City's transport plan to get update

[HuskerDave]

Dear Freaking LORD.  Does EVERY conversation on alternative transportation need to turn into this?  

Here's the reality, most people in Omaha aren't going to give up their cars.  Further, I think we can probably all agree that it is important to offer infrastructure for many kinds of transportation as long as it is economically viable to do so and supported by the majority.  I enjoy walking from my house to UNO and biking from my house to work.  Many times, I choose to drive to either of these destinations for a myriad of reasons I don't need to justify to anyone.  

If it is economically viable, I would love for the city to add additional bike lanes to Leavenworth (making it more enticing to bike more than drive) and add a sidewalk to the west side of 63rd street along Aksarben Village behind the Scott Village dorms (making it more enticing to walk to campus).  The critical part of both of these is economic viability, because while I am open to paying slightly more in taxes to fund these projects, I'm not willing to pay significantly more.  

Should the city want to form a regional transportation district similar to other metros to fund projects like these that can collect taxes (sales, property, etc.) it should be put to the vote of the PEOPLE.  Because while I am willing to pay some taxes for this, others are not.  Unless the general consensus of the voting and tax paying district supports alternative transportation and is willing to pay for it, it should not occur.  

It's not fair for those who don't use it to have to pay for alternative transportation if they are the majority voters.  That said, I would love to have an input in continuing to develop our city at 240th street, because it escalates my taxes used for increased fire, policy and EMT service as well as utility and infrastructure costs.  At the end of the day, the city needs to take into consideration what the MAJORITY values, not the extremists on either end.

+1

[Linkin5]

You say that, but a lot of your posts would indicate otherwise. There seems to be an inability for you to grasp the fact that most people cannot just completely alter their lives and live the way you do.  I try my best to use alternative forms of transportation, but with how our infrastructure is set up I have to use my car for a lot of the things I do.

Well, it's time to recalibrate your opinion of me then, isn't it? Let my last couple of posts refine any previous posts of mine that you might have taken that way.

Zilla, wow, your coworkers are pretty lame if they would laugh you out of the accounting department for that.

Anyway, I realize it's a sh*tty system, and it's really tough to not use a car for pretty much everything in your life. As I said before, I don't blame you or anyone for existing the way you do in the system that you've been presented with. But I do expect you to see that things have to change, and to reflect that in who and what you vote for, how you choose to spend your money, and, ideally, where you choose to live and work where and when you can.

That's all.

You are a bizarre human being.

[Globochem]

Transportation habits are clearly a hot button issue, so much so that this topic seems to get hijacked anew every day.  

Melissa is correct that many people won't volunteer their car away, and the debate over the merits of the invention of the automobile are either a fruitless distraction or pernicious turn-off.  But the problem with every transportation debate is the distortion of the emphasis on the automobile.

The addition of bike lanes as a commuter alternative to Omaha streets is a positive development.  It is a sound, inexpensive, safety enhancing addition to the street scape.  Any dismissal of a bike lane comes across a petty and obtuse because the costs of building them are miniscule and the benefits are wide ranging.  But like any mode of transportation, bike lanes are insufficient in moving Omahans around the city.  Omaha is NOT Copenhagen, nor Amsterdam, nor Berlin, Paris, Zurich, nor any dense, relatively flat European city.  Not by a long shot.  Nor will it ever be.  Please put bike riding in a proper context.  It is AN alternative to driving.  By God I hope not the only.  Someone can come up with a thread called the merits and demerits of biking.  PLEASE NOT HERE.

A much more expensive, though comprehensively landscape altering possibility is transit.  Here Streets points out that the considerable amount of money that government has laid out for street and highway construction has created a lopsided dynamic for driving.  Omaha, as many midwestern and almost all western cities, developed mainly in the post war era of the Eisenhower Interstate system.  (Also a rather large government outlay, as Streets might point out).  And whereas there have been some wonderful achievements because of America's newfound ease of travel, in the modern era of 100's of millions of drivers, that system is simply not the sole solution.  There are real upward bounds of what a city is willing to pave into street lanes and parking lots (although I cringe at where that boundary actually is.)  

The answer, again, and forever, is a development strategy that encourages infill.  Similar to how SIDs encourage sprawl.  Cities are wonderful, filled  with vibrant creative and meaningful core neighborhoods.  Facilitating transit, biking, walking, and yes even driving between them is a meaningful objective.  Remember though, plans are meant to help people achieve what they want, not force them into something they don't.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

You are a bizarre human being.

