Omaha Streetcar Discussion

[MTO]

And why do we need new stops it's just a longer bus.

[PotatoeEatsFish]

They want nice bus stops on the BRT because they will most likley brag about it to tourists.

[iamjacobm]

[Garrett]

And why do we need new stops it's just a longer bus.

In BRