Omaha Streetcar Discussion

[Garrett]

Well.... While I do favor streetcars, as of yet, there are few studies about the merits or flaws of them compared to BRT. BRT has been extensively studied and has shown to have a strong economic impact. For streetcars, the studies are still lacking because it is a relatively new phenomenon.

[Linkin5]

Well.... While I do favor streetcars, as of yet, there are few studies about the merits or flaws of them compared to BRT. BRT has been extensively studied and has shown to have a strong economic impact. For streetcars, the studies are still lacking because it is a relatively new phenomenon.

Everything I have seen shows strong economic impacts for the areas involved. I think the major concerns (which are valid) is where this money is going to come from. If Omaha can get a good balance of federal transportation funds and a reasonable amount of private and city tax money, this development is a no brainer.

[Professor Woland]

The only peer reviewed paper on the subject argues that there is no strong evidence that streetcars, generally, in and of themselves, promote economic development. There is some evidence that in certain cities (Tucson being the prime example) they might have been the primary catalyst for development and that in other cities (Portland being the primary example) they may have been a contributing factor to development. I don't know enough about Tucson to say anything one way or the other, but I know plenty about Portland, its history, its historical development patterns, etc., to confidently state that the Pearl District would have been developed in a comparable way without the streetcar. The closest thing I have ever seen to someone saying they built something because of a streetcar line was in Kansas City, but even then, given the TIF incentives given the developer, I believe that some other developer would have built without the streetcar line. I will look for the paper and try to link it here shortly.

[Linkin5]

The only peer reviewed paper on the subject argues that there is no strong evidence that streetcars, generally, in and of themselves, promote economic development. There is some evidence that in certain cities (Tucson being the prime example) they might have been the primary catalyst for development and that in other cities (Portland being the primary example) they may have been a contributing factor to development. I don't know enough about Tucson to say anything one way or the other, but I know plenty about Portland, its history, its historical development patterns, etc., to confidently state that the Pearl District would have been developed in a comparable way without the streetcar. The closest thing I have ever seen to someone saying they built something because of a streetcar line was in Kansas City, but even then, given the TIF incentives given the developer, I believe that some other developer would have built without the streetcar line. I will look for the paper and try to link it here shortly.

Your previous argument was it just creates development in one place over the other, now it doesn't create development?

[Professor Woland]

The only peer reviewed paper on the subject argues that there is no strong evidence that streetcars, generally, in and of themselves, promote economic development. There is some evidence that in certain cities (Tucson being the prime example) they might have been the primary catalyst for development and that in other cities (Portland being the primary example) they may have been a contributing factor to development. I don't know enough about Tucson to say anything one way or the other, but I know plenty about Portland, its history, its historical development patterns, etc., to confidently state that the Pearl District would have been developed in a comparable way without the streetcar. The closest thing I have ever seen to someone saying they built something because of a streetcar line was in Kansas City, but even then, given the TIF incentives given the developer, I believe that some other developer would have built without the streetcar line. I will look for the paper and try to link it here shortly.

Your previous argument was it just creates development in one place over the other, now it doesn't create development?

You are misunderstanding. If I am going to build something on what I consider to be an attractive parcel of land and then the city offers me equal or greater incentives (for the sake of argument let's say equal, though this isn't how it played out in Portland) to build along a proposed streetcar line, I might well build on the streetcar line, because, it might be a better investment, after all there could be lots of passengers. I would have no way of knowing this but I might think it's a worthwhile move with little to no risk on my part. In this case the streetcar has had no effect on economic development, it's simply moved it from one place to the other. It's like saying a professional sports team spurs development because people go to games and eat at restaurants by the stadium, ignoring that the people would have simply spent their entertainment dollars elsewhere.

