population density of metro area: KC = 253.4 ppl/sq. mi.; Brisbane = 2,377.6/sq mi
Land area of metro area: KC = 7,952 sq. mi.; Brisbane = 2,279.9 sq mi

And just look at the density of Brisbane's CBD! Holy |expletive|, it looks like Miami, not KC!

I mean check out Brisbane's Citytrain network, it consists of 10 lines that connect the CBD out to the suburbs!
http://www.railmaps.com.au/brisbane.htm

And this is in addition to their seemingly stellar city bus network.

So basically what I'm saying is I think there is something to the notion of questioning whether the only way to improve transit in the suburbs is by increasing densities there, but these Australians already enjoy much higher-than-average suburban densities in the first place.

[Zilla]

There are also other key factors that have little to nothing to do with housing densities - perhaps first and foremost in my opinion: parking policy. As I've mentioned before, in cities like Omaha and in most all suburbs, the availability of free parking at the end of a car trip is as sure a thing as the sun rising in the East and setting in the West.

What if all of a sudden tomorrow people learned that anywhere they drive their car it would cost a minimum of $2 every time they parked somewhere, whether for two minutes or two hours. Even something not so extreme like incentivising private businesses to a) dedicate less money, resources, and land to parking facilities and b) to charge nominal fees for the parking spots they do provide.

If there were more built-in, every-day user fees for motorists (in stead of just the occasional direct cost of fuel and maintenance), I think drivers would be much more likely to leave their cars at home and consider other transportation alternatives - even in lower density suburbs.

I think these are all workable ideas, as long as their is a viable alternative for those people that'll be hit by this.  Otherwise, all you're doing is sticking it to people who are already strapped for cash and have no other means to get back and forth to work.

[omaja]

All it would take is another significant hike in oil prices and I think the parking issue would be pretty moot.  You could have a sea of parking from 13th to 204th but if gas costs $4.00+ a gallon, people will certainly be looking to switch to alternative modes of transportation (at least part of the time).  Whether that happens by way of a gas tax increase or oil companies upping prices, it will definitely happen.

About comparing Australian to American city development, I don't think Brisbane and Kansas City are really apples to apples.  Brisbane is a coastal city that is partially hemmed in by geography while Kansas City is an inland city with few geographic limitations that deter sprawl.  Based on the incredibly large discrepancy in land area between the two, the Australian definition of a metropolitan area seems more in line with what we consider an "urbanized area" here in the U.S.

I couldn't find more recent numbers, but in 2000 Kansas City had an urbanized population of 1.36 million with a density of 2,330 people per square mile which is more in line with Brisbane.  So I'm not sure I would jump to the conclusion that Australia's suburbs are denser than their American counterparts.  The U.S. has a bad habit of inflating metropolitan numbers by including far-flung exurban developments (i.e. the fact that Greater Atlanta encompasses an area the size of Massachusetts with anemic densities to go with).  I feel like the urbanized area numbers are much more pertinent to public transportation discussion.

Just for kicks, in 2000 Omaha had an urbanized population of 626,623 with a density of 2,768 people per square mile.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

But, that's kind of the point... for having similar sized metros, KC's "urbanized" population is significantly smaller than Brisbane's.

So anyway, what you're basically saying is that in terms of density of the "urbanized" population, KC and Brisbane are similar; Well, agreed, that's also kind of the point - now just compare their transit offerings.

There are certainly different factors contributing to the the population density and spacial arrangement of each city, but I think the comparison is still a good one.

[omaja]

But that's just the issue with such a comparison... an American metropolitan area is significantly larger in area than its international counterparts; it is erroneous to compare metropolitan Kansas City to metropolitan Brisbane when they are clearly derived from very, very different methodologies.

Granted, the point is still pretty much valid that Brisbane's American counterparts like Baltimore, Saint Louis and Tampa offer pretty deficient public transportation by comparison.  To be sure, Baltimore seems the most adequate comparison to Brisbane and does have much better transit offerings than either Saint Louis or Tampa.  In any case, density seems to have nothing to do with it considering Baltimore, Saint Louis, and Tampa are all denser than Brisbane.

I think the author's original assertion holds true in the U.S. that density (or lack thereof) is a poor excuse for lack of transportation options in suburban areas.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

But that's just the issue with such a comparison... an American metropolitan area is significantly larger in area than its international counterparts

Again... EXACTLY. American metro areas tend to be much larger in area when compared to international metropolitan areas, which equates to much lower metropolitan densities (regardless of geographic factors).

