Omaha Downtown/Midtown Transit Alternatives Analysis

Trains, Planes, and Automobiles (and Streetcars!).

Moderators: Coyote, nebugeater, Brad, Omaha Cowboy, BRoss

Post Reply
User avatar
Coyote
City Council
Posts: 32940
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2003 11:18 am
Location: Aksarben Village
Contact:

Omaha Downtown/Midtown Transit Alternatives Analysis

Post by Coyote »

City transit study proposed
Rick Ruggles WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER wrote:The options consultants would consider, assuming the study is done, include more bus service, faster bus service, streetcars, a combination of improvements or no change at all. Simon said the analysis will examine service from about 10th Street to the University of Nebraska Medical Center along a narrow corridor bounded by Harney Street on the south and possibly Dodge Street, three blocks to the north.  A public hearing on the matter is expected at the council's June 21 meeting and, tentatively, a vote at the June 28 meeting.
The proposed study can be found here: Omaha Downtown/Midtown Transit Alternatives Analysis
User avatar
iamjacobm
City Council
Posts: 10377
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 6:52 am
Location: Chicago

Post by iamjacobm »

I would think(or at least hope) the study will show this area is ripe for better mass transit.
HuskerDave
Library Board
Posts: 348
Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 12:24 pm
Location: West-central Omaha

Post by HuskerDave »

I definitely think it's appropriate to reevaluate the bus routes.  There are parts of the city that aren't well served.  I know when I worked with people who had gotten driving suspensions, that much of west Omaha has no bus service at all.  For these people who worked more than a mile or two from home, it was a real inconvenience.

I still think streetcars are a nonstarter though.  They are huge wastes of tax money, lack the flexibility of busses, and usually bring along political corruption when it comes to planning their locations.
User avatar
Seth
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1437
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Ford Birthsite Neighborhood

Post by Seth »

More talk, no action; can you detect my excitement?
bigredmed
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1897
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 12:45 pm
Location: Omaha Metro Area

Post by bigredmed »

Yeah, let's spend a million to study whether busses or other public transpo will work in the primary area of the city where its already working.   Wonder how to improve it?  Look at the vast areas of town that have little or no coverage.
Professor Woland
Library Board
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 8:28 pm
Location: Omaha Metro Area

Post by Professor Woland »

The best way to deal with transit is to free it up.  Rather than a city owned/chartered/whatever bus company, allow the market to determine the extent to which buses, or trains (highly unlikely here), or street cars are needed.  The problem with public transit systems is that, like any other centrally planned endeavor, they assume that the planners have all the specific knowledge necessary to adequately serve the wants/needs of the public.  Maybe we need more buses, maybe we need fewer full sized buses and more large vans which could operate under a number of business models.  Decentralized decision making allows for flexibility and dynamism.  You want better mass transit, free it up.
omaja
Library Board
Posts: 264
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 7:43 pm
Location: Boston

Post by omaja »

Professor Woland wrote:The best way to deal with transit is to free it up.  Rather than a city owned/chartered/whatever bus company, allow the market to determine the extent to which buses, or trains (highly unlikely here), or street cars are needed.  The problem with public transit systems is that, like any other centrally planned endeavor, they assume that the planners have all the specific knowledge necessary to adequately serve the wants/needs of the public.  Maybe we need more buses, maybe we need fewer full sized buses and more large vans which could operate under a number of business models.  Decentralized decision making allows for flexibility and dynamism.  You want better mass transit, free it up.
Can you name a city in the entire country that operates successfully under such a privatized model?  Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single one.

The real challenge comes once this study is completed.  Omaha's leaders love to commission these "studies" only to sit on the information until it is far outdated and useless.  Let's hope they actually do something with the information (high-frequency service along major corridors, expanded rush hour service, more intra-suburban routes, etc.).
Professor Woland
Library Board
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 8:28 pm
Location: Omaha Metro Area

Post by Professor Woland »

omaja wrote:
Professor Woland wrote:The best way to deal with transit is to free it up.  Rather than a city owned/chartered/whatever bus company, allow the market to determine the extent to which buses, or trains (highly unlikely here), or street cars are needed.  The problem with public transit systems is that, like any other centrally planned endeavor, they assume that the planners have all the specific knowledge necessary to adequately serve the wants/needs of the public.  Maybe we need more buses, maybe we need fewer full sized buses and more large vans which could operate under a number of business models.  Decentralized decision making allows for flexibility and dynamism.  You want better mass transit, free it up.
Can you name a city in the entire country that operates successfully under such a privatized model?  Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single one.