What a bizarre response.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

Globochem, well said. Your level-headed insights and articulate response are most welcome and appreciated.

[HuskerDave]

Globochem, well said. Your level-headed insights and articulate response are most welcome and appreciated.

.. and in direct contrast to your own.

[HuskerDave]

Transportation habits are clearly a hot button issue, so much so that this topic seems to get hijacked anew every day.  

Melissa is correct that many people won't volunteer their car away, and the debate over the merits of the invention of the automobile are either a fruitless distraction or pernicious turn-off.  But the problem with every transportation debate is the distortion of the emphasis on the automobile.

The addition of bike lanes as a commuter alternative to Omaha streets is a positive development.  It is a sound, inexpensive, safety enhancing addition to the street scape.  Any dismissal of a bike lane comes across a petty and obtuse because the costs of building them are miniscule and the benefits are wide ranging.  But like any mode of transportation, bike lanes are insufficient in moving Omahans around the city.  Omaha is NOT Copenhagen, nor Amsterdam, nor Berlin, Paris, Zurich, nor any dense, relatively flat European city.  Not by a long shot.  Nor will it ever be.  Please put bike riding in a proper context.  It is AN alternative to driving.  By God I hope not the only.  Someone can come up with a thread called the merits and demerits of biking.  PLEASE NOT HERE.

A much more expensive, though comprehensively landscape altering possibility is transit.  Here Streets points out that the considerable amount of money that government has laid out for street and highway construction has created a lopsided dynamic for driving.  Omaha, as many midwestern and almost all western cities, developed mainly in the post war era of the Eisenhower Interstate system.  (Also a rather large government outlay, as Streets might point out).  And whereas there have been some wonderful achievements because of America's newfound ease of travel, in the modern era of 100's of millions of drivers, that system is simply not the sole solution.  There are real upward bounds of what a city is willing to pave into street lanes and parking lots (although I cringe at where that boundary actually is.)  

The answer, again, and forever, is a development strategy that encourages infill.  Similar to how SIDs encourage sprawl.  Cities are wonderful, filled  with vibrant creative and meaningful core neighborhoods.  Facilitating transit, biking, walking, and yes even driving between them is a meaningful objective.  Remember though, plans are meant to help people achieve what they want, not force them into something they don't.

A well-thought-out argument.  

I completely agree that the addition of bike lanes is a positive development.  Those who choose to commute with bikes can certainly appreciate the improved safety and convenience.  Those who drive cars should be happy to have traffic lanes unencumbered by bicyclists.

I do think that railing against the money spent on public roads for autos is, at best, a moot point.  We live in a community that has many months of weather unsuitable for most people to use their bicycles.  We have a large city that requires business commuters and freight delivery that rely on a vast road system.  This requires infrastructure spending in some form.  

I mention that to juxtapose some of the argument over spending on bike trails that are more a novelty than a necessity.  If you choose to live and work in sufficient proximity to be able to bike commute, then that's a reasonable choice, and there needs to be sufficient infrastructure - sometimes shared with cars - to do so.  The road system, however, is no novelty.  It is essential to preserving a city.

Perhaps there is some utopian land where everyone bikes everywhere, and goods magically appear where they're needed (or everyone shops at the rail yard), but it isn't Omaha, Nebraska.  If you think Copenhagen is such a community, live there.

[Globochem]

A city transportation plan has to be comprehensive.  It has to look at all current trends as well as determine where resources and emphases will be put over the next 20 years.  

We all hope that Omaha will continue to grow robustly, and all indicators are that it will do just that.  This transportation plan could go a long way in permanently shaping what this next Omaha looks like.  This is why I so adamantly support a true multi-faceted approach.

Whatever the climate conditions, people will walk and bike in a denser, more urban landscape.  People will also tend to live closer to their jobs and certainly spend most of their time and money in their neighborhoods.  As Omaha continues to infill (an absolutely critical approach to stable and healthy city growth), pedestrians and bicyclists are going to become ever more present.  It is prudent to prepare for this eventuality.  Prudent because it can help alleviate traffic, encourage dynamic street-scapes, promote public health and safety (it isn't safe to walk where there is no sidewalk; it isn't safe to ride where there is no bike lane), and is quite rather cost effective.