[Professor Woland]

http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/jpt/vol18/iss1/5

[Linkin5]

The only peer reviewed paper on the subject argues that there is no strong evidence that streetcars, generally, in and of themselves, promote economic development. There is some evidence that in certain cities (Tucson being the prime example) they might have been the primary catalyst for development and that in other cities (Portland being the primary example) they may have been a contributing factor to development. I don't know enough about Tucson to say anything one way or the other, but I know plenty about Portland, its history, its historical development patterns, etc., to confidently state that the Pearl District would have been developed in a comparable way without the streetcar. The closest thing I have ever seen to someone saying they built something because of a streetcar line was in Kansas City, but even then, given the TIF incentives given the developer, I believe that some other developer would have built without the streetcar line. I will look for the paper and try to link it here shortly.

Your previous argument was it just creates development in one place over the other, now it doesn't create development?

You are misunderstanding. If I am going to build something on what I consider to be an attractive parcel of land and then the city offers me equal or greater incentives (for the sake of argument let's say equal, though this isn't how it played out in Portland) to build along a proposed streetcar line, I might well build on the streetcar line, because, it might be a better investment, after all there could be lots of passengers. I would have no way of knowing this but I might think it's a worthwhile move with little to no risk on my part. In this case the streetcar has had no effect on economic development, it's simply moved it from one place to the other. It's like saying a professional sports team spurs development because people go to games and eat at restaurants by the stadium, ignoring that the people would have simply spent their entertainment dollars elsewhere.

With no risk on the developers part? Do you know how real estate works? A parcel of land in a more desirable location (by an area where a fixed transit line will be) is going to cost a developer more to buy.

As well, a street car system will bring more people into the area, which will undoubtedly create development that otherwise would have not happened. It is not going to just replace other development and cause a stalemate in other areas of Midtown and downtown.

[Professor Woland]

The only peer reviewed paper on the subject argues that there is no strong evidence that streetcars, generally, in and of themselves, promote economic development. There is some evidence that in certain cities (Tucson being the prime example) they might have been the primary catalyst for development and that in other cities (Portland being the primary example) they may have been a contributing factor to development. I don't know enough about Tucson to say anything one way or the other, but I know plenty about Portland, its history, its historical development patterns, etc., to confidently state that the Pearl District would have been developed in a comparable way without the streetcar. The closest thing I have ever seen to someone saying they built something because of a streetcar line was in Kansas City, but even then, given the TIF incentives given the developer, I believe that some other developer would have built without the streetcar line. I will look for the paper and try to link it here shortly.

Your previous argument was it just creates development in one place over the other, now it doesn't create development?

You are misunderstanding. If I am going to build something on what I consider to be an attractive parcel of land and then the city offers me equal or greater incentives (for the sake of argument let's say equal, though this isn't how it played out in Portland) to build along a proposed streetcar line, I might well build on the streetcar line, because, it might be a better investment, after all there could be lots of passengers. I would have no way of knowing this but I might think it's a worthwhile move with little to no risk on my part. In this case the streetcar has had no effect on economic development, it's simply moved it from one place to the other. It's like saying a professional sports team spurs development because people go to games and eat at restaurants by the stadium, ignoring that the people would have simply spent their entertainment dollars elsewhere.

With no risk on the developers part? Do you know how real estate works? A parcel of land in a more desirable location (by an area where a fixed transit line will be) is going to cost a developer more to buy.

As well, a street car system will bring more people into the area, which will undoubtedly create development that otherwise would have not happened. It is not going to just replace other development and cause a stalemate in other areas of Midtown and downtown.

Given the amount of subsidy that is typically involved in these deals, the developers really don't face much if any risk for building near a streetcar line instead of a different parcel. Furthermore, if the streetcar line does somehow bring people to the area, it isn't going to create development that wouldn't have happened otherwise because it isn't creating a greater demand for goods and services than would otherwise be the case, it is just moving potential development from other places in the area. The only ways a streetcar could accomplish this would be to connect areas that had no good connection otherwise, allowing disparate demand to concentrate in an area, which doesn't happen too often in modern America, or to draw people to the area from outside the area, like if a bunch of people from out of state said "Oooh, Omaha has a streetcar let's move there!" which seems unlikely, people move for jobs, weather or a thriving scene of some sort.