I think the author's original assertion holds true in the U.S. that density (or lack thereof) is a poor excuse for lack of transportation options in suburban areas.

Essentially I agree, and I think we're merely bickering over semantics at this point ;). But it is difficult to say whether the US's comparatively low density is a contributing factor to its poor transit offerings, or merely a factor which exacerbates an already bad situation - even if only in perception.

[omaja]

You're right, it is an argument of semantics because in this case Americans and Aussies use the term "metropolitan area" very differently.  Australian cities are not considerably more dense than American cities.  Consider the following: the entire South East Queensland region (of which Brisbane is the central core) has an area of approximately 8656.4 square miles and a population of 2,923,800 for a population density of 337.7 people per square mile.  That is what the U.S. would consider "Greater Brisbane" a la "Greater Kansas City".  Or, the other way around, Kansas City's urbanized area is what Australia would consider "Metropolitan Kansas City" a la "Metropolitan Brisbane".

The definitions of the term are so vastly different that it can be easy to simply look at raw numbers and draw an inaccurate conclusion.  It would be like comparing Douglas County to Des Moines' metropolitan area: the two have roughly similar populations (510,199 and 562,906, respectively) so it should work, right?  That would yield very different densities (1,401 and 183.4 people per square mile, respectively) that are not truly reflective of either Omaha or Des Moines.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

Yes, you're right. I simply looked at raw numbers and drew inaccurate conclusions... not based on having experienced either of those places first hand.  :roll:

It is semantics, though, and it is very hard to compare American metros to those of other countries. It would be nice (and I'm sure this exists somewhere) if someone looked at all the information objectively and calculated the equivalent metropolitan area based on the same metrics used to determine American metros (commuting patterns, etc.).

[Garrett]

Yes, you're right. I simply looked at raw numbers and drew inaccurate conclusions... not based on having experienced either of those places first hand.  :roll:

It is semantics, though, and it is very hard to compare American metros to those of other countries. It would be nice (and I'm sure this exists somewhere) if someone looked at all the information objectively and calculated the equivalent metropolitan area based on the same metrics used to determine American metros (commuting patterns, etc.).

Well there's a small problem with that. You see, unlike in the US, Australia doesn't have counties. So they can only go by Urban area and not by our traditional metropolitan method. Even if they want to it would be near impossible.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

Yes, the counties present a problem because if a certain percent (I forget the percent. 30%?) of that county commutes into the hub city then the hub city gets to include that county in its metropolitan area. What about the other 70% who just happen to live close-ish to the metropolitan area?

I think it's safe to say that many if not most American metropolitan areas are inflated compared to other countries. But this also has to do with the relationship between metro size and population density. If KC gets to include practically all the counties in Eastern Kansas and Western Missouri in order to reach "2 million" in their metropolitan area, then they get the abysmal density and transit statistics that go with that.

[omaja]

I feel like we are talking past each other, but I'll try it again.  The comparison really isn't so difficult if one adjusts for the different definitions.  But comparing the Australian-defined Brisbane metropolitan area to the American-defined Kansas City metropolitan area is not apples to apples in any way.  The Brisbane figure excludes areas like Ipswich, Logan, Moreton Bay, and Redwood that are very much tied to Brisbane economically or socially or both; that would be like excluding Overland Park, Olathe, and basically anything south of I-435 from the American definition of Kansas City's metropolitan area.

Regardless, in the big scheme of things it is the urbanized area that matters with public transit.  And in terms of urbanized area, Kansas City is equally as dense as Brisbane.  The interesting thing is, as you note, Brisbane has a very dense central business district and core compared to Kansas City.  It seems that KC makes up for that by being more uniformly dense over a greater area, though.  Which I think is the entire point.  If an Australian is claiming that suburban Australia (which, for the most part, would appear less dense than suburban America) ought to have better transportation, then American suburbia is equally suited for the same treatment.  If anything, the rather uniform density, especially in inner American suburbs, lends itself quite well to better public transportation.

Also, Brisbane is infinitely more important to Australia than Kansas City is to the United States, which would definitely be a contributing factor to its superior transportation network.  Clearly it is more a question of the political will and monetary support to work for better suburban transportation (especially outside the biggest and most important urban agglomerations).  Both the political will and monetary support are severely lacking in the U.S.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

For KC, I'm getting the same 2,330 people/sq. ml. population density for the urbanized area that you did. Where are you getting Brisbane's urbanized area population and area statistics?

I certainly agree with your last paragraph. However, the point is to compare two similar metros, not taking into account "importance" and merely comparing population, density, and transit options.

