Highway Funding Debate

[StreetsOfOmaha]

How in God's name is this a "priority project" when our state's facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transit users remain substandard and laughable?

Is the current bridge not structurally sound? If it needs to be replaced, why not just replace it; does it need to be expanded? Has there ever been true congestion on that bridge or in that corridor?

$137 million dollars, with the justification of "spurring economic development." But what kind of economic development? Gas stations and motels? Who stands to benefit from this, and who will bear the burden of the negative externalities?

Man, can you imagine what Omaha could do with $137 million dollars to spend on quality, sustainable transportation projects that actually improve the quality of life of its citizens and the livability of its neighborhoods?

But, no. The Nebraska DOR highway-construction-job-machine continues to spit out new status quo highway projects, lining the pockets of their cronies in the highway construction industry, and flagrantly ignoring the true needs of the citizens of the cities and towns of the state--choosing to stand still, or worse, step backward, as other states move ahead toward complete streets and sustainable transportation initiatives.

[fbx]

How in God's name is this a "priority project" when our state's facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transit users remain substandard and laughable?

Is the current bridge not structurally sound? If it needs to be replaced, why not just replace it; does it need to be expanded? Has there ever been true congestion on that bridge or in that corridor?

$137 million dollars, with the justification of "spurring economic development." But what kind of economic development? Gas stations and motels? Who stands to benefit from this, and who will bear the burden of the negative externalities?

Man, can you imagine what Omaha could do with $137 million dollars to spend on quality, sustainable transportation projects that actually improve the quality of life of its citizens and the livability of its neighborhoods?

But, no. The Nebraska DOR highway-construction-job-machine continues to spit out new status quo highway projects, lining the pockets of their cronies in the highway construction industry, and flagrantly ignoring the true needs of the citizens of the cities and towns of the state--choosing to stand still, or worse, step backward, as other states move ahead toward complete streets and sustainable transportation initiatives.

This is a project that I support. Highway 75 in our area is in shambles. The only bridges we have around the area is the Bellevue and Plattsmouth toll bridges. Both cannot sustain heavy traffic and it is almost impossible for truck traffic to get to these 2 bridges. This project will actually cut down on traffic going to Omaha just to head east on 80 or south on 29. Our trucks will be using the new bridge all the time and so will MANY other people.

It makes me angry everytime that there is a new construction project and people complain just because it doesn't affect them. Also, you make it sound as if NDOR is not even touching Omaha with any road projects. I'm not sure what you are talking about because my company has been replacing bridges all over Omaha.

You make me sick to even think everyone in the construction industry is corrupt.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

As I said, is this corridor congested?

How would this project not affect me? It affects all Nebraskans (and I hope to move back).

And what does it matter if your company has been replacing bridges all over Omaha? What kind of bridges are these?

Also, how can you contort what I said into "everyone in the construction industry is corrupt?" How absurd.

---

I submitted my last comment to the OWH public pulse. We'll see if it appears.

[fbx]

As I said, is this corridor congested?

How would this project not affect me? It affects all Nebraskans (and I hope to move back).

And what does it matter if your company has been replacing bridges all over Omaha? What kind of bridges are these?

Also, how can you contort what I said into "everyone in the construction industry is corrupt?" How absurd.

---

I submitted my last comment to the OWH public pulse. We'll see if it appears.

It is very congested, especially during rush hour. A lot of people that work in Omaha, Bellevue, and the Offutt Air Force Base live south of the Platte River.

Once again, you made it sound like nothing has been done construction wise around Omaha and NDOR doesn't care. To name a few bridges, Pacific Street over I680, all the bridges in the I480-E/US75 split, the Bob Kerrey Pedestrian Bridge, and the South Omaha Bridge for US92. Also, NDOR is not responsible for roads that aren't US or State highways/interstate. All of the other roads in Omaha is their responsibility.

And I quote:

lining the pockets of their cronies in the highway construction industry

[StreetsOfOmaha]

My only point is that, I don't see the case for constructing this project--"spurring economic development"--as being justified, and I believe that the money could be much better spent on transportation projects that improve quality of life, not just seemingly serving the sole purpose of sustaining the highway construction industry.

I'm specifically talking about the new Hwy 34 bridge over the Missouri River. Is it congested? Are all those workers who live south of the Platte somehow also commuting to or from Iowa, causing congestion?

Furthermore, and I'm sure this sounds like pure blasphemy to many, our leadership (if you can call it that) has to have the balls to quit expanding highway infrastructure, allowing highways to become congested, and, at the same time, investing in more efficient, more sustainable transportation alternatives that will become more appealing as highways become more congested.

If the trucking industry is concerned with congestion, let them pay to expand the infrastructure (I know, the trickle down of costs... blah blah blah), or, god forbid, let some of that traffic be recaptured by the rail freight industry, who should be updating and expanding their capacity to compete with trucking.

[fbx]

My only point is that, I don't see the case for constructing this project--"spurring economic development"--as being justified, and I believe that the money could be much better spent on transportation projects that improve quality of life, not just seemingly serving the sole purpose of sustaining the highway construction industry.

I'm specifically talking about the new Hwy 34 bridge over the Missouri River. Is it congested? Are all those workers who live south of the Platte somehow also commuting to or from Iowa, causing congestion?

Furthermore, and I'm sure this sounds like pure blasphemy to many, our leadership (if you can call it that) has to have the balls to quit expanding highway infrastructure, allowing highways to become congested, and, at the same time, investing in more efficient, more sustainable transportation alternatives that will become more appealing as highways become more congested.

If the trucking industry is concerned with congestion, let them pay to expand the infrastructure (I know, the trickle down of costs... blah blah blah), or, god forbid, let some of that traffic be recaptured by the rail freight industry, who should be updating and expanding their capacity to compete with trucking.