The real challenge comes once this study is completed.  Omaha's leaders love to commission these "studies" only to sit on the information until it is far outdated and useless.  Let's hope they actually do something with the information (high-frequency service along major corridors, expanded rush hour service, more intra-suburban routes, etc.).
No one has successfully tried it because no one has tried it period.  Hong Kong and Tokyo both come closer than any American city and they do okay (though still not where they need to be.)  There is a common misconception that most people fall into, which is that if authority were placed in the "correct" hands great things would happen.  What tends to happen is that no matter how smart, learned, and well intentioned the people in charge are the best they can ever accomplish is to make things slightly less screwed up, typically the more involved they get the more screwed up things become though.  Even if the brightest new urbanist theorists were completely empowered to enact any projects they deemed appropriate and given whatever resources they could possibly want, upon completion things would only improve to the extent that they more closely resembled the aesthetic ideals of the planners themselves.

Now one can object that as various layers of government are heavily involved in transit and planning decisions it would be better if they more rationally allocated resources.  In this spirit transit studies and the implementation of their suggestions might well produce a benefit over current allocations.  I have no problem with this, if transit needs are going to be provided by a monopolist, better the monopolist get the best read on things that it can, no matter how imperfect that is.  But if one wanted a bold approach, freeing things up would, I think, provide a much better and more efficient outcome.  In a world where we are left to settle for third and fourth best outcomes if we're lucky, I think that those who would seek to improve things through the non-consensual sector need to tread carefully, lest hubris get the better of them, making bold moves a bit more dangerous.

As to the specifics that the consultants will consider it is my view that making the existing transit model better would be preferable to trying to greatly expand it.  I think that streetcars would likely end up as an expensive vanity project serving a limited number of people at great cost, though I am willing to admit I might be wrong about this.
Dusty
Human Relations
Posts: 531
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 10:53 pm
Location: Central Florida

Post by Dusty »

This study seems to be a waste of money. Omaha is notorious for spending money on studies on then sitting on their hands. Plus, a study to evaluate downtown and midtown only seems silly. Why not do the study for the whole city.

Ideally, we need something to connect the downtown areas and midtown crossing. Vintage streetcars would be cool and is attractive to visitors. Although, it may be more cost effective to run shuttle buses instead. Maybe we can run Olley the trolley cars in the routes of a potential streetcar until we can find out if streetcars are worth the cost.

We also need a better way to connect west omaha with downtown. A light rail would be great IF done right. I suggest running the rail from the airport to Qwest center and continues on Cuming st until Saddle Creek. Then it heads north to the NW radial highway and works its way to Benson. At that point it can head on Maple St all the way until 168th. Place various parking garages along for park and ride stations. This would allow people out west to go downtown without their car for work or play. Of course....this all cost money!

Until then, we need to rework the bus routes to accommodate west omaha and make the bus system more acceptable. Scrap the spaghetti network of bus routes and work on a grid system like the city. Have buses run north-south and east-west. And drop the transfer fees from bus to bus.
User avatar
Coyote
City Council
Posts: 32940
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2003 11:18 am
Location: Aksarben Village
Contact:

Post by Coyote »

I just think that with all the new jobs available DT/MT/UNMC and all the new residences DT/MT/UNMC in the past 5 - 10 years Omaha has to look at alternative transit  opportunities. I just hope that take it serious this time because of these developments.
mrdwhsr
Library Board
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:51 pm
Location: Omaha Metro Area

Post by mrdwhsr »

HuskerDave wrote:I definitely think it's appropriate to reevaluate the bus routes.  There are parts of the city that aren't well served.  I know when I worked with people who had gotten driving suspensions, that much of west Omaha has no bus service at all.  For these people who worked more than a mile or two from home, it was a real inconvenience.