It's entirely possible I am wrong, but I am pretty confident I'm not. There is no firm evidence to support the contention that streetcars cause economic development, there are claims made in studies designed to sell streetcars and data interpreted after the fact to support a conclusion. I'm sorry I said anything since there's nothing more repellent than an internet argument, but in for a penny, in for a pound, I guess.

[jessep28]

The only peer reviewed paper on the subject argues that there is no strong evidence that streetcars, generally, in and of themselves, promote economic development. There is some evidence that in certain cities (Tucson being the prime example) they might have been the primary catalyst for development and that in other cities (Portland being the primary example) they may have been a contributing factor to development. I don't know enough about Tucson to say anything one way or the other, but I know plenty about Portland, its history, its historical development patterns, etc., to confidently state that the Pearl District would have been developed in a comparable way without the streetcar. The closest thing I have ever seen to someone saying they built something because of a streetcar line was in Kansas City, but even then, given the TIF incentives given the developer, I believe that some other developer would have built without the streetcar line. I will look for the paper and try to link it here shortly.

Most of the economic development along the Portland line which streetcar proponents like to cite was largely subsidized one way or another.

http://www.cato.org/blog/portland-model-nation

[mcarch]

The only peer reviewed paper on the subject argues that there is no strong evidence that streetcars, generally, in and of themselves, promote economic development. There is some evidence that in certain cities (Tucson being the prime example) they might have been the primary catalyst for development and that in other cities (Portland being the primary example) they may have been a contributing factor to development. I don't know enough about Tucson to say anything one way or the other, but I know plenty about Portland, its history, its historical development patterns, etc., to confidently state that the Pearl District would have been developed in a comparable way without the streetcar. The closest thing I have ever seen to someone saying they built something because of a streetcar line was in Kansas City, but even then, given the TIF incentives given the developer, I believe that some other developer would have built without the streetcar line. I will look for the paper and try to link it here shortly.

Most of the economic development along the Portland line which streetcar proponents like to site was largely subsidized one way or another.

http://www.cato.org/blog/portland-model-nation

I do agree with the statement above... but a couple of questions:

1. Did the Street Car route spur development sooner?
2. Did the Street Car route spur more density than it would have if not built?

Generally following patters, any mass transportation follows dense development already in existence. But building one where none exists, probably raises property values, and thus density becomes a #1 goal, to make the money back for the higher prices in land.

However, right now in Omaha, you have all this economic development happening, Little Italy, Blackstone, etc... it seems development is already starting to pick up. Vacant buildings are starting to house people = density. Soon they'll need transportation to get where they need to go... Just a thought.

[Dundeemaha]

You can look at countless cities and see that the economic impact of a streetcar is much greater than an area with just a bus route. Why do you have a problem placing a streetcar in an area that is doing "just fine" but could be better? The stronger a city's urban core the better the city is as a whole. This development would give a huge boost to midtown and downtown Omaha.

It seems like it boils down to the difference between investing in infrastructure for the city's poor and underdeveloped areas vs the middle class prosperous areas. You seem to think it's best to leverage the tax base to help people who are already doing well.

As an example: When I bought my house I chose from several areas I knew would have strong public transit links, even so I don't need to take public transit when I don't want to. It's a convenience/quality of life factor for me. Plenty of people in our city can't or can barely afford cars. We have a limited public transit budget and I'd much rather see Omaha spend it's portion of the $140 million proposed budget on people who need it and where it can do the most good.

[Busguy2010]

As much as I'd love to spend $140 million on a better bus system with 10 minute frequency and 24 hour service on every route spanning the entire city and suburbs, I feel that would mostly be a waste (cough, no Omahan who doesn't need to ride the bus will ever ride the bus) due to low ridership. Spend it on the streetcar.. At least it looks cool.

[TitosBuritoBarn]

If streetcar lines raise property values then you don't want to run them to the poorest parts of town. Those people will get priced out of their homes and apartments and end up moving away from the streetcar line built to serve them, replaced with more affluent people. Text book gentrification. They're better served by frequent and reliable bus service.