Perhaps a better comparison would be St. Louis, Denver, or MPS/SP? Each of those metros has light rail but still pails in comparison to Brisbane and Queensland's rail network.

[omaja]

Brisbane's Australian-defined metropolitan area is what appears to be the U.S. equivalent of its urbanized area.  There is no officially used or detailed equivalent to the American-defined metropolitan area which is why you can't compare an American MSA to an Australian "metropolitan area".  This isn't an incredibly accurate picture because the urbanized area numbers are 2000 Census figures while the Australian and American metropolitan numbers are from more recent, but you get the general idea.

Brisbane metropolitan area (Australian definition): 2,004,262 population; 2,279.9 sq. mi. area; 2,377.6 people per sq. mi. density
Kansas City urbanized area:                                1,361,744 population; 1,513.6 sq. mi. area; 2,330.1 people per sq. mi. density

South East Queensland:                                           2,923,800 population; 8,656.4 sq. mi. area; 337.7 people per sq. mi. density
Kansas City metropolitan area (American definition):  2,053,928 population; 7,952.0 sq. mi. area; 253.4 people per sq. mi. density

As a comparison:

Saint Louis urbanized area (2000 Census):     2,077,662 population; 2,147.0 sq. mi. area; 2,506.4 people per sq. mi. density
Saint Louis metropolitan area: 2,828,990 population; 8,649.0 sq. mi. area; 325.6 people per sq. mi. density

Whatever metrics or metropolitan areas you want to compare, the American ones will come out with densities similar to their Australian counterparts.  The answer as to why they have much more developed public transportation cities I think does have to do more so with relative size in each country than it does density.  The Australian government and private sector have placed transit much higher on the priority list so Australian cities tend to fight well above their weight class, so to speak.  

For instance, compare Australia's largest city to America's largest.  Sydney's CityRail subway/commuter rail network is over 990 miles long or nearly 50 percent the size of New York's combined subway/commuter rail network while Sydney has a population that is less than 25 percent as large as New York.  The cities have nearly identical density figures for urbanized areas (5,000+ people per square mile).  

Not taking into account the relative importance of each city skews the overall picture too much I think.  Sure, Sydney's metropolitan area might have a population around that of urbanized Miami, Dallas, or Boston, but it is far more important to Australia than those three cities combined are to the U.S.  That definitely contributes somewhat to the seemingly massive disparity in transportation offerings.  It certainly doesn't excuse the lackluster offerings in American cities, just something to keep in mind.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

You're making some great points, and I'm not arguing with your logic. I completely understand the impact a city's "importance" can have on its development and quality of life. I guess the point that I'm making, and what Australia has to teach us as Americans, is that first-world, sophisticated, civilized public transportation systems are possible in much smaller cities (relatively speaking) than we may realize.

As for Brisbane and its metropolitan area, I would need to see detailed stats on the relation of the broader region of Southeast Queensland to Brisbane before I'd be OK with accepting the entire population thereof as being commensurate with Brisbane's "metro" population - which I certainly don't expect of you; there's no need to waist the time. I think we've beaten this to death enough as it is.  :;):

[ShawJ]

Just a heads up, two workshops coming up in March.

http://www.cityofomaha.org/tmplan/

[cdub]

WOrkshop one underway this week in Elkhorn.  Workshop two in two weeks at the TAC building.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

If people go, please update us here!!!

[nebport5]

Transportation Priorities Public Meeting


September 15th, 2011 - Scott Conference Center(6450 Pine Street), 6:30pm

On September 15th the public is invited to attend a crucial meeting setting our community's transportation priorities. In addition to setting priorities, the public will preview Omaha's first street design guidelines.

[Dusty]

I'm going to the meeting on the 15th! Anybody else going?

[Bomaha]

Yeah, I'm going to take off work, I'm not going to miss this.

[iamjacobm]

http://www.ketv.com/mostpopular/29203388/detail.html

"Within downtown, we're looking at things like getting a very dense network of bike facilities. We're looking at streetcars and bus transit kinds of mobility in those areas where we have density," said Moore.
One of the concepts is to drive people to live east of Interstate 680.

"[We do that by] creating housing options for people, both in terms of locations that weren't options before and different types of housing," Moore said.

Several ideas include delaying sewer extension projects, which would essentially force developers to stop building on the western side of the city, a sales tax increase and a parking surcharge or parking tax.

That second quote is, well, interesting.  People in this city will throw a |expletive| fit if some of those things happen.