I still think streetcars are a nonstarter though.  They are huge wastes of tax money, lack the flexibility of busses, and usually bring along political corruption when it comes to planning their locations.
Please provide details on the "political corruption when it comes to planning their locations". There must be plenty of documentation from Portland, Seattle, Denver, Salt Lake City, San Diego, Charlotte NC, Phoenix, Tucson, New Orleans, Tampa...


The bus operates on streets designed for motor-vehicles with better suspension, handling, acceleration....and what flexibility? When the street fills with cars the bus is stuck in the same traffic jams. Scheduled service? What schedule?
User avatar
Omababe
Planning Board
Posts: 2470
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 9:47 am
Contact:

Post by Omababe »

Professor Woland wrote:TRather than a city owned/chartered/whatever bus company, allow the market to determine the extent to which buses, or trains (highly unlikely here), or street cars are needed.
OMG no! A for-profit company would cherry-pick the few profitable routes and leave the rest of the city unserved!

Privatization is not a one-size-fits-all solution for every problem. There are some things which do quite well in the public sector. A good example, and I'm still surprised to see this, is that most of the utilities in Nebraska are public. The service is great and rates are reasonable. I would much rather have OPPD and MUD than Con Ed (AKA Brownouts R Us) or Keyspan (nee' Brooklyn Union Gas). Around here, outages are few and far between and when they happen it's due to a storm or some idiot hitting a power pole, not an overload or infrastructure failure. I daresay most people reading this don't even know what a brownout is, and you can thank OPPD for it! The management of our utilities answer to us, the users, and not the investors. (Geesh! Evil Librul OPPD!)

But back to Omaha transit. To get people to use it, it has to be more convenient and less expensive than the private car. ("Nobody's gonna drive on this freeway when they can take the Red Car for a nickel!") It will also take some time, as in the better part of a generation, to adjust the mindset, should convenient and reasonably-priced transit ever appear here.
User avatar
Swift
Planning Board
Posts: 2904
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 2:13 pm
Location: NYC

Post by Swift »

What they should do is come up with a contract that privatizes public transit for a limited amount of time (say 15 years), then after that time, the city agrees to buy back the system at market value. That would encourage the private company to turn the system into an efficient and logical one, and make it as affordable to run as possible, while making it as popular as possible.


Then again, since there is no market for such a thing, there would be no market value. :chin scratch:
Professor Woland
Library Board
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 8:28 pm
Location: Omaha Metro Area

Post by Professor Woland »

Omababe wrote:
Professor Woland wrote:TRather than a city owned/chartered/whatever bus company, allow the market to determine the extent to which buses, or trains (highly unlikely here), or street cars are needed.
OMG no! A for-profit company would cherry-pick the few profitable routes and leave the rest of the city unserved!

Privatization is not a one-size-fits-all solution for every problem. There are some things which do quite well in the public sector. A good example, and I'm still surprised to see this, is that most of the utilities in Nebraska are public. The service is great and rates are reasonable. I would much rather have OPPD and MUD than Con Ed (AKA Brownouts R Us) or Keyspan (nee' Brooklyn Union Gas). Around here, outages are few and far between and when they happen it's due to a storm or some idiot hitting a power pole, not an overload or infrastructure failure. I daresay most people reading this don't even know what a brownout is, and you can thank OPPD for it! The management of our utilities answer to us, the users, and not the investors. (Geesh! Evil Librul OPPD!)