The current bridge for Hwy 34 over the Missouri is very old and narrow. And the route to get to it through Plattsmouth is not very pretty. It has a sufficiency rating that is less than what the Minneapolis bridge that collapsed had.

The trucking industry does pay for the roads more than the average driver. We have to pay fuel tax at the pump and for each mile we drive in another state even if we didn't buy fuel there. If anything, I believe that people driving cars should have to do the exact same thing. That would definitely help some of the budget problems.

Rail has expanded and it definitely carries more than what it did 10 years ago. But, there is only so much you can haul on rail. Like the stuff we haul, concrete panels for buildings, bridge girders all the way up to 195ft long, concrete batch plants, and other misc. items can never touch a rail car.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

So, that was part of my initial point; if the bridge truly needs to be replaced, fine, but where is the justification for expanding it? Can't we replace it with a reasonably wide, two-lane bridge with a right-of-way for pedestrians and bicyclists? I can't imagine traffic is ever bad enough in that corridor to justify lane expansions. There's just this attitude that every time we rebuild our highway infrastructure, we have to expand it, too.

And I certainly agree with you that there should be more direct fees to private motorists to pay for these infrastructure projects.

[fbx]

So, that was part of my initial point; if the bridge truly needs to be replaced, fine, but where is the justification for expanding it? Can't we replace it with a reasonably wide, two-lane bridge with a right-of-way for pedestrians and bicyclists? I can't imagine traffic is ever bad enough in that corridor to justify lane expansions. There's just this attitude that every time we rebuild our highway infrastructure, we have to expand it, too.

And I certainly agree with you that there should be more direct fees to private motorists to pay for these infrastructure projects.

The expansion is to cut down on the traffic going to the Bellevue and Plattsmouth toll bridges. The approach to these 2 bridges takes you through residential and other narrow areas that can't accommodate extra traffic and semi-trucks.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

But what "extra traffic?" And how is proximity to I-29 and I-80 not enough for all these semis? Why is there so much semi traffic that needs to cross the river in this area anyway?

[nebugeater]

Streets,  you need to get out more and see the whole state

[omaja]

How in God's name is this a "priority project" when our state's facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transit users remain substandard and laughable?

Because the state is not responsible for the pedestrian and bicycle amenities along city streets; the cities themselves are.  Anything that isn't I-80, I-480, I-680, US-75, US-6 or the handful of Nebraska state highways that cross through Omaha is the responsibility of the city.  Public transit is also more of a local city/county/metro area issue than it is a state-wide one.  Especially considering the vast areas of the state which will never be able to support meaningful public transit.

But what "extra traffic?" And how is proximity to I-29 and I-80 not enough for all these semis? Why is there so much semi traffic that needs to cross the river in this area anyway?

Omaha is growing, you know.  And if you haven't driven on I-80 or I-29 recently, the fact that they are pretty saturated in the immediate area is most certainly part of the issue and not the solution.  Too much of the region's freeway network is solely concentrated on these two routes.  I-80 carried over 75,000 vehicles per day across the four-lane Missouri River bridge in 2008.  Similarly, the I-80/I-29 duplex in Council Bluffs had a maximum traffic count of 85,000 vehicles per day in 2008 with only four lanes.

Combining those high traffic volumes with a significant proportion of it being truck traffic, not to mention taking into account traffic projections as the area grows, and there is a real need to disperse traffic across different routes.  A southerly freeway-grade Missouri River bridge would take pressure off I-80 and I-29 by removing local traffic bound for Bellevue and other southern/western metro suburbs from the I-80, Bellevue and Plattsmouth bridges.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

Streets,  you need to get out more and see the whole state

What do you know about it? I've been all over Nebraska, and Plattsmouth has been one of my favorite weekend getaways for about half a decade (while I was living in Omaha, of course).

---

Omaja, part of the NDOR's mandate is to assist and work with state agencies and MPOs to improve public transportation options.
http://www.nebraskatransportation.org/d ... ail-pt.pdf

In addition, the NDOR (which is a total misnomer -- that organization needs to be brought out of the dark ages) is also highly involved in initiatives such as Safe Routes to School and Rails to Trails, and the state's bicycle and pedestrian coordinator (whose name I could not find) works within the DOR.
http://www.saferoutesne.com/

Though you wouldn't know it from their name, their responsibilities extend far beyond highway management and construction--at least they're supposed to.

Perhaps our focus should be on getting more private, single-occupant motor vehicles off the I-80 and I-29 corridors, and making those corridors more efficient (zip lanes, HOV lanes, tolls, etc.).

The solution is not always "build more roads" as has been the maxim and creed of state highway officials for the last 60 years.

The point is simply that I don't see the justification for such a costly project right now. With our state livilbility, and indeed that of our nation, totally in the tank in terms of active, sustainable, environmentally-friendly and city-friendly transportation alternatives, it would seem our priorities continue to be misplaced and continue to be based on a value system that is outdated and obsolete.

[omaja]

Omaja, part of the NDOR's mandate is to assist and work with state agencies and MPOs to improve public transportation options.
http://www.nebraskatransportation.org/d ... ail-pt.pdf

With zero mention of giving any sort of funding to those public transportation improvements.  That still rests with local agencies.

In addition, the NDOR (which is a total misnomer -- that organization needs to be brought out of the dark ages) is also highly involved in initiatives such as Safe Routes to School and Rails to Trails, and the state's bicycle and pedestrian coordinator (whose name I could not find) works within the DOR.
http://www.saferoutesne.com/

Though you wouldn't know it from their name, their responsibilities extend far beyond highway management and construction--at least they're supposed to.

Highly involved?  Seems like you're giving them too much credit.  It is a federally-funded program coordinated by someone out of an architecture firm.

I do agree that NDOR needs to be renamed NDOT.