Obviously roads are an important part of the future.  And I take for granted that plenty of money will be set aside for lane widenings and bridge overhauls.  Whereas it would be nice to coax some percentage of single passenger drivers out of their cars, a substantial majority will still commute via automobile.  But determining how much public space (or privately owned space open to the public) will be paved into parking will become an ever more serious problem.  Vehicle storage, vast urban sprawl, and ever increasing congestion are very real and likely outcomes of a car-centric policy.

Omaha will need to determine if it is to become a regional player in air or passenger rail traffic.  Expanding flight options and Epply will definitely require some new transit infrastructure.

Of course that brings us to the question of mass transit.  Every three years it seems, Metro (formerly MAT) completely overhauls its routing.  One thing stays the same: anemic, unreliable service.  It is very apparent that buses will not be the permanent solution to transit.  It is time to consider more fixed routes with reliable schedules: rail.

Rail causes a firestorm because it is expensive and a fault line for the left/right debate.  But it is the only way to truly ensure reliable mainline service between destinations.  It may seem obnoxious, but there is money, lots of it, out there for these sorts of projects.  Study after study indicates that growth follows rail lines because developers can rely on the transit lines.  Rail can help connect urban neighborhoods and also help fill empty spots in.  Expensive, yes.  But the rewards are many and long lived.

[mrdwhsr]

A city transportation plan has to be comprehensive.  It has to look at all current trends as well as determine where resources and emphases will be put over the next 20 years.  

We all hope that Omaha will continue to grow robustly, and all indicators are that it will do just that.  This transportation plan could go a long way in permanently shaping what this next Omaha looks like.  This is why I so adamantly support a true multi-faceted approach.

Whatever the climate conditions, people will walk and bike in a denser, more urban landscape.  People will also tend to live closer to their jobs and certainly spend most of their time and money in their neighborhoods.  As Omaha continues to infill (an absolutely critical approach to stable and healthy city growth), pedestrians and bicyclists are going to become ever more present.  It is prudent to prepare for this eventuality.  Prudent because it can help alleviate traffic, encourage dynamic street-scapes, promote public health and safety (it isn't safe to walk where there is no sidewalk; it isn't safe to ride where there is no bike lane), and is quite rather cost effective.

Obviously roads are an important part of the future.  And I take for granted that plenty of money will be set aside for lane widenings and bridge overhauls.  Whereas it would be nice to coax some percentage of single passenger drivers out of their cars, a substantial majority will still commute via automobile.  But determining how much public space (or privately owned space open to the public) will be paved into parking will become an ever more serious problem.  Vehicle storage, vast urban sprawl, and ever increasing congestion are very real and likely outcomes of a car-centric policy.

Omaha will need to determine if it is to become a regional player in air or passenger rail traffic.  Expanding flight options and Epply will definitely require some new transit infrastructure.

Of course that brings us to the question of mass transit.  Every three years it seems, Metro (formerly MAT) completely overhauls its routing.  One thing stays the same: anemic, unreliable service.  It is very apparent that buses will not be the permanent solution to transit.  It is time to consider more fixed routes with reliable schedules: rail.

Rail causes a firestorm because it is expensive and a fault line for the left/right debate.  But it is the only way to truly ensure reliable mainline service between destinations.  It may seem obnoxious, but there is money, lots of it, out there for these sorts of projects.  Study after study indicates that growth follows rail lines because developers can rely on the transit lines.  Rail can help connect urban neighborhoods and also help fill empty spots in.  Expensive, yes.  But the rewards are many and long lived.

 :yes:  :yes:

Maybe someday a grad student in urban planning will be able to state his the case this well.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

Oooh, low blow!

Globochem's response was well stated, to be sure (and thanks again for articulating those thoughts so thoroughly).

But none of what he said is anything that hasn't been stated over and over (by me and others) on this forum over the years. These are the rudiments of 21st Century existence and a basic understanding of these concepts is critical; a lack of understanding of these issues is inexcusable and cause for ridicule in this day and age.

It seems people are always expecting me to play this role of educator on the forum, and they see me as being harsh or over-critical when I respond in a frank manner to certain forum posts. As if this forum is the place where world-views are magically changed and altered through well thought out and articulate forum responses. I have wasted too many hours on those over the years... only to have someone like mrdhsw insinuate that I don't "state my case that well".