But back to Omaha transit. To get people to use it, it has to be more convenient and less expensive than the private car. ("Nobody's gonna drive on this freeway when they can take the Red Car for a nickel!") It will also take some time, as in the better part of a generation, to adjust the mindset, should convenient and reasonably-priced transit ever appear here.
Well, I'm not for phony privatization (where the government licenses its monopoly to a contractor or small group of contractors) I'm for removing the government from the equation alltogether.  As for underserved areas, what ends up happening is that users in busier areas pay more to subsidize users in less profitable areas.  Now, when we look at brownouts it's important to remember that even where there is ostensibly private power companies, you are still dealing with a highly state managed industry (in a massive number of ways.)  As bad as publicly provided things are compared to what a free society would provide, mixed models, like the power systems in most of the country are worse.  I would bet my right leg that an actual free model in energy would greatly outperform OPPD.
User avatar
Swift
Planning Board
Posts: 2904
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 2:13 pm
Location: NYC

Post by Swift »

Professor Woland wrote:
Omababe wrote:
Professor Woland wrote:TRather than a city owned/chartered/whatever bus company, allow the market to determine the extent to which buses, or trains (highly unlikely here), or street cars are needed.
OMG no! A for-profit company would cherry-pick the few profitable routes and leave the rest of the city unserved!

Privatization is not a one-size-fits-all solution for every problem. There are some things which do quite well in the public sector. A good example, and I'm still surprised to see this, is that most of the utilities in Nebraska are public. The service is great and rates are reasonable. I would much rather have OPPD and MUD than Con Ed (AKA Brownouts R Us) or Keyspan (nee' Brooklyn Union Gas). Around here, outages are few and far between and when they happen it's due to a storm or some idiot hitting a power pole, not an overload or infrastructure failure. I daresay most people reading this don't even know what a brownout is, and you can thank OPPD for it! The management of our utilities answer to us, the users, and not the investors. (Geesh! Evil Librul OPPD!)

But back to Omaha transit. To get people to use it, it has to be more convenient and less expensive than the private car. ("Nobody's gonna drive on this freeway when they can take the Red Car for a nickel!") It will also take some time, as in the better part of a generation, to adjust the mindset, should convenient and reasonably-priced transit ever appear here.
Well, I'm not for phony privatization (where the government licenses its monopoly to a contractor or small group of contractors) I'm for removing the government from the equation alltogether.  As for underserved areas, what ends up happening is that users in busier areas pay more to subsidize users in less profitable areas.  Now, when we look at brownouts it's important to remember that even where there is ostensibly private power companies, you are still dealing with a highly state managed industry (in a massive number of ways.)  As bad as publicly provided things are compared to what a free society would provide, mixed models, like the power systems in most of the country are worse.  I would bet my right leg that an actual free model in energy would greatly outperform OPPD.
I've lived under two private energy companies (PGE in California and Con Edison here in NYC), both had/have the same service (with worse customer service) as OPPD at much more expensive rates than OPPD.
mrdwhsr
Library Board
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:51 pm
Location: Omaha Metro Area

Post by mrdwhsr »

Omababe wrote:"Nobody's gonna drive on this freeway when they can take the Red Car for a nickel!"
Never expected to see this quote in the eOmaha. Remarkable!

Too bad LA didn't keep the Red Cars around. All that right-of-way would have saved millions in building out the new light-rail system.
Professor Woland
Library Board
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 8:28 pm
Location: Omaha Metro Area

Post by Professor Woland »

Swift wrote:
Professor Woland wrote:
Omababe wrote:
Professor Woland wrote:TRather than a city owned/chartered/whatever bus company, allow the market to determine the extent to which buses, or trains (highly unlikely here), or street cars are needed.
OMG no! A for-profit company would cherry-pick the few profitable routes and leave the rest of the city unserved!

Privatization is not a one-size-fits-all solution for every problem. There are some things which do quite well in the public sector. A good example, and I'm still surprised to see this, is that most of the utilities in Nebraska are public. The service is great and rates are reasonable. I would much rather have OPPD and MUD than Con Ed (AKA Brownouts R Us) or Keyspan (nee' Brooklyn Union Gas). Around here, outages are few and far between and when they happen it's due to a storm or some idiot hitting a power pole, not an overload or infrastructure failure. I daresay most people reading this don't even know what a brownout is, and you can thank OPPD for it! The management of our utilities answer to us, the users, and not the investors. (Geesh! Evil Librul OPPD!)