Perhaps our focus should be on getting more private, single-occupant motor vehicles off the I-80 and I-29 corridors, and making those corridors more efficient (zip lanes, HOV lanes, tolls, etc.).

The solution is not always "build more roads" as has been the maxim and creed of state highway officials for the last 60 years.

It's a bit of a wash, though, considering that you cannot do any of the above (especially wholesale tolling or HOV/HOT lanes) without expanding I-80 and I-29 anyway.  You cannot convert general purpose lanes into HOV/HOT lanes and routes that receive federal funds are expressly prohibited from being tolled (with the few exceptions which were grandfathered into the system).

The point is simply that I don't see the justification for such a costly project right now. With our state livilbility, and indeed that of our nation, totally in the tank in terms of active, sustainable, environmentally-friendly and city-friendly transportation alternatives, it would seem our priorities continue to be misplaced and continue to be based on a value system that is outdated and obsolete.

Most would disagree with you.  Regional transportation is a bit different.  Spending this money on bike lanes or somesuch "active, sustainable, environmentally-friendly and city-friendly transportation alternatives" won't do anything do fix the deficiencies in regional transportation capacity.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

Well, then there's really not too much more to say. I disagree with you and most about the justification of this project and the so called "traffic and congestion" in that corridor, and many of the things you say we can't do (for whatever reason), I would argue that there are ways, whether through local, state, or federal conduits.

For instance, I have never heard of anything that would indicate this to be true:

It's a bit of a wash, though, considering that you cannot do any of the above (especially wholesale tolling or HOV/HOT lanes) without expanding I-80 and I-29 anyway.

And if this is true, it would represent a major policy flaw that needs to be changed:

You cannot convert general purpose lanes into HOV/HOT lanes and routes that receive federal funds are expressly prohibited from being tolled (with the few exceptions which were grandfathered into the system).

We're definitely in agreement that we need a DOT, not a DOR. And perhaps "highly involved" was the wrong word choice; the point is they need to put their money where their mouth is and stop jerking everyone around, staying one thing and doing another.

[omaja]

Well perhaps you ought to do some more research into how roads work in this country.  :;):

Converting existing general purpose lanes for HOV/HOT usage is generally not allowed because it has shown to adversely affect the remaining general purpose lanes with little or no positive overall outcome.  They tried it on I-10 in Santa Monica and it was met with an overwhelmingly negative response: more accidents, more congestion.  Transit and carpooling were up, but that did not compensate for the loss in capacity.  And that was on a route that has a lower truck-to-car ratio than I-80/I-29.

http://www.nevadadot.com/uploadedFiles/ ... eqsHOV.pdf
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/information/ ... _sec10.pdf
And so on.

Similarly, any Interstate that is a tollway was either a toll road before the Interstate system or somehow got an exemption (very rare) to be included.  In either case, they are ineligible for federal funding.

You would have to invest probably 10x the amount of the new Missouri River crossing to construct the public transit infrastructure needed to significantly reduce local traffic utilizing I-80, for example.  The solution to everything isn't always more bicycles, more pedestrian access, more rail, and so on.  Highways are necessary, too.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

How has it shown to adversely affect the remaining general purpose lanes??? And what is this "little or no positive overall outcome" you speak of?

The I-10/Santa Monica example doesn't seem to prove or retort anything you or I have said. Yep, there was congestion. Yep, there was an increase in transit-use and carpooling. Even if, as you say, "that did not compensate for the loss in capacity," that doesn't mean HOV/HOT lanes are the wrong strategy. I have serious doubts as to whether the necessary improvements of transit, bicycling/pedestrian facilities, etc. were in place. And if they were in place, and all that congestion wasn't enough to get people out of their cars, then what's it going to take?

Thanks for providing those two examples. I just glanced over them as I don't have time at the moment to devour these two reports. Would you be able to make a specific citation that explains how these sorts of solutions aren't permissible on highways using federal funds? I really am interested. As mentioned, if this is the case, it represents a major policy flaw that needs to be corrected.

You would have to invest probably 10x the amount of the new Missouri River crossing to construct the public transit infrastructure needed to significantly reduce local traffic utilizing I-80, for example.

I didn't hear you mention a problem there... was I supposed to?  :;):

(Also, that estimate is probably extremely inaccurate; see Portland as an example of what can be done with less than the cost it would take to redo a major highway interchange)

[omaja]

How has it shown to adversely affect the remaining general purpose lanes??? And what is this "little or no positive overall outcome" you speak of?

It is in the report from driver's complaints, accident reports, etc.  I-10 went from four general purpose lanes in each direction to three plus one HOV lane.  Squeezing a higher percentage of traffic into three lanes versus four led to more accidents which meant increasingly more congestion.  No matter how you slice it there was a reduction in general purpose lane capacity; the point of HOV/HOT lanes is to augment that capacity, not replace it.

The I-10/Santa Monica example doesn't seem to prove or retort anything you or I have said. Yep, there was congestion. Yep, there was an increase in transit-use and carpooling. Even if, as you say, "that did not compensate for the loss in capacity," that doesn't mean HOV/HOT lanes are the wrong strategy. I have serious doubts as to whether the necessary improvements of transit, bicycling/pedestrian facilities, etc. were in place. And if they were in place, and all that congestion wasn't enough to get people out of their cars, then what's it going to take?

The short answer: a heck of a lot more than the $137 million we're quibbling about over a bridge that will help to disperse traffic across the area.