In our current world, ignorance is a choice. It's hard to get somebody to choose to not be ignorant. Facts and information are a mouse-click away. If being an educator means dumbing down reality, I'm not going to play that game; at least not here.

[Zilla]

Wow.  Nobody is asking you to play any role.  However, if you are going to come into this or any forum and try and inform people of your viewpoint and try to garner support for that viewpoint, you are going to HAVE to be an educator to some extent.  If you're not trying to educate people on certain aspects, then why post half the things you do?  They are meant to inform, to educate, no?  If you're just here to spout off facts and then to heck with whether or not anyone understands them or pays attention....why bother sticking around to argue any points?

Stating something in a frank matter is fine....stating them in an arrogant, condescending matter is something completely different.  Why you seem to always be so baffled at the negative response to your posts because of this is, in itself, baffling.

The people on this forum and the people that actually do an adequate amount of research are, unfortunately, in the minority.  So whether you like it or not, you will have to cater to those that haven't done the research (by choice or not).  Whether it be here or in live medium.  You have no idea what people's reasons are for the knowledge the possess or lack.  Calling someone ignorant or ridiculing them when, perhaps, they simply didn't have the means to do the appropriate research that you seem to think is necessary for someone to have a civil conversation with you, will do nothing but infuriate that person.  At the very least, push them away.  Regardless of whether or not your position is in the right, people will vote against you or choose to follow someone else if you're a big enough pr*ck.  Sure, this is just an internet forum, but people these days should know that stuff posted online can often find it's way into real life.

If it's so easy to just flip that switch and be more civil in a live setting, then why not just do it here and avoid the frustration?  You don't have to dumb things down, just don't talk to people like they're children.

[Zilla]

Zilla, wow, your coworkers are pretty lame if they would laugh you out of the accounting department for that.

Oh I think my accounting department is plenty lame....for reasons far and beyond just that.  However, as I'm sure you know, most companies have stipulations for specific jobs.  Such as, having reliable transportation, being able to lift 50lbs., etc.  I could certainly expense my mileage for driving from one location to another, but it's my responsibility to make sure I can perform my job adequately.  And that means having a car that I can use to get to our data centers in a quick, timely fashion at (unfortunately) any time, day or night.  Maybe things are different in New York where cab rides are more common, but I haven't spoke to a single colleague here who hasn't laughed out loud at the idea of expensing a cab ride.  And by "here" I mean Omaha, and by colleagues I mean people from other companies locally that I work/associate with.

[Globochem]

I could certainly expense my mileage for driving from one location to another, but it's my responsibility to make sure I can perform my job adequately.  And that means having a car that I can use to get to our data centers in a quick, timely fashion at (unfortunately) any time, day or night.

Not that I would like to get back on topic or anything, but you concisely illustrate the need for a change to Omaha's transportation infrastructure.  To be sure, this is a long game.  But encouraging denser development, with a rich selection of transportation options between centers of business ought to be the goal.  No one assumes that Omaha will become like Manhattan, but the key for a beneficial transportation plan HAS to include urban infill.

Dense streets mean walkable streets.  Walkable streets are bikeable distances.  Bikeable distances are perfect for rail and bus transit.  Then the automobile has a place in such a mix, but it can also be a bit extraneous as the cost and hassle of parking and much slower pace of traffic make for a sometimes unpleasant driving experience.  This isn't to wholly demonize drivers, but since cars have been the number one all star reigning champion of any and all transportation considerations for the last 60 years, and that we now see the truly unsightly urban sprawl of car centric culture, we need to have a multilateral approach to urban transportation and design.  

Streets, please remain a loyal and effective advocate for this.  Sidetracking the conversation to bromides and insults has NOTHING to do with transportation...or plans...or anything even remotely effective.  I understand feeling the pressure of "faster please" when communicating the significance and need for really deep and permanent changes to Omaha's urban and suburban streets.  Please communicate what those streets should look like.  It is exciting to think that in our lifetimes, we can look back and see just how vast and significant some of those changes can be.  


mrdwhsr, thanks for the ups.  I believe this forum is populated with people that are excited about the prospect of making Omaha an attractive place to live and do business.  I think we want to see Omaha shed some of its destructive past habits of urban sprawl and disregard for historic structures and neighborhoods.  And I think Omaha's urban renaissance is gaining steam, bolstered by the surge in the creative class and young professionals that want to see a positive destiny for Omaha's and their own futures.   Now can we talk about transportation, please.