But back to Omaha transit. To get people to use it, it has to be more convenient and less expensive than the private car. ("Nobody's gonna drive on this freeway when they can take the Red Car for a nickel!") It will also take some time, as in the better part of a generation, to adjust the mindset, should convenient and reasonably-priced transit ever appear here.
Well, I'm not for phony privatization (where the government licenses its monopoly to a contractor or small group of contractors) I'm for removing the government from the equation alltogether.  As for underserved areas, what ends up happening is that users in busier areas pay more to subsidize users in less profitable areas.  Now, when we look at brownouts it's important to remember that even where there is ostensibly private power companies, you are still dealing with a highly state managed industry (in a massive number of ways.)  As bad as publicly provided things are compared to what a free society would provide, mixed models, like the power systems in most of the country are worse.  I would bet my right leg that an actual free model in energy would greatly outperform OPPD.
I've lived under two private energy companies (PGE in California and Con Edison here in NYC), both had/have the same service (with worse customer service) as OPPD at much more expensive rates than OPPD.
As I explained in my post, the energy industry is heavily entwined with the state.  In such a situation you do get worse service at higher price.  Putting something in private hands doesn't magically make it better, but if a company is forced to compete and the competition is completely open service improves and prices decline.  You don't see that in energy.  I would also rather have a publicly owned power company than a private one with all of the disincentives to perform that are so common in the energy industry.  You are describing a neo-mercantilist model I favor a freed up model.  It would work for energy, it would work for transportation.
User avatar
Swift
Planning Board
Posts: 2904
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 2:13 pm
Location: NYC

Post by Swift »

Professor Woland wrote:
Swift wrote:
Professor Woland wrote:
Omababe wrote:
Professor Woland wrote:TRather than a city owned/chartered/whatever bus company, allow the market to determine the extent to which buses, or trains (highly unlikely here), or street cars are needed.
OMG no! A for-profit company would cherry-pick the few profitable routes and leave the rest of the city unserved!

Privatization is not a one-size-fits-all solution for every problem. There are some things which do quite well in the public sector. A good example, and I'm still surprised to see this, is that most of the utilities in Nebraska are public. The service is great and rates are reasonable. I would much rather have OPPD and MUD than Con Ed (AKA Brownouts R Us) or Keyspan (nee' Brooklyn Union Gas). Around here, outages are few and far between and when they happen it's due to a storm or some idiot hitting a power pole, not an overload or infrastructure failure. I daresay most people reading this don't even know what a brownout is, and you can thank OPPD for it! The management of our utilities answer to us, the users, and not the investors. (Geesh! Evil Librul OPPD!)

But back to Omaha transit. To get people to use it, it has to be more convenient and less expensive than the private car. ("Nobody's gonna drive on this freeway when they can take the Red Car for a nickel!") It will also take some time, as in the better part of a generation, to adjust the mindset, should convenient and reasonably-priced transit ever appear here.
Well, I'm not for phony privatization (where the government licenses its monopoly to a contractor or small group of contractors) I'm for removing the government from the equation alltogether.  As for underserved areas, what ends up happening is that users in busier areas pay more to subsidize users in less profitable areas.  Now, when we look at brownouts it's important to remember that even where there is ostensibly private power companies, you are still dealing with a highly state managed industry (in a massive number of ways.)  As bad as publicly provided things are compared to what a free society would provide, mixed models, like the power systems in most of the country are worse.  I would bet my right leg that an actual free model in energy would greatly outperform OPPD.
I've lived under two private energy companies (PGE in California and Con Edison here in NYC), both had/have the same service (with worse customer service) as OPPD at much more expensive rates than OPPD.
As I explained in my post, the energy industry is heavily entwined with the state.  In such a situation you do get worse service at higher price.  Putting something in private hands doesn't magically make it better, but if a company is forced to compete and the competition is completely open service improves and prices decline.  You don't see that in energy.  I would also rather have a publicly owned power company than a private one with all of the disincentives to perform that are so common in the energy industry.  You are describing a neo-mercantilist model I favor a freed up model.  It would work for energy, it would work for transportation.
Good point. Each system is primarily a monopoly of the region in which it operates, which is why they all suck so bad.
omaja
Library Board
Posts: 264
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 7:43 pm
Location: Boston

Post by omaja »