Thanks for providing those two examples. I just glanced over them as I don't have time at the moment to devour these two reports. Would you be able to make a specific citation that explains how these sorts of solutions aren't permissible on highways using federal funds? I really am interested. As mentioned, if this is the case, it represents a major policy flaw that needs to be corrected.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/tollroad.cfm

It isn't that HOV/HOT and tolling are prohibited entirely, it is the conversion of already-present general purpose lanes to HOV/HOT that is not generally allowed.  Which is why you would either have to convert the inner shoulder of I-80 (generally discouraged especially for roads wider than three lanes each direction) or expand the road to accommodate the HOV/HOT capacity.  And ostensibly Interstates are not tolled because they are already paid for by taxpayers.  Not exactly the entire picture, but that is the logic.

You would have to invest probably 10x the amount of the new Missouri River crossing to construct the public transit infrastructure needed to significantly reduce local traffic utilizing I-80, for example.

I didn't hear you mention a problem there... was I supposed to?  :;):

(Also, that estimate is probably extremely inaccurate; see Portland as an example of what can be done with less than the cost it would take to redo a major highway interchange)

Yeah, the problem being that none of that is politically or economically feasible right now.  We have people ready to strip infrastructure dollars to bare bones and you're suggesting we spend a considerable amount more on city/metro-wide public transportation to remove commuters from I-80?  That makes no sense whatsoever.  It would take far, far more than $137 million to put a dent in the commuting traffic patterns along I-80 to free up capacity for regional traffic.  Not to mention that does nothing to provide more access across the Missouri.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

So drivers' complaints and more accidents (which is hard to believe given increased congestion on the remaining three lanes) are proof that this project was a failure? Where's the data?

The real measure of success would be how many people did begin using transportation alternatives; how much carbon emissions and other negative environmental impacts where mitigated; how much healthier those who decided not to drive became; how many less buildings were torn down for surface parking lots; etc.

Purported driver complaints and accident reports, though they need to be taken into account, are not the measure of success. Leave those concerns to the traffic engineers.

From the link you posted, most of it (almost all in fact) pertains to original Federal Highways legislation from the middle of the 20th Century -- completely outdated today. The one quote I could find that had anything to do with the present day is this one...

Federal funds were used to build interchanges between toll-free Interstates and Interstate turnpikes. However, under Section 113 (c) of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, the State highway agency and toll authority had to first enter into an agreement to use all toll revenue to pay for debt retirement, maintenance, and operation, after which toll collection would end.

But it then goes on to say this...

Over the years, Federal law has changed, allowing the States to request cancellation of those agreements.

...disproving, it would seem, your assertion that tolls and HOV/HOT lanes can't be implemented on Federally funded highways (which is pretty much all highways...).

As for your last point, I'm not arguing that the money from this project, if reallocated to sustainable transportation projects, would be enough to affect commuter levels on I-80/I-29. I'm just questioning the shaky justification for this project, which just seems like more status quo from the DOR.

The priorities are mixed up. How can we, collectively as a society, justify $137 million for this Hwy 34 bridge project -- using all of our tax dollars to help semis get from I-29 to I-80 easier -- when that money could be going toward projects that actually have the capacity to improve our quality of life and the attractiveness of Omaha to outsiders (namely young, creative, intelligent people).

During times of economic hardship, it is more important than ever to have our priorities straight.

[S33]

I can't believe I'm going to say this, but I kind of agree with Streets. I think the project is a bit larger in scale than necessary. I drive hwy 75 every single day, to and from work, and never experience congestion that isn't easily manageable. However, I do think the toll bridge needs to be replaced.

And spurring economic development? How is rerouting traffic outside of the core of your city (their main business district and the majority of their locally owned businesses) ever a good thing for the town?

[omaja]

So drivers' complaints and more accidents (which is hard to believe given increased congestion on the remaining three lanes) are proof that this project was a failure? Where's the data?

The real measure of success would be how many people did begin using transportation alternatives; how much carbon emissions and other negative environmental impacts where mitigated; how much healthier those who decided not to drive became; how many less buildings were torn down for surface parking lots; etc.

Purported driver complaints and accident reports, though they need to be taken into account, are not the measure of success. Leave those concerns to the traffic engineers.

All of that is irrelevant when public and political opinion are stacked against the project.  It was a failure because the HOV lane was reverted to a general purpose one.

From the link you posted, most of it (almost all in fact) pertains to original Federal Highways legislation from the middle of the 20th Century -- completely outdated today. The one quote I could find that had anything to do with the present day is this one...

Federal funds were used to build interchanges between toll-free Interstates and Interstate turnpikes. However, under Section 113 (c) of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, the State highway agency and toll authority had to first enter into an agreement to use all toll revenue to pay for debt retirement, maintenance, and operation, after which toll collection would end.

But it then goes on to say this...

Over the years, Federal law has changed, allowing the States to request cancellation of those agreements.

...disproving, it would seem, your assertion that tolls and HOV/HOT lanes can't be implemented on Federally funded highways (which is pretty much all highways...).

I have never asserted that HOV/HOT lanes cannot be implemented on federally funded highways.  I was explaining that you cannot reduce general purpose lanes in order to institute HOV/HOT lanes.  And if you are bent on not increasing overall capacity, that is exactly what you would be trying to do.  Moreover, you are not going to find the political or public will to ever institute wholesale tolling of routes like I-80 now.  The tolled sections that do exist are holdovers from before the Interstate system.  New construction Interstates can be submitted to be tolled so if NDOR were to propose I-880 to loop around Omaha and wanted to toll it, that would be more feasible.  If you want to add tolls or HOV/HOT lanes to I-80, you will have to maintain current general purpose capacity to have any hope of the project winning support.

As for your last point, I'm not arguing that the money from this project, if reallocated to sustainable transportation projects, would be enough to affect commuter levels on I-80/I-29. I'm just questioning the shaky justification for this project, which just seems like more status quo from the DOR.