The main question that we face is this: If we build transit will density come, or do we build density so that we can have transit?  Discuss.

[HuskerDave]

I could certainly expense my mileage for driving from one location to another, but it's my responsibility to make sure I can perform my job adequately.  And that means having a car that I can use to get to our data centers in a quick, timely fashion at (unfortunately) any time, day or night.

Not that I would like to get back on topic or anything, but you concisely illustrate the need for a change to Omaha's transportation infrastructure.  To be sure, this is a long game.  But encouraging denser development, with a rich selection of transportation options between centers of business ought to be the goal.  No one assumes that Omaha will become like Manhattan, but the key for a beneficial transportation plan HAS to include urban infill.

Dense streets mean walkable streets.  Walkable streets are bikeable distances.  Bikeable distances are perfect for rail and bus transit.  Then the automobile has a place in such a mix, but it can also be a bit extraneous as the cost and hassle of parking and much slower pace of traffic make for a sometimes unpleasant driving experience.  This isn't to wholly demonize drivers, but since cars have been the number one all star reigning champion of any and all transportation considerations for the last 60 years, and that we now see the truly unsightly urban sprawl of car centric culture, we need to have a multilateral approach to urban transportation and design.  

Streets, please remain a loyal and effective advocate for this.  Sidetracking the conversation to bromides and insults has NOTHING to do with transportation...or plans...or anything even remotely effective.  I understand feeling the pressure of "faster please" when communicating the significance and need for really deep and permanent changes to Omaha's urban and suburban streets.  Please communicate what those streets should look like.  It is exciting to think that in our lifetimes, we can look back and see just how vast and significant some of those changes can be.  


mrdwhsr, thanks for the ups.  I believe this forum is populated with people that are excited about the prospect of making Omaha an attractive place to live and do business.  I think we want to see Omaha shed some of its destructive past habits of urban sprawl and disregard for historic structures and neighborhoods.  And I think Omaha's urban renaissance is gaining steam, bolstered by the surge in the creative class and young professionals that want to see a positive destiny for Omaha's and their own futures.   Now can we talk about transportation, please.

The main question that we face is this: If we build transit will density come, or do we build density so that we can have transit?  Discuss.

I listen to what you and Streets say - and all I still here is "How do I impose my own personal view on urban living onto people who don't want it?"  Ok, with Streets it's accompanied by an elitist opinion that he's smarter than everyone else.  "Educator" my arse.

[Globochem]

What you "hear" is that the city WILL have some sort of transportation plan.  It will take some shape or another.  HuskerDave, if the city's sole traffic concern is widening lanes on ever more western fringe streets and the watershed impact that comes along with it, it is still a plan.  If all the city is committed to is acquiring right of way for a new beltway, or expanding on the the Storz or Sorensen Expressways, it's still a plan.  If the city resurfaces 100 miles of asphalt this year, it is part of a plan.  

Every time the question of multifaceted transport comes up you say that someone is "forcing their lifestyle" on you.  But I'm sure you realize every time the city makes a long term traffic decision it is forcing someone's lifestyle on someone else.  Your lifestyle has been crammed down this city's throat since the early 60's.  Are you so sensitive to anyone else being allowed to have access to transportation dollars and infrastructure that you cry foul at the smallest hint of non-car transit?  

Answer the question: Density before transit?  Or transit before density?  And don't chicken out with a "I'd rather have unlimited sprawl that somehow still includes a truly senseless transit package that takes no one to nowhere" (see LA, Houston, and Pheonix).

[Big E]

Monorail.

Monorail.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

Streets, please remain a loyal and effective advocate for this.

It's not a question of loyalty, but yes, I will definitely always be an advocate for smart and balanced transportation.

I have to say, in terms of popularity trends, I commend you for being able to say the same thing as I would and not be called an elitist. You're like the "likeable" version of me; after too many years of futile forum debating, and now combined with the reality of our world, apparently my online persona comes off as "mean" or "holier-than-thou" to the Dancing-with-the-Stars-watching set.