We seem to be looking at streetcars from too much of a tourist attraction perspective. Why not more from a transportation perspective? As development continues and densities increase, driving will become less attractive and people will want alternative modes of transportation. In many cases a solid BRT system could be a fine alternative to a streetcar, but someone mentioned the permanence of streetcars (a trait BRT has as well) and that's important. Psychology plays a bigger role in how people interact with the urban environment than you'd think.

[Midwestern]

I think any type of Streetcar or fixed-rail transit system is going to be a complete non-starter until there is some coordinated effort between businesses (Mutual of Omaha, UNMC, FNB would probably be the main ones) and private donors to show that they are willing to give some money toward the project. And then of course some federal grant money will be needed.

But otherwise, it's just not happening.

Blackstone needs to keep getting denser like it is, but we also need more density between 20th and 28th streets.

The other unfortunate thing is that Aksarben Village which would certainly be a worthwhile place to connect to a fixed-rail system, is in a tough place to connect to.

[iamjacobm]

There has been cordinsted efforts. The latest studies received a lot of money from both Mutual and UNMC.

[Linkin5]

There has been cordinsted efforts. The latest studies received a lot of money from both Mutual and UNMC.

Exactly, it's not a coincidence the proposed route goes right by F500 companies in Omaha all the way To UNMC

[Midwestern]

I know they helped pay for the study, but is there coordination on how to actually pay for building the streetcar itself? That's obviously the biggest hurdle.

It's one thing to pay for a study you know will likely end up showing results that will benefit you, it's another to actually commit such and such amount of money toward the actual project.

[daveoma]

If streetcar lines raise property values then you don't want to run them to the poorest parts of town. Those people will get priced out of their homes and apartments and end up moving away from the streetcar line built to serve them, replaced with more affluent people. Text book gentrification. They're better served by frequent and reliable bus service.

Sublime explanation.

[Professor Woland]

Except that studies suggest otherwise.

http://theatlantic.com/business/archive ... on/413425/

[PotatoeEatsFish]

At the rate downtown is growing right now I wouldn't be surprised if they announced a rail system.

[TitosBuritoBarn]

Except that studies suggest otherwise.

http://theatlantic.com/business/archive ... on/413425/

Glancing at the studies cited, the first two looked at people in public housing. It's pretty easy to avoid getting priced out of your home when someone else is footing the bill. The third one in England I didn't want to make a username to view.

[Linkin5]

Except that studies suggest otherwise.

http://theatlantic.com/business/archive ... on/413425/

Glancing at the studies cited, the first two looked at people in public housing. It's pretty easy to avoid getting priced out of your home when someone else is footing the bill. The third one in England I didn't want to make a username to view.

That would be because the link is complete BS just like everything else they have posted in this.

[Professor Woland]

Except that studies suggest otherwise.

http://theatlantic.com/business/archive ... on/413425/

Glancing at the studies cited, the first two looked at people in public housing. It's pretty easy to avoid getting priced out of your home when someone else is footing the bill. The third one in England I didn't want to make a username to view.

That isn't the point of the second article. If you read below the first chart it talks about residents in market rate apartments. It's a good read. Granted, I don't actually think a streetcar would do anything for property values, but even if it did, the gentrification trope is largely one those things people know which just isn't so.

[Garrett]

Except that studies suggest otherwise.

http://theatlantic.com/business/archive ... on/413425/

Glancing at the studies cited, the first two looked at people in public housing. It's pretty easy to avoid getting priced out of your home when someone else is footing the bill. The third one in England I didn't want to make a username to view.

That isn't the point of the second article. If you read below the first chart it talks about residents in market rate apartments. It's a good read. Granted, I don't actually think a streetcar would do anything for property values, but even if it did, the gentrification trope is largely one those things people know which just isn't so.

Time to pull the "|expletive| I've researched this" card.

|expletive| I've researched this.

Saying gentrification is a trope is laughable as heck. Tell that to the people I've interviewed who have been displaced for luxury housing and bullshit kombucha stores. Secondly, streetcars definitely raise property values. BRT has already been proven to, so Streetcars would even more so. Something shiny and new that also isn't a bus? Hello money.

