Omaha Forums

MTO wrote:And suburban tax payers won't pay for a rail system in the city?

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:
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.

Well DSM just built a freeway and they're better than us

MTO wrote:Well DSM just built a freeway and they're better than us

Omaha Cowboy wrote:

Coyote wrote:

TitosBuritoBarn wrote:I am. Going on 8 years. Currently in the Chicago area.

And it seems like just yesterday you were in Ames...

I was thinking the same thing.. Then I scrolled down and read your comment-

Agreed!..

Ciao..LiO...Peace

Tell me about it. I was back there over thanksgiving and felt like a tourist. I had to restrain myself from telling "back in my day" stories to various retail employees.

TitosBuritoBarn wrote:

Omaha Cowboy wrote:

Coyote wrote:

TitosBuritoBarn wrote:I am. Going on 8 years. Currently in the Chicago area.

And it seems like just yesterday you were in Ames...

I was thinking the same thing.. Then I scrolled down and read your comment-

Agreed!..

Ciao..LiO...Peace

Tell me about it. I was back there over thanksgiving and felt like a tourist. I had to restrain myself from telling "back in my day" stories to various retail employees.

We're all happy you still take time to hang here in this forum Titos. You have always lended a valuable contribution..

Ciao..LiO...Peace

iamjacobm wrote:The findings of this report are so large it is nearly funny. Paving our way to oblivion is going to bankrupt this city.

Finding new ways to move people and getting people living on existing infrastructure isn't just some "millennial" fad. Our city's future is depending on it.

This is exactly why companies like Uber and Lyft are gaining such a foothold in the market. Surprisingly, the topic of rideshare hasn't even come up yet in the conversation. Leveraging the infrastructure we already have in place is essential.

BH402 wrote:

iamjacobm wrote:The findings of this report are so large it is nearly funny. Paving our way to oblivion is going to bankrupt this city.

Finding new ways to move people and getting people living on existing infrastructure isn't just some "millennial" fad. Our city's future is depending on it.

This is exactly why companies like Uber and Lyft are gaining such a foothold in the market. Surprisingly, the topic of rideshare hasn't even come up yet in the conversation. Leveraging the infrastructure we already have in place is essential.

I was thinking about this, not only Lyft Uber but Ford possibly Apple among others are pivoting to ride sharing. So then I thought what could we do to provision for that and then I realized its concrete.

And just heard on NPR GM is teaming up with Lyft. As a low-vision person I couldn't be more amped about all this.

MTO wrote:

BH402 wrote:

iamjacobm wrote:The findings of this report are so large it is nearly funny. Paving our way to oblivion is going to bankrupt this city.

Finding new ways to move people and getting people living on existing infrastructure isn't just some "millennial" fad. Our city's future is depending on it.

This is exactly why companies like Uber and Lyft are gaining such a foothold in the market. Surprisingly, the topic of rideshare hasn't even come up yet in the conversation. Leveraging the infrastructure we already have in place is essential.

I was thinking about this, not only Lyft Uber but Ford possibly Apple among others are pivoting to ride sharing. So then I thought what could we do to provision for that and then I realized its concrete.

And just heard on NPR GM is teaming up with Lyft. As a low-vision person I couldn't be more amped about all this.

Yup, GM invested half a billion dollars into Lyft.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/01/05/te ... oogle.com/

Does anyone have access to information that would tell us what percentage of people who work in Omaha live in a suburban type neighborhood? Not necessarily out of the city of Omaha limits, but more like what we define as the difference between urban and suburban Omaha. It would be interesting to know how many people who work in like areas utilize certain freeways to get to like neighborhoods.

One could assume that west Omaha is "the place to live" and that being the case, could say "most people" use the expressway or the interstate on a daily basis. I wonder how the numbers would back up that assumption.

Try doing a Google search for something like "density maps Omaha", I tried a yahoo search and found some after that it's a matter of counting. But I'm sure there's someone on here that knows a better way or has access to better resources.

NYT has maps using census data that show density per census tract.

US Census has interactive density maps by tract as well.