I understand feeling the pressure of "faster please" when communicating the significance and need for really deep and permanent changes to Omaha's urban and suburban streets.  Please communicate what those streets should look like.

I have. For many, many years. And for many years, everyone said "sure, you say it should look like that, but what are you going to do about it?" So, what did I do? I took on those problems by getting a master's degree in urban and regional planning, so I can be part of the solution to these problems---something I don't think anyone else on this forum has done, to my knowledge. Now, what do we have? I start sharing actual knowledge---things that are widely accepted by the top minds in many fields, across the spectrum of the academic, public, and private sectors in addition to planning---and what am I?

I'm an elitist.

This is exactly why our country is going NOWHERE.

Now can we talk about transportation, please.

The main question that we face is this: If we build transit will density come, or do we build density so that we can have transit?  Discuss.

We've been talking about transportation this whole time. In response to that question, historically, we have chosen neither.

The point of this thread is that now we are finally choosing both.

[joeglow]

Zilla, wow, your coworkers are pretty lame if they would laugh you out of the accounting department for that.

Spoken like someone who has not been in the real world and has ZERO idea of how business works.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

No idea how business works? I know exactly how it works in this instance. In this country, the burden of transportation is placed on the employee (because businesses have no other option most of the time), and in a culture where everyone is expected to buy into the government subsidized auto-industry, those who do not choose to own a car or who are unwilling or unable to waste most of their money on car ownership are discriminated against by those few simple words in a job description: "must have access to reliable transportation".

I'm not saying that this is private business's fault, but it's just another facet of the lameness of our country.

[MrM]

The lameness of our country???  Move .  

[Zilla]

I have to say, in terms of popularity trends, I commend you for being able to say the same thing as I would and not be called an elitist. You're like the "likeable" version of me; after too many years of futile forum debating, and now combined with the reality of our world, apparently my online persona comes off as "mean" or "holier-than-thou" to the Dancing-with-the-Stars-watching set.

Amazing how many people actually listen when you actually talk to them and not down to them.  And pardon me, but "the Dancing-with-the-Stars-watching set?"  So you've sunk to outright insults?  Brilliant.  I can't imagine why you would come off as "mean" or "holier-than-thou."  :roll:

I have. For many, many years. And for many years, everyone said "sure, you say it should look like that, but what are you going to do about it?" So, what did I do? I took on those problems by getting a master's degree in urban and regional planning, so I can be part of the solution to these problems---something I don't think anyone else on this forum has done, to my knowledge. Now, what do we have? I start sharing actual knowledge---things that are widely accepted by the top minds in many fields, across the spectrum of the academic, public, and private sectors in addition to planning---and what am I?

I'm an elitist.

This is exactly why our country is going NOWHERE.

Oh Good God...It's our fault for not accepting your obnoxious condescension and arrogance and not simply bowing to your brilliance?  Get over yourself.  If everyone pushing your ideals discusses them like you, then you guys have nobody to blame but yourselves.  Globochem showed that these things can be discussed with level heads.  If this is so important to you I really don't understand why it's so hard for you to do the same.

No idea how business works? I know exactly how it works in this instance. In this country, the burden of transportation is placed on the employee (because businesses have no other option most of the time), and in a culture where everyone is expected to buy into the government subsidized auto-industry, those who do not choose to own a car or who are unwilling or unable to waste most of their money on car ownership are discriminated against by those few simple words in a job description: "must have access to reliable transportation".

I'm not saying that this is private business's fault, but it's just another facet of the lameness of our country.

*facepalm*  If you understand this fact than why did you make such a big issue out of what I said earlier.  Discrimination?  That's a little dramatic.  That's like saying "Must be able to lift 50lbs" discriminates against those who do not choose or are unable to work out more.

[almighty_tuna]

So, about that transportation plan...

Let's move back on topic.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

Zilla, I'll keep this short: Everything you just said is totally wrong and lacking in any truth.

MrM, my fiancee and I very well may. There is any number of countries out there that are far superior to the US in innumerable ways. Right now the question I'm grappling with is, do I stay here and try to help sift through the wreckage of our current train-wreck existence, or do I go to a country whose citizens get life?