The priorities are mixed up. How can we, collectively as a society, justify $137 million for this Hwy 34 bridge project -- using all of our tax dollars to help semis get from I-29 to I-80 easier -- when that money could be going toward projects that actually have the capacity to improve our quality of life and the attractiveness of Omaha to outsiders (namely young, creative, intelligent people).

During times of economic hardship, it is more important than ever to have our priorities straight.

Diverting heavy truck traffic and redistributing local traffic which will reduce congestion on I-80/I-29 doesn't improve the quality of life in a city that is very auto-dependent?  I do understand where you are coming from.  I just don't see why this is an either-or issue.  The bridge needed to be replaced.  I-80 and I-29 will only be able to be expanded so much.  We need to be investing more in infrastructure, not redistributing the little we have.

And spurring economic development? How is rerouting traffic outside of the core of your city (their main business district and the majority of their locally owned businesses) ever a good thing for the town?

I'm not sure if this was directed at me because I don't recall saying anything to that effect?  But through traffic isn't going to have much of an impact on the main business district and locally owned businesses, anyway.  Rerouting through traffic is a good thing because it frees that capacity for local traffic.

[S33]

I'm not sure if this was directed at me because I don't recall saying anything to that effect?  But through traffic isn't going to have much of an impact on the main business district and locally owned businesses, anyway.  Rerouting through traffic is a good thing because it frees that capacity for local traffic.

No, it wasn't directed at anyone in particular, I just keep hearing that is will spur economic activity, and I think their downtown area, as off-the-beaten-path as it is, needs as much exposure as possible from passers by.

Again, there just isn't much traffic from the bridge at all, so a little extra traffic in their downtown area seems like a good thing to me. Perhaps I'm just grabbing straws here, but I think the project is a big large in scale.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

Well, look at that, S33! I appreciate it.  :;):

Omaja, you seem to find proof in the fact that there was negative political and public sentiment to that project, and the fact that the HOV lane was reverted back to general purpose (if these things you say are true). While it may be easy to accept these at face value as proof of failure, I don't think they are the measures by which to gauge success, as I mentioned.

Also...

...routes that receive federal funds are expressly prohibited from being tolled...

...that sounds like a pretty strong assertion to me.

Also, everything you have said and have cited uses qualifying terms like "generally," "usually," and "with rare exceptions" etc. I have yet to see the actual policy that says "thou shalt not convert general purpose lanes to HOV/HOT/toll lanes" and/or "thou shalt not create a toll route on a federally funded highway" (which, as mentioned, is pretty much all highways).

Much of what you have said seems to be your opinion -- which of course is fine, unless it's an opinion of whether or not a policy actually exists -- the policy either exists or it doesn't, which I still haven't seen any actual evidence of. Additionally, as I have said all along, the provision of this evidence (if indeed it does exist) would in no way retort what I am proposing, but rather would represent a policy flaw in need of remedy.

What I'm arguing has nothing to do with increasing or decreasing capacity on the highways. If people actually do behave differently as a result of HOT/HOV/toll lanes by carpooling (creating higher capacity on the facility), then great. But I am concerned with providing alternatives to automobile travel that are better for people, cities, and the environment. In my opinion, this means, as I said, having the balls to allow highways to be congested while simultaneously providing stellar transportation alternatives.

If a person is given every opportunity in the world to walk, bike, or take public transportation (the facilities for which would all be of attractive, modern, first-world quality) and still chooses to take the car and sit in dirty, smelly, polluting congestion going nowhere, well... good for that person. Somebody should probably hit him or her over the head with a tack-hammer because he or she is a retard (just a Tommy Boy reference; not trying to ruffle feathers ).

[omaja]

Omaja, you seem to find proof in the fact that there was negative political and public sentiment to that project, and the fact that the HOV lane was reverted back to general purpose (if these things you say are true). While it is easy to accept these as proof at face value, I don't think they are the measures by which to gauge success, as I mentioned.

Errr... accident rates skyrocketed, complaints rose sharply, and congestion was made worse.  The reasons for failing are multiple (horrible execution, bad marketing,.  Doesn't change the fact that converting a general purpose lane to HOV failed miserably there and in other instances.  HOV/HOT lanes can be successful.  They usually have not been in trials of general purpose-to-HOV conversions.

...routes that receive federal funds are expressly prohibited from being tolled...

...that sounds like a pretty strong assertion to me.

Also, everything you have said and have cited uses qualifying terms like "generally," "usually," and "with rare exceptions" etc. I have yet to see the actual policy that says "thou shalt not convert general purpose lanes to HOV/HOT/toll lanes" and/or "thou shalt not create a toll route on a federally funded highway" (which, as mentioned, is pretty much all highways).

Much of what you have said seems to be your opinion -- which of course is fine, unless it's an opinion of whether or not a policy actually exists, which I still haven't seen any actual evidence of. Additionally, as I have said all along, the provision of this evidence (if indeed it does exist) would in no way retort what I am proposing, but rather would represent a policy flaw that needs remedying.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2001/rpt/2001-R-0878.htm
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index. ... s_sta.html
http://transportation.nationaljournal.c ... te-hig.php
And so on and so on.

Google is your friend.

The reason why I say generally and usually is because there exist some exceptions, but the general rule is no tolling on federally funded highways.

Where would I come up with the "opinion" that highways cannot be tolled?  It isn't an opinion, it is a fact of legislation.  Personally I think tolling--especially fully automated, electronic tolling like EZ-Pass--is a great idea.  Is it worth the political gamble and public scrutiny to attempt tolling major routes that are currently free? Not so sure about that, especially in a state like Nebraska that has no tollways to speak of.

What I'm arguing has nothing to do with increasing or decreasing capacity on the highways. If people actually do behave differently as a result of HOT/HOV/toll lanes by carpooling (creating higher capacity on the facility), then great. But I am concerned with providing alternatives to automobile travel that are better for people, cities, and the environment. In my opinion, this means, as I said, having the balls to allow highways to be congested while simultaneously providing stellar transportation alternatives.