The US Census tract map is great!

Maybe this helps explain why lane widening doesn't really work too?
It isn't exactly current, but a good estimate I think and linked from Nebraska DOT:
https://mapacog.cartodb.com/viz/88a9b39 ... /embed_map



And it is interesting, because the densest areas of town do NOT have the most traffic:


It looks like West O funnels down Dodge, 680, 80 then 480 to DTO.

Thank you for sharing this

So your saying if they took L.A.s freeways down to four lanes commute times wouldn't change?

MTO wrote:So your saying if they took L.A.s freeways down to four lanes commute times wouldn't change?

You are smart enough to know that's not what he said and its not the same to reduce capacity as to not expand it. Pretty poor trolling attempt.

Dundeemaha wrote:

MTO wrote:So your saying if they took L.A.s freeways down to four lanes commute times wouldn't change?

You are smart enough to know that's not what he said and its not the same to reduce capacity as to not expand it. Pretty poor trolling attempt.

LOL, yep. Thanks Dundeemaha!

I will say though, when I was in LA I learned in about 2 days to avoid the freeway at all costs during the weekdays. BUT LA has a lot of problems outside of the freeway system. Actually, LA is everything we want to avoid. LA should have built out their subway decades ago, and Omaha shouldn't be built around moving 20-30% of the population down one roadway every day. Not sustainable especially if Omaha pulls off another decade or two at ~15% growth.

So what was the calculus behind the Katy expansion?

MTO wrote:So what was the calculus behind the Katy expansion?

Katy, Texas?

Athomsfere wrote:

MTO wrote:So what was the calculus behind the Katy expansion?

Katy, Texas?

Katy, Texas, USA

So what about Katy, Texas exactly? Expansion to the "Major highway"?

If I weigh in, I need some info here. Katy is a long way away.

cdub wrote:Just to reiterate from several times over the last decade.
Bypass=bad

Too much initial cost, too much maintenance, too much sprawl as a result.
And, oh yeah, it doesn't help that which folks seem to think it will.

Quickest way to kill businesses, too

I'd be willing to bet it comes down to number shifting and not any given expressway causes any given overburden on the tax base, I think it's all how you rationalize it. Freeways are unavoidable eventualities unless you can build mass transit in its place of course.

someone mentioned tax incentives for condos being a crazy idea. i don't think it's crazy if you consider that bypasses and freeway expansions are indirect subsidies to suburban developers and trucking companies.

yard salad wrote:someone mentioned tax incentives for condos being a crazy idea. i don't think it's crazy if you consider that bypasses and freeway expansions are indirect subsidies to suburban developers and trucking companies.

Thank you!

Did any of our previous studies project how much profit the city will make off BRT/LR?

MTO wrote:Did any of our previous studies project how much profit the city will make off BRT/LR?

Mass transit is basically never meant to generate profit.

What it does potentially do is decrease the cost of roads, area plows have to move snow, reduce patrol areas for the police...

My understanding at least. It doesn't generate revenue as much as suck less money from the coffers than roads.

Well yeah, a set or two of tracks would enherently cost less than a road matrix but also enherently tracks can't get to everyone's front door.

Athomsfere wrote:

MTO wrote:Did any of our previous studies project how much profit the city will make off BRT/LR?

Mass transit is basically never meant to generate profit.

What it does potentially do is decrease the cost of roads, area plows have to move snow, reduce patrol areas for the police...

My understanding at least. It doesn't generate revenue as much as suck less money from the coffers than roads.

...unless it's built via P3 funding structure, then typically you'd add in BRT and tolling, which makes the venture profitable. Once the profits hit a certain amount, they are shared equally with the DOT, then the roads are turned over completely to the DOT after the contracted years. They're doing this in a lot of other places.

http://www.publicpurpose.com/freeway1.htm

check that out - basically states all the positive improvements freeways have provided for the US over the past 40 years - basically every dollar spent on a freeway returns $6 - it's money well spent and the freeways aren't going anywhere...