Tuna, we've been on topic this whole time.  :)

[bluecollartechworker]

I'd like to see some language or even some action in recognizing or making some major trails like the Keystone and Big Papio as options for some people to commute when the weather is okay like spring and fall.  TD Ameritrade is one example of a major employer right on a trail.  Some people live right along those trails or along adjacent streets.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

It seems like the plan and the projects list are chock full of that kind of language and (eventual) actions, which is a really great thing!

[iamjacobm]

I'd like to see some language or even some action in recognizing or making some major trails like the Keystone and Big Papio as options for some people to commute when the weather is okay like spring and fall.  TD Ameritrade is one example of a major employer right on a trail.  Some people live right along those trails or along adjacent streets.

I thought I remembered reading that the new TD building will have indoor bike parking and showers for bike commuters(so they could get LEED certification).  I would think they would encourage people to take advantage of that.

Having the city get more information out about the convince of the bike trails is a great idea.  

[S33]

Zilla, I'll keep this short: Everything you just said is totally wrong and lacking in any truth.

MrM, my fiancee and I very well may. There is any number of countries out there that are far superior to the US in innumerable ways. Right now the question I'm grappling with is, do I stay here and try to help sift through the wreckage of our current train-wreck existence, or do I go to a country whose citizens get life?

Tuna, we've been on topic this whole time.  :)

Yeah, we have such miserable lives here. I know I grew up starving, covered in maggots and horseflies while witnessing para-military forces raid our villages, rape our women and murder any resistance. Not to mention, watching everyone you grew up knowing slowly dying from various preventable disease.

No, we have no life here.

Been trying my hardest to ignore you, fwiw.

[mrdwhsr]

Oooh, low blow!

Globochem's response was well stated, to be sure (and thanks again for articulating those thoughts so thoroughly).

But none of what he said is anything that hasn't been stated over and over (by me and others) on this forum over the years. These are the rudiments of 21st Century existence and a basic understanding of these concepts is critical; a lack of understanding of these issues is inexcusable and cause for ridicule in this day and age.

It seems people are always expecting me to play this role of educator on the forum, and they see me as being harsh or over-critical when I respond in a frank manner to certain forum posts. As if this forum is the place where world-views are magically changed and altered through well thought out and articulate forum responses. I have wasted too many hours on those over the years... only to have someone like mrdhsw insinuate that I don't "state my case that well".

In our current world, ignorance is a choice. It's hard to get somebody to choose to not be ignorant. Facts and information are a mouse-click away. If being an educator means dumbing down reality, I'm not going to play that game; at least not here.

Painful? Yes. Low blow? I really don't think I had to insinuate anything.

You are oblivious, ignorant, and clueless, and I don't know if any amount of knowledge anyone could ever try to impart on you will ever change that.

Is this how you respond in a frank manner? Is this how you state your case well? I cannot understand how someone whose cause is supposedly for the benefit of people can care more about the cause than they care about people.

I am not confused about your obvious disrespect for anyone who might disagree with you. However, given that disrespect, whatever knowledge you are trying to impart will not be accepted.

If you do not want to play the role of "educator" on the forum, then please stop any attempt to impart knowledge. You will only confuse your readers.

Enough invective.

[Melissa]

I'd like to see some language or even some action in recognizing or making some major trails like the Keystone and Big Papio as options for some people to commute when the weather is okay like spring and fall.  TD Ameritrade is one example of a major employer right on a trail.  Some people live right along those trails or along adjacent streets.

I thought I remembered reading that the new TD building will have indoor bike parking and showers for bike commuters(so they could get LEED certification).  I would think they would encourage people to take advantage of that.

Having the city get more information out about the convince of the bike trails is a great idea.  

My company has locker rooms/showers and an indoor bike rack.  It definitely helps with the logistics of biking to work and I'm certain my coworkers appreciate that I'm not smelly all day.

[omaja]

There is any number of countries out there that are far superior to the US in innumerable ways. Right now the question I'm grappling with is, do I stay here and try to help sift through the wreckage of our current train-wreck existence, or do I go to a country whose citizens get life?

Can we put a halt on the melodrama?  The grass is always greener on the other side.  But in reality, most of those countries are saddled with massive debt issues, unheard of institutional corruption, or any other number of similar issues we have in this country.  And where their infrastructure is better, they are paying considerably more in taxes to support it.