That's great.  What I am arguing is that it is considerably more expensive and it is political suicide to allow auto infrastructure to become congested like that when none of the other stuff exists.  You need to have the public transportation infrastructure in place BEFORE that happens.  That requires investing considerably more into infrastructure.

If a person is given every opportunity in the world to walk, bike, or take public transportation (the facilities for which would all be of attractive,  modern, first-world quality) and still chooses to take the car and sit in dirty, smelly, polluting congestion going nowhere, well... good for that person. Somebody should probably hit him or her over the head with a tack-hammer because he or she is a retard (just a Tommy Boy reference; not trying to ruffle feathers ).

I would agree.  That sounds wonderfully ideal.  Problem is it is little more than that.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

Thanks for providing those. I found this one, too - straight from the horse's mouth:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/fact_sheets ... ograms.htm

Looks like you are right. I see that there is inexplicably still a general prohibition on tolling sections of the interstate highway system. As I've mentioned, that is a major policy flaw that I hope will be eradicated in the next transportation bill.

Over the years there have been many exceptions made. Most importantly for this discussion, is that it would be totally permissible for the Hwy 34 bridge to remain a toll bridge (or, had it not already been a toll bridge, for it to be converted to a toll bridge...for that matter).

Furthermore, I am interested by this provision:

Under Section 166(c) of Title 23, States may impose tolls on HOV lanes, both Interstate and non-Interstate, for the purpose of allowing vehicles that do not meet the established occupancy requirements to use HOV facilities.

So, what would prevent the installation of HOV lanes on I-80? Then they could be converted to HOT lanes under this provision.

A roadway like the West Dodge Expressway, or the North Freeway and Kennedy Freeways could definitely be converted to tolls under the current policy.

You need to have the public transportation infrastructure in place BEFORE that happens.  That requires investing considerably more into infrastructure.

This is what I've been saying all along. Apologies if that hasn't been clear. But I do think there is a chicken/egg relationship here; i.e. the general populous isn't likely to seek the benefits of improved alternatives unless the current highways are allowed to become congested. The problem is that when a highway gets congested, Jane and Joe Shmoe will almost always vote for more highways (since they're unaware of triple convergence) rather than improving the stupid, dirty public transit system that "other people" use (not "them"). This is where leadership and education come into play.

So, given your sentiment from that last quote of yours, I can assume you support reallocating highway funding to transportation alternatives? Since we have to get that infrastructure in place before there is congestion and all... right?  :yes:

[omaja]

Furthermore, I am interested by this provision:

Under Section 166(c) of Title 23, States may impose tolls on HOV lanes, both Interstate and non-Interstate, for the purpose of allowing vehicles that do not meet the established occupancy requirements to use HOV facilities.

So, what would prevent the installation of HOV lanes on I-80? Then they could be converted to HOT lanes under this provision.

A roadway like the West Dodge Expressway, or the North Freeway and Kennedy Freeways could definitely be converted to tolls under the current policy.

That is why I brought in the example of I-10 in Santa Monica.  HOV/HOT lanes would definitely work on I-80 or Dodge or the North or Kennedy freeways.  The problem is that would necessarily require expanding those freeways.  I haven't found evidence of a successful conversion of current general purpose lanes into HOV/HOT; not to say there hasn't been one... I've just never heard of it.  This specific provision only revolves around HOV-to-HOT conversions (which some freeways in LA, DC, Miami, etc. are undergoing) which do not affect general purpose lanes.

So, given your sentiment from that last quote of yours, I can assume you support reallocating highway funding to transportation alternatives? Since we have to get that infrastructure in place before there is congestion and all... right?  :yes:

I support increased spending on infrastructure in its totality.  Our roads are horrendous and our public transportation is horrendous.  Taking any money and reallocating it to the other won't solve the problem long-term.  We've been underfunding infrastructure for a very long time as it is.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

HOV/HOT lanes would definitely work on I-80 or Dodge or the North or Kennedy freeways.  The problem is that would necessarily require expanding those freeways.

This is where I'm not sure what you mean. Do you just think it would require expanding those freeways, or is that a federal requirement? I just want to understand this in the most clear way.

I do think we fundamentally disagree in the way are defining "success" in evaluating these schemes -- most likely due to differences in what we see as being the goals of such schemes.

I can CERTAINLY agree with your last statement (but with policy and societal priorities). And yet, somehow many people expect to be able to cut taxes and spending and not turn into a third world country.

For the last meeting of my urban and metropolitan transportation class last night, we had Tom Kearney with Federal Highways join us as a guest lecturer/presenter. This guy is the |expletive| -- a total guru in terms of transportation policy, research, technology, and implementation at the Federal Level. I am going to try to sit down with him soon, if not communicate through e-mail, to get the hard facts from him as to what these policies really are, and what the justifications are behind them.

[omaja]

HOV/HOT lanes would definitely work on I-80 or Dodge or the North or Kennedy freeways.  The problem is that would necessarily require expanding those freeways.

This is where I'm not sure what you mean. Do you just think it would require expanding those freeways, or is that a federal requirement? I just want to understand this in the most clear way.

Whether it is de jure I don't know; it is de facto how DOTs have been operating, however.  Conversions of general purpose lanes into HOV/HOT have failed in the past and so what you see is that the vast majority of HOV/HOT implementations were expansions of the freeways.  Given Omaha's current and near-future transportation options (read: nonexistent), it would be virtually impossible to garner any type of public or political support for HOV/HOT lanes if that meant decreasing general purpose capacity.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

Again, I don't believe we agree on the parameters of "failure" in this context.

My guess is that it is de facto, which would leave the door wide open for initiatives like this.

I don't see any reason, regardless of "political" feasibility, that general purpose lanes could not be converted to HOV/HOT lanes as part of a policy initiative at the MPO/DOT(DOR) level to get people to drive less, carpool, and use transportation alternatives that are healthier for them (and cities and the environment).

As a side note, is this project really costing more than the West Dodge Expressway? I was trying to look back to see how much the WDE cost, and the only figure I could find was $102 million. Is that accurate? If so, how in the world is this project costing so much?

Also, maybe I've asked this before, but how was the WDE funded? Was there any kind of vote involved? Thanks to anyone with information.

[Brad]

As a side note, is this project really costing more than the West Dodge Expressway? I was trying to look back to see how much the WDE cost, and the only figure I could find was $102 million. Is that accurate? If so, how in the world is this project costing so much?

I believe the $102 million figure was only for the I680 to 128th Street section of the WDE.  This project is much larger than that.

[omaja]

Again, I don't believe we agree on the parameters of "failure" in this context.

How else would you define a project that converted a general purpose lane to HOV and then ended up reverting the lane back to its original configuration as general purpose?  That sounds like a pretty objective definition of a failed experiment.  They weren't spending thousands of dollars to restripe lanes just because they felt like having some fun.

My guess is that it is de facto, which would leave the door wide open for initiatives like this.

I don't see any reason, regardless of "political" feasibility, that general purpose lanes could not be converted to HOV/HOT lanes as part of a policy initiative at the MPO/DOT(DOR) level to get people to drive less, carpool, and use transportation alternatives that are healthier for them (and cities and the environment).

If we're speaking theoretically, then yes, there is nothing technical or engineering-related which would inhibit conversions.  But removing the political hesitations and public opinion aspects from the equation is really a nonstarter.  You will be hard-pressed to convince anyone that they should be tolled more to drive on roads that their taxes have already paid for.  The better solution would be to simply increase registration and other fees and index gas taxes to inflation.

As I think about it now, there may be certain laws (especially in California) which prohibit conversion of general purpose lanes.  Though I can't find where I read that at the moment.

s a side note, is this project really costing more than the West Dodge Expressway? I was trying to look back to see how much the WDE cost, and the only figure I could find was $102 million. Is that accurate? If so, how in the world is this project costing so much?

Also, maybe I've asked this before, but how was the WDE funded? Was there any kind of vote involved? Thanks to anyone with information.

If I had to guess, the difference in cost is a result of the logistics of a bridge crossing a major river being substantially more complex than building an overpass.  The Missouri River bridge will have to be quite a bit taller to provide enough clearance for boats while the supports will likely extend much deeper into soil around/in the riverbed.

Regarding funding, because of Dodge's designation as U.S. 6, I believe it was 80-90 percent federal and 10-20 percent state/local matching like other national routes.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

How else would you define a project that converted a general purpose lane to HOV and then ended up reverting the lane back to its original configuration as general purpose?  That sounds like a pretty objective definition of a failed experiment.

I am saying that the driving paradigm behind those decisions is based on the wrong goals and measures of success. If you accept this premise, it doesn't matter whatsoever that the lanes were converted back to general purpose. Indeed, it confirms the flawed paradigm. Of course, you are obviously at liberty to reject that premise for whatever reason as the happy motorist that you seem to be.

You will be hard-pressed to convince anyone that they should be tolled more to drive on roads that their taxes have already paid for.  The better solution would be to simply increase registration and other fees and index gas taxes to inflation.

And what if I mean to convince them that, as their taxes have already paid for the highways, they should now be tolled to help mitigate the unintended negative consequences of their transportation mode choice?

Regarding funding, because of Dodge's designation as U.S. 6, I believe it was 80-90 percent federal and 10-20 percent state/local matching like other national routes.

I could be wrong, but I don't believe the Feds have done the 90-10 funding split with the states since the original defense highway act in the 50s.

Thanks for the insights, Brad.

[omaja]

How else would you define a project that converted a general purpose lane to HOV and then ended up reverting the lane back to its original configuration as general purpose?  That sounds like a pretty objective definition of a failed experiment.

I am saying that the driving paradigm behind those decisions is based on the wrong goals and measures of success. If you accept this premise, it doesn't matter whatsoever that the lanes were converted back to general purpose. Indeed, it confirms the flawed paradigm. Of course, you are obviously at liberty to reject that premise for whatever reason as the happy motorist that you seem to be.

I am not a "happy motorist" but rather more realistic about the implementation of certain types of transportation.  If the increase in transportation usage did not offset the decrease in general purpose capacity, there was simply no reason to maintain that setup just to prove a point.  We're talking about the real world, not academic theory.

You will be hard-pressed to convince anyone that they should be tolled more to drive on roads that their taxes have already paid for.  The better solution would be to simply increase registration and other fees and index gas taxes to inflation.

And what if I mean to convince them that, as their taxes have already paid for the highways, they should now be tolled to help mitigate the unintended negative consequences of their transportation mode choice?

I'd just say good luck with that.

I could be wrong, but I don't believe the Feds have done the 90-10 funding split with the states since the original defense highway act in the 50s.

They most certainly have.  I think it varies from project to project, however.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

I am not a "happy motorist" but rather more realistic about the implementation of certain types of transportation.

Oh, are you?

If the increase in transportation usage did not offset the decrease in general purpose capacity, there was simply no reason to maintain that setup just to prove a point.

Do you have the transit ridership numbers? Why is the solution automatically to revert the HOT/HOV lanes back to general purpose? Why not put more effort into improving the alternatives? And again, what was the policy objective in the first place (as I said, I'm questioning the goals and the ethos behind them).  

We're talking about the real world, not academic theory.

You're goddamn right we're talking about the real world. That's why I take these matters very seriously.