Moral of the story, any article that claims that gentrification doesn't exist is not a serious article.

[Professor Woland]

Except that studies suggest otherwise.

http://theatlantic.com/business/archive ... on/413425/

Glancing at the studies cited, the first two looked at people in public housing. It's pretty easy to avoid getting priced out of your home when someone else is footing the bill. The third one in England I didn't want to make a username to view.

That isn't the point of the second article. If you read below the first chart it talks about residents in market rate apartments. It's a good read. Granted, I don't actually think a streetcar would do anything for property values, but even if it did, the gentrification trope is largely one those things people know which just isn't so.

Time to pull the "|expletive| I've researched this" card.

|expletive| I've researched this.

Saying gentrification is a trope is laughable as heck. Tell that to the people I've interviewed who have been displaced for luxury housing and |expletive| kombucha stores. Secondly, streetcars definitely raise property values. BRT has already been proven to, so Streetcars would even more so. Something shiny and new that also isn't a bus? Hello money.

Moral of the story, any article that claims that gentrification doesn't exist is not a serious article.

Very well, I've said all I need to say on this. I am willing to be convinced that I am wrong (unlike a lot of other people it seems), but I have not encountered (and believe me I've looked) any firm evidence that streetcars promote economic development. I have seen journalism and pieces by streetcar advocates making the claim, but no peer reviewed published research pertaining to streetcars in American cities. The only peer reviewed paper on the subject and the bulk of the journalism by specialists finds no clear link. As for displacement resulting from gentrification, sure it happens, just not as much as is typically believed and often due to the existence of other factors aside from more affluent people moving into an area. If you can provide hard data with which to contradict the arguments referenced in the article or a study that isn't just streetcar advocacy which shows in concrete terms that streetcars, in and of themselves, promote economic development, please do so, I won't respond to them, but I promise I'll read them. I wish I hadn't engaged with this topic at all because I allowed myself to be drawn into a contentious argument about something I don't care about all that much.

Edit: I see in an earlier post I said that I didn't think streetcars would raise property values. This was a mistake on my part, my contention was a more modest one, that there is no evidence that streetcars promote economic growth. It is possible, and likely in many instances that a property near a streetcar line would sell for more than a similar property six blocks away. In regards to a hypothetical streetcar in North O, I don't think the effect would be great enough to change the socio economic demographics enough to price anyone out of their homes, but this is just conjecture, it could only be proven true or false by said hypothetical North O streetcar being built. Now, I will leave this topic (hopefully once and for all.)

[RNcyanide]

http://m.omaha.com/money/despite-their- ... l?mode=jqm

According to this article, many cities have been struggling with their newly minted streetcars.

[bigredmed]

http://m.omaha.com/money/despite-their- ... l?mode=jqm

According to this article, many cities have been struggling with their newly minted streetcars.

Having lived in Jacksonville FLA, another city with a failed monorail system that was supposed to be ultracool, but ended up being almost completely useless and unused, this article points out my concerns about these kind of systems. Built by true believers with other people's money and the ability to get closest to the microphone in public meetings so they can shout down the opposition, and then dealt with by people who have to drive around it.

[TitosBuritoBarn]

http://m.omaha.com/money/despite-their- ... l?mode=jqm

According to this article, many cities have been struggling with their newly minted streetcars.

Having lived in Jacksonville FLA, another city with a failed monorail system that was supposed to be ultracool, but ended up being almost completely useless and unused, this article points out my concerns about these kind of systems. Built by true believers with other people's money and the ability to get closest to the microphone in public meetings so they can shout down the opposition, and then dealt with by people who have to drive around it.

It sounds like it doesn't really go anywhere and doesn't connect well to other modes of transit. A successful transit system needs a balance of connections to residential and commercial areas. The Jacksonville monorail appears to only go to commercial area.

[bigredmed]

http://m.omaha.com/money/despite-their- ... l?mode=jqm

According to this article, many cities have been struggling with their newly minted streetcars.