Professor Woland wrote:As for underserved areas, what ends up happening is that users in busier areas pay more to subsidize users in less profitable areas.
Quite frankly, that is just wishful thinking unless the government mandates it.  A private company will not maintain underperforming or loss-making routes simply because it looks pretty on a map or is good for the community.  For example, if Metro could make more money running 5-minute shuttles along Dodge than its entire North Omaha network, you better believe that North Omaha network would be toast the minute Metro is privatized.
HuskerDave
Library Board
Posts: 348
Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 12:24 pm
Location: West-central Omaha

Post by HuskerDave »

omaja wrote:
Professor Woland wrote:As for underserved areas, what ends up happening is that users in busier areas pay more to subsidize users in less profitable areas.
Quite frankly, that is just wishful thinking unless the government mandates it.  A private company will not maintain underperforming or loss-making routes simply because it looks pretty on a map or is good for the community.  For example, if Metro could make more money running 5-minute shuttles along Dodge than its entire North Omaha network, you better believe that North Omaha network would be toast the minute Metro is privatized.
I believe that was his point.
omaja
Library Board
Posts: 264
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 7:43 pm
Location: Boston

Post by omaja »

He has been arguing for privatization, not against it.
Professor Woland
Library Board
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 8:28 pm
Location: Omaha Metro Area

Post by Professor Woland »

omaja wrote:
Professor Woland wrote:As for underserved areas, what ends up happening is that users in busier areas pay more to subsidize users in less profitable areas.
Quite frankly, that is just wishful thinking unless the government mandates it.  A private company will not maintain underperforming or loss-making routes simply because it looks pretty on a map or is good for the community.  For example, if Metro could make more money running 5-minute shuttles along Dodge than its entire North Omaha network, you better believe that North Omaha network would be toast the minute Metro is privatized.
A couple of things.  First, if it were true that there would be no profit in serving these areas, then they won't get that service.  As it stands now, those areas get service because other areas subsidize it, which is inefficient and probably does more to drive down ridership by keeping prices elevated in areas where a lower price would be justified based on supply and demand.  Second, if there is demand in an area it will be served somehow.  If an area doesn't justify the expense of full service from buses, what about vans or shuttles?  A monopolist can't know how best to allocate its resources, and its resources are likely less than a number of competing firms.  The only wishful thinking on my part is that a city would ever disentangle itself from mass transit.
omaja
Library Board
Posts: 264
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 7:43 pm
Location: Boston

Post by omaja »

The benefits of having multiple providers duplicating service, providing options and competing with one another are pretty slim when we're talking about local public transportation.  They can't really compete on amenities (like air and long-distance rail travel can) and margins will be razor thin with little pricing power.  Which is why the overwhelming majority of metropolitan areas have shifted from multiple agencies to singular transit authorities in the first place.  The pieces are worth much less individually than as a whole.
Professor Woland
Library Board
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 8:28 pm
Location: Omaha Metro Area

Post by Professor Woland »

omaja wrote:The benefits of having multiple providers duplicating service, providing options and competing with one another are pretty slim when we're talking about local public transportation.  They can't really compete on amenities (like air and long-distance rail travel can) and margins will be razor thin with little pricing power.  Which is why the overwhelming majority of metropolitan areas have shifted from multiple agencies to singular transit authorities in the first place.  The pieces are worth much less individually than as a whole.
Sure, if you're talking about traditionally structured firms, but a firm that operates in areas that would tend to see little to no service from other providers could specialize there, charge more and still make a profit, if the argument is that this is unfair because people in underserved areas are being charged more, I would argue it is more fair than having other riders subsidize their fare.  But, as I mentioned before, if no profit could come from serving an area, and no one was willing to provide service pro bono, then it is a waste of resources to provide service there.  Isn't one of the big arguments in the whole "sprawl" debate that sprawl is effectively subsidized by the development of roads?  Wherever one chooses to live that choice comes with tradeoffs.  If I lived in California, the winter wouldn't be as bad, but I'd worry about my employment security and the cost of living would be outrageous.  If I lived in Texas housing would cost less but the summer would make the summer here seem mild and I'd be surrounded by Texans.  If I lived in a downtown condo the location would be great but the square footage would be expensive and I wouldn't have a lawn. And on and on it goes.  If no way exists to make something profitable and no one decides to foot the bill himself to provide it, then the lack of mass transit access is one of those tradeoffs.  If one objects that this might adversely affect people in low income areas, I would argue that even if true, the real problem would still lie with the many ways in which the state creates and perpetuates poverty, though it would seem likely that if many people really had a problem with lack of access to mass transit in these areas it would be easy to organize a non profit driven way to provide that access.
mrdwhsr
Library Board
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:51 pm
Location: Omaha Metro Area