Bring on 880.

michaelsjewel wrote:http://www.publicpurpose.com/freeway1.htm

check that out - basically states all the positive improvements freeways have provided for the US over the past 40 years - basically every dollar spent on a freeway returns $6 - it's money well spent and the freeways aren't going anywhere...

Bring on 880.

The system that actually connects cities should not be confused with loops that only alter traffic and development patterns within them.

cdub wrote:

michaelsjewel wrote:http://www.publicpurpose.com/freeway1.htm

check that out - basically states all the positive improvements freeways have provided for the US over the past 40 years - basically every dollar spent on a freeway returns $6 - it's money well spent and the freeways aren't going anywhere...

Bring on 880.

The system that actually connects cities should not be confused with loops that only alter traffic and development patterns within them.

I take it you didn't even bother to read the full article (page) as it mentions the original intent for interstates was to be just connections, but cities fought for them to go through them as well - it mentions it also benefits the city, not just as a connection.

A loop around Omaha would still go through part of city limits (west end) so it'd still benefit the city

michaelsjewel wrote:

cdub wrote:

michaelsjewel wrote:http://www.publicpurpose.com/freeway1.htm

check that out - basically states all the positive improvements freeways have provided for the US over the past 40 years - basically every dollar spent on a freeway returns $6 - it's money well spent and the freeways aren't going anywhere...

Bring on 880.

The system that actually connects cities should not be confused with loops that only alter traffic and development patterns within them.

I take it you didn't even bother to read the full article (page) as it mentions the original intent for interstates was to be just connections, but cities fought for them to go through them as well - it mentions it also benefits the city, not just as a connection.

A loop around Omaha would still go through part of city limits (west end) so it'd still benefit the city

I did, and no, it won't. Its been discussed here before and the long term costs outweigh whatever initial bang you get from building new stuff in corn fields.

Car and Driver published a great article on freeway tear downs.

The Future of Neighborhoods: Removing Urban Freeways Gains Fresh Traction
http://blog.caranddriver.com/the-future ... -traction/

Car and Driver wrote:A 2011 study from the University of Connecticut said the traffic patterns required further study, but it suggested city traffic grids had been underutilized in the presence of the freeways and, in their removal, proved resilient in absorbing and dispersing large amounts of traffic. Highways offer value in carrying vehicles long distances at high rates of speed, but they’re inefficient in a city environment, where bottlenecks form around on-ramps and exits. Wider use of city-street grids negate this problem.

“A freeway dumping into the grid is like getting a fire hose when you want a drink of water,” Norquist said. “It concentrates the traffic. You don’t want to concentrate the traffic.”

Beyond that functional disconnect, there’s a greater one. In the 1950s, transportation officials extolled the interstates as a means of spreading wealth to the fledgling suburbs. That didn’t happen.

IMO, I-480 could use some reconnecting if money was free. We could do it like Phoenix where they just covered the interstate and built a park on top of it. We could cover 480 from Harney to Douglas.

Dallas did that too.



It is an awesome asset and really connects the two sides of the interstate. Like you mentioned though, it is expensive to put in.

Pave the planet!

Extension of Highway 275 expressway, improvements to segment of I-680 in Omaha are among road priorities

Highway 370 to be 6 lanes from Hwy75 to Hwy6. New interchanges in I80 near/below Gretna. Hwy92 to be 4 lanes from Hwy6 to Yutan. Other such stuff.

nebraska wrote:Extension of Highway 275 expressway, improvements to segment of I-680 in Omaha are among road priorities

Highway 370 to be 6 lanes from Hwy75 to Hwy6. New interchanges in I80 near/below Gretna. Hwy92 to be 4 lanes from Hwy6 to Yutan. Other such stuff.

Is there a timeline for the projects listed as construction? I couldn't find any but was wondering if these are going to start soon or within the next few years. I am especially eager for the extra northbound on 75.

According to the story update it sounds like the projects may still be quite a while away.

Work on Highway 275 is scheduled to begin by 2019, and dirt will be turned on the seven other construction projects no later than 2024, said Kyle Schneweis, director of the Roads Department.