I'm not saying no-one will support it, but I make this point based on sentiments expressed in the discussion group. I'm not meaning to attack suburbanites, I'm wanting to provoke a discussion about two things:MTO wrote:And suburban tax payers won't pay for a rail system in the city?
1. Improvements in transportation in one part of town has no impact on any other part of town and
2. The costs associated with transportation improvements
There have been sentiments expressed that it is illogical to add fixed mass transit (light rail) in the city's core because it won't be used. This is not a sound argument because one could easily argue that most people living in Dundee, north Omaha, or midtown would very rarely use a beltway around the city. Even if such a beltway temporarily improved traffic on I-80 or I-680, that doesn't address the plethora of issues and costs of constantly expanding freeways to accommodate the inevitable increase in traffic. The costs vs benefits must be considered. According to the HDR feasibility study it would cost $1.4 billion to make an outer beltway! ! Just for a freeway that would need to be expanded at some point anyway!
Source: Omaha-Council Bluffs Metro
Beltway Feasibility Study
Omaha-Council Bluffs Metro
Beltway Feasibility Study
MTMUG
March 19, 2009
Courtney Sokol and Greg Youell
Secondly there seems to be a rationalization that expanding freeways in rural areas leads to economic expansion. Perhaps someone can support this position with some statistics, but if demand for high density economic development exists (which is the case in Omaha), then over a period of 10-20 years you will see a dramatic increase in high density development nearby the mass transit. You see this in Arlington Virginia with nodes of development nearby new train stations. Furthermore mass transit infrastructure can alleviate urban deterioration during economic depressions--Detroit is a good example of where people left and Philadelphia is a good example of where people stayed.