Post by mrdwhsr »

Professor Woland wrote:If one objects that this might adversely affect people in low income areas, I would argue that even if true, the real problem would still lie with the many ways in which the state creates and perpetuates poverty, though it would seem likely that if many people really had a problem with lack of access to mass transit in these areas it would be easy to organize a non profit driven way to provide that access.
Hence METRO? More than once I have heard/read that we need the METRO bus routes to provide access to jobs, education, opportunity, etc that those who cannot afford the care and feeding of a motor vehicle or legally operate the same would not otherwise enjoy.
Professor Woland
Library Board
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 8:28 pm
Location: Omaha Metro Area

Post by Professor Woland »

mrdwhsr wrote:
Professor Woland wrote:If one objects that this might adversely affect people in low income areas, I would argue that even if true, the real problem would still lie with the many ways in which the state creates and perpetuates poverty, though it would seem likely that if many people really had a problem with lack of access to mass transit in these areas it would be easy to organize a non profit driven way to provide that access.
Hence METRO? More than once I have heard/read that we need the METRO bus routes to provide access to jobs, education, opportunity, etc that those who cannot afford the care and feeding of a motor vehicle or legally operate the same would not otherwise enjoy.
Well that's one way to look at it, but I was thinking more along the lines of "transportation co-ops" as a bottom up solution or a non-profit lacking the sorts of monopoly protections enjoyed by public transportation systems.  It's not a huge deal, of all of the atrocities governments commit at all levels, it's hardly offensive if they operate or charter a bus company.  I'm merely arguing that they perform less than ideally.
omaja
Library Board
Posts: 264
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 7:43 pm
Location: Boston

Post by omaja »

Professor Woland wrote:I'm merely arguing that they perform less than ideally.
A monopoly is the most ideal way to maximize profits and yet we see transit authorities in dire financial straights almost in perpetuity.  Why?  Not so much because they are monopolies but because of the antiquated work rules, belligerent unions, and crooked politics associated with it all.  

At the end of the day, the stranglehold that unions have in Washington will never allow the ridiculously overpaid and protected transit jobs in places like New York, Boston, Chicago, etc. to simply disappear.  Privatized transit authorities would have to contend with the same nonsense and who is going to want to willingly enter a market like that?

I do get what you are saying that things could function much, much better with a little tweaking.  I'm pretty sure a first grader would be able to more efficiently operate the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority's rail and bus operations.  But I'm not sure I see privatizing as the way to fix that.  More accountability and decreased union influence would be a great start for sure.
StreetsOfOmaha
City Council
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm

Post by StreetsOfOmaha »

"Professor" Woland,

It would likely suffice to say that I emphatically disagree with almost every atom of your being--but I get it; you're a market enthusiast. A purist. You have immense faith in the "equilibrium-seeking" power of the market.

Others have done well so far in retorting you, but I'll say a few words.

First, markets are profitable by exploiting disequilibrium at the margins, i.e. your scenario where North Omaha would be excluded from service. Your "freed up" system would interpret an inability to pay as a lack of demand. You see, when it comes to mobility and access, there is infinite demand; the convenient axioms of supply and demand cease to hold any validity.