Should we be paying more collectively to support the quality of life we want?  Certainly.  Not sure that necessarily qualifies as a "train-wreck existence",  especially if we are talking infrastructure.  Though they are aging and in need of reinvestment, our road, rail and air transportation networks are the largest and most comprehensive in the world.  Considering how massive they are and the relatively small population, it's a miracle we haven't fallen further behind than we already have.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

The grass is always greener on the other side.  But in reality, most of those countries are saddled with massive debt issues, unheard of institutional corruption, or any other number of similar issues we have in this country.  And where their infrastructure is better, they are paying considerably more in taxes to support it.

Well, precisely. They have many of the same fiscal and political negatives that the US has, yet still manage to have better infrastructure (which also means better kinds of infrastructure) and a higher quality of life for all of their citizens. And yes, to be sure, we are largely talking about European examples, but the US is being outstripped just the same by many countries in South America and Asia... places that just a decade or two ago were considered part of the Third World. But I'm going even beyond infrastructure to include a sense of cultural and societal identity. We don't have one in the US. For decades and decades we've blown smoke up our own |expletive| and anointed ourselves "the greatest country in the world" and thought that all we needed to do was throw a bunch of freedom at our citizens and *POOF* you have a national identity, and it's "freedom" (the idea of which has become such a conflated mess that we can't get anything done). Now we're seeing that that brings a dizzying amount of negative societal consequences, and we're a little dumbstruck by this.

Melissa, that is great! I'm very curious where you work, if you don't mind saying on the forum. I've found that showering before a bike commute and then just "freshening up" a bit once you arrive at your job works out totally fine. However, a business that offers showers/changing/locker facilities makes bike-commuters' lives even better by giving them the option to just "roll out of bed" and shower and get ready at work.

[omaja]

Well, precisely. They have many of the same fiscal and political negatives that the US has, yet still manage to have better infrastructure (which also means better kinds of infrastructure) and a higher quality of life for all of their citizens.

It isn't that they "manage" to have better infrastructure, there is very much a direct correlation between the amount of money that European citizens pay in taxes towards infrastructure maintenance and capital expenditure and the quality of that infrastructure.  If we were taxed at similar rates across the board, we'd see a considerable increase in the quality of our infrastructure.

The rest of that paragraph you wrote really has nothing at all to do with the topic at hand, though.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

here is very much a direct correlation between the amount of money that European citizens pay in taxes towards infrastructure maintenance and capital expenditure and the quality of that infrastructure.  If we were taxed at similar rates across the board, we'd see a considerable increase in the quality of our infrastructure.

Haha, well again I say, PRECISELY! Americans just haven't come to understand (and maybe never will) that good infrastructure and a healthy, happy populace (you know, a functioning society) don't just appear out of nowhere. In general, Europeans see the nexus between the high taxes they pay, and the incredibly high quality of the built environment from which they benefit every day of their lives. Especially in places like France, there's a real sense that the government serves the people (obviously there's still political debate on the subject), whereas in America too many people see government as the problem (and frankly, it is... or at least one facet of the problem... another facet being many of the ignorant |expletive| morons that inhabit our overgrown country) and nobody has any faith that government can get anything done for them (which is true, they can't) or that government will not "waste" their money on programs that don't pertain to them.

[jessep28]

If some sort of beltway around Omaha actually comes to life, hopefully the project doesn't stall after part of it has been constructed and become a system like you see in Denver.

http://www.mesalek.com/colo/denvers470.html

[joeglow]

whereas in America too many people see government as the problem (and frankly, it is... or at least one facet of the problem... another facet being many of the ignorant |expletive| morons that inhabit our overgrown country) and nobody has any faith that government can get anything done for them (which is true, they can't) or that government will not "waste" their money on programs that don't pertain to them.

Imagine if a country was actually founded on that premise.

[Garrett]

If some sort of beltway around Omaha actually comes to life, hopefully the project doesn't stall after part of it has been constructed and become a system like you see in Denver.

http://www.mesalek.com/colo/denvers470.html

The reason it stalled is because Golden refused to have it destroy their city, and that has paid off well for them. Had Golden had no objections, 470 would be done.

[bigredmed]

It stalled for the same reason that Dundee and Underwood refused to let I 480 blow through those parts of the town to connect to Dodge by memorial park.

Imagine what Omaha would look like if I480 got built the way it was supposed to.

Sometimes highways are good and sometimes not so much.