Having lived in Jacksonville FLA, another city with a failed monorail system that was supposed to be ultracool, but ended up being almost completely useless and unused, this article points out my concerns about these kind of systems. Built by true believers with other people's money and the ability to get closest to the microphone in public meetings so they can shout down the opposition, and then dealt with by people who have to drive around it.

It sounds like it doesn't really go anywhere and doesn't connect well to other modes of transit. A successful transit system needs a balance of connections to residential and commercial areas. The Jacksonville monorail appears to only go to commercial area.

Basically it was a loop that was supposed to make it easier to go from the south side of the river to the north and vice versa. This was not successful as the people who partied on the north wanted to stay north as the stuff on the south catered to a different clientele. Workers on the north had no reason to use it.

We would be much better off as a city to invest in a strategy of express buses that were internodal and then periodic nodes that could be accessed via neighborhood circulators and park and rides or taxis/ubers.

[Athomsfere]

I can't help but think Omaha is in a really good position to have a system that works. For a town this size, especially.

the general DT, CBD and Midtown are especially convincing to me:



Connect these areas of 10-25k and I know I would use them to get out to Dundee, DT occasionally. I might even start looking for a job near it instead of driving 30 minutes west.

Some very healthy tracts though, and with some decent mixed mode thought I think Omaha could be the small City that nails it.

[OmahaJaysCU]

[youtube][/youtube]

[NEDodger]

Excellent find. Thank you so much for sharing that. This may be the first video I've ever seen of old Omaha. Plenty of photos, but nothing in motion.

[skinzfan23]

Excellent find. Thank you so much for sharing that. This may be the first video I've ever seen of old Omaha. Plenty of photos, but nothing in motion.

Agreed, I was thinking the exact same. Great to see all the activity downtown. It really was the place to be in the city.

[jessep28]

I watched the first 20 minutes and jumped through most of the rest. I really enjoyed the sections which showed how the infrastructure and mechanical systems worked.

[OmahaJaysCU]

Excellent find. Thank you so much for sharing that. This may be the first video I've ever seen of old Omaha. Plenty of photos, but nothing in motion.

Forgotten Omaha Facebook deserves all the credit. There have been some great finds in there, this is by far the best.

[jessep28]

Excellent find. Thank you so much for sharing that. This may be the first video I've ever seen of old Omaha. Plenty of photos, but nothing in motion.

Forgotten Omaha Facebook deserves all the credit. There have been some great finds in there, this is by far the best.

Here's an OWH article on the film's creator when he passed away in 2013:

http://www.omaha.com/news/kelly-time-co ... aa56d.html

[Coyote]

I just talked with Hal Daub about the streetcars, and he mentioned in two months time a report will be out... there will be light rail on Farnam from 10th to the Med Center. He talked about KC, and the $5B of investment along the line...

[bigredmed]

I just talked with Hal Daub about the streetcars, and he mentioned in two months time a report will be out... there will be light rail on Farnam from 10th to the Med Center. He talked about KC, and the $5B of investment along the line...

What about the investment 6 blocks away from the line? This kind of thing makes for a two block wide stripe of hip and a two block wide strip of near hip, then blocks and blocks of sketchy followed by blocks and blocks of nothing. Look a the various neighborhoods in DC or other cities where this is the case. The strips along the transit is super cool and the areas behind these get steadily less cool.

[iamjacobm]

I just talked with Hal Daub about the streetcars, and he mentioned in two months time a report will be out... there will be light rail on Farnam from 10th to the Med Center. He talked about KC, and the $5B of investment along the line...

Did he mean report as in a new study or report like, its happening?

[Coyote]

I just talked with Hal Daub about the streetcars, and he mentioned in two months time a report will be out... there will be light rail on Farnam from 10th to the Med Center. He talked about KC, and the $5B of investment along the line...

Did he mean report as in a new study or report like, its happening?

I asked him if this was Heritage and he said no, but it sounded like this was now a done deal. Second line would be the airport, third would be 24th St and then 10th St to the Zoo.