[omaja]

I am not a "happy motorist" but rather more realistic about the implementation of certain types of transportation.

Oh, are you?

Oh, yes, I am.  My commutes have ranged from 15-mile car journeys to 5-10 minute walks to 35 minute Metro rides to 1-hour combination bus/rail routes, and just about anything in between.  There are positives and negatives of each.  At any rate, calling me a "happy motorist" does not validate your point of view; I do not currently own a car and my commute is a five minute walk.

The point I was making is that this $100+ million that you originally said should be used for public transportation/biking/pedestrian infrastructure is a drop in the bucket.  It provides much more value as a fourth freeway-grade Missouri River crossing for the metro area than the 3-4 miles of light rail (or whatever other use) it would be able to build.  At the end of the day we are talking about investing and expanding in an area that is and will continue growing.  Where's all of the outcry at the utterly wasteful projects in rural central and western Nebraska with their rapidly declining populations?

If the increase in transportation usage did not offset the decrease in general purpose capacity, there was simply no reason to maintain that setup just to prove a point.

Do you have the transit ridership numbers? Why is the solution automatically to revert the HOT/HOV lanes back to general purpose? Why not put more effort into improving the alternatives? And again, what was the policy objective in the first place (as I said, I'm questioning the goals and the ethos behind them).  

The mere fact that they did revert it demonstrates that it did not provide a net-positive effect; the goal of the project was presumably to increase the amount of carpooling and transit usage while simultaneously decreasing congestion.  Carpooling and transit usage did not reach levels (whatever levels they were) that were greater than the negative impact that the loss of a general purpose lane caused.  Regardless of numbers, if that weren't true the Santa Monica would still have two HOV and six general purpose lanes.  All of the costs associated with continuing the experiment (increased overall congestion, under-use of the lane, lack of funds for improving alternatives, public outcry, political pressure, etc.) were simply too high.  Some of that cannot be quantified by numbers alone.

We're talking about the real world, not academic theory.

You're goddamn right we're talking about the real world. That's why I take these matters very seriously.

In what world does it make sense to continue something that is producing net negative effects just for the sake of proving a point?  If anything it just shows that the investment in alternative transportation methods needs to occur before such radical changes to our current infrastructure are put in place.  Any other way and we would strangle the economy and people's lives along with it.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

The point I was making is that this $100+ million that you originally said should be used for public transportation/biking/pedestrian infrastructure is a drop in the bucket.  It provides much more value as a fourth freeway-grade Missouri River crossing for the metro area than the 3-4 miles of light rail (or whatever other use) it would be able to build.  At the end of the day we are talking about investing and expanding in an area that is and will continue growing.

$137 million is not a drop in the bucket, and many meaningful complete streets projects could be implemented that would actually benefit the citizens of Omaha where they live with that kind of money. And what's more, how can you say that that area will continue to grow? Growth focuses where infrastructure is put in place to attract and sustain it. That's why transportation has a drastic, visible effect on the form our cities take.

The mere fact that they did revert it demonstrates that it did not provide a net-positive effect... All of the costs associated with continuing the experiment (increased overall congestion, under-use of the lane, lack of funds for improving alternatives, public outcry, political pressure, etc.) were simply too high.

It demonstrates nothing, and I can't believe you have such faith in the infallibility of the highway officials who were taking those decisions. The truth is, you don't know what their policy goals were, and you don't know what the net effect was. Furthermore, is one year (since that's the timeframe you've indicated) really enough time for this "experiment" (since that's the term you've used) to pan out and get stubborn Americans out of their cars, even if there are suitable alternatives?

We also don't know the context of these policy decisions. Perhaps the highway designers and policy-makers were facing pressures from environmental and transit/bike/pedestrian advocate organizations, and reluctantly agreed to go forward with the experiment -- and were ready to declare failure and revert to general purpose at the first glint of something that could be construed as a "net-negative effect."

We don't know. You don't know.

[omaja]

You're the one filling the history with a ton of conjecture to try and prove some point that really need not be proven.  Caltrans did want it to work (as it would have presumably allowed them to ease congestion while spending more money on maintenance and other expansions) but it backfired substantially so that they have had a policy going forward of adding HOV capacity as opposed to repurposing current lane capacity.  If you don't believe me (and it seems as though you wouldn't even believe it if the whole of California were telling you the same thing), do your own research into the I-10 Santa Monica "Diamond Lanes", as they were called.  Your anti-road agenda runs far deeper than my desire to demonstrate that I-10 represents a failed HOV project.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

Pretty much everything you have said about I-10 has been conjecture. No conjecture here. Just pointing out that there's no way of knowing the true motives of the decision-makers.

Plus, we disagree on the definitions of failure/success, negative/positive, so there's probably not going to be any resolution between our viewpoints.

[omaja]

No, my story comes from several articles and discussions about the subject.  On the other hand, you seem intent on rewriting what actually happened into some sort of conspiracy on the part of highway officials to feed into the never-ending cycle of auto-centric development and over-reliance on foreign oil.  It would behoove you to look into the details of that particular situation before passing sweeping judgments and basing inaccurate conclusions on what appears to be generalized academic theory.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

Haha. Well, if the articles said it, then it must be so.

You're choosing to ignore the point I'm making -- that there's no way of knowing what truly drove the decisions, and that regardless of what articles and discussions you saw, you truly know as little as I do about the details of that project.

I'm not passing sweeping judgments, and it doesn't behoove me to look into |expletive| in this particular instance.

[omaja]

No, I'm not ignoring it; I just think it is irrelevant.  You're trying to inject nonsense conjecture into the discussion.

But back to Nebraska and the project at hand. I will be glad to see a fourth freeway-grade Missouri River crossing in the area.  I-80/I-480 work great for the core with I-680 anchoring the north, so it is only fitting that there should be a southerly one to match.