Second, I would argue that the entire premise of this debate is based on a fundamental contradiction. You see, we already have a privatized transit system. It's called the car system, which, yes, is highly subsidized by all Americans regardless of one's ability or desire to participate in the system. As I see it, public transportation is the state's attempt to clean up after all the inequalities and disequilibrium brought about by the free market car system. How would privatizing a system which already exists to correct the failures of a privatized system make any sense? Furthermore, the fact of the matter is that if what you are proposing were applied to the car/highway system, it would tank in an instant because nobody could afford the astronomical burden of the cost to use such a completely privatized system.
Professor Woland wrote:like any other centrally planned endeavor, they assume that the planners have all the specific knowledge necessary to adequately serve the wants/needs of the public.


Hhhhahahaaahhahahhahahahahaaaaaa. How utterly foolish. I'm not suggesting that all planners have the "specific knowledge" necessary to serve the wants/needs of the public--but they are trained in precisely that very thing. No, I'm flabbergasted at your latent implication that indeed it's the individual who has all the specific knowledge necessary to serve the wants and needs of the public, when in fact, it's the very "freed up" market you speak of that has worked to keep this knowledge from the individual. You seem to be a market purist, so I can only assume you understand the concept of a rational actor always attempting to maximize his/her own utility--his/her own. Not the "utility" or well-being of society (or the natural world, for that matter). These are issues a completely free market will never be able to address.

I'll end by saying that I refuse to waste any more time getting into a debate with you, because I have no doubt you'll come back with all the things I'd expect you to say (and you have!). I just won't do it. What a pointless waste of time that would be.

-- -----------------------------------
HuskerDave wrote:They are huge wastes of tax money, lack the flexibility of busses, and usually bring along political corruption when it comes to planning their locations.
HA! You just pretty much summed up the American highway system! You want to know what lacks flexibility? A |expletive| 10-lane highway! And anyway, in terms of public transportation, it's the "flexibility" of a bus system that discourages ridership borne of reliability and the economic activity that accompanies it.

-------------------------------------

OK, I'm going to do my best to check out of this one, except the inclusion of that which pertains to the transit study at hand.
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
Professor Woland
Library Board
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 8:28 pm
Location: Omaha Metro Area

Post by Professor Woland »

After I've tried to be civil, you respond that way.  Fine.  First of all if you don't know what "Professor Woland" refers to you are obviously not very well read, it is a reference to Bulgakov's "The Master and Margarita" widely considered to be one of the greatest novels of the Twentieth Century.  Second, next time you presume to call someone foolish you should actually try to understand what it is they think before you open your yap, especially if you think the car system we have today somehow approximates a free market.  Third you will NEVER be in a position to influence policy if the world is just.  You are an arrogant, petty little man whose hubris and apparent cruelty wouldn't bode well for those forced to live under your whims.  As for not wasting time with me, I was going to say the same to you.  I won't waste time on you, because you aren't really a threat.  I'd rather grapple with giants than pygmies.  Continue cursing the darkness streets, you aren't competent enough to light a candle.
almighty_tuna
City Council
Posts: 105418
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 1:34 pm
Location: Somewhere between downtown and Colorado
Contact:

Post by almighty_tuna »

So yeah, about transit...
User avatar
Coyote
City Council
Posts: 32940
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2003 11:18 am
Location: Aksarben Village
Contact:

Post by Coyote »

Streetcars part of proposed study
Maggie O'Brien WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER wrote:Councilwoman Jean Stothert said a boom in downtown growth, including this year's opening of TD Ameritrade Park, makes more transportation options a necessity to help people get around.

The options consultants would consider, assuming the study is done, include more bus service, faster bus service, streetcars, a combination of improvements or no change at all.
User avatar
Bosco55David
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1396
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 1:25 am
Location: Tampa, FL (formerly Omaha and Council Bluffs)

Post by Bosco55David »

Stothert might be on board with street cars?!?

If that isn't a sign of the apocalypse, I don't know what is.
User avatar
Coyote
City Council
Posts: 32940
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2003 11:18 am
Location: Aksarben Village
Contact:

Post by Coyote »

Council OKs mass transit study
Maggie O’Brien of the Omaha World-Herald wrote:The $1.2 million study will look at improving bus service and “a range of alternatives” to driving a car, including streetcars, according to City Planning Director Rick Cunningham. The city plans to hire a consulting firm or multiple firms.
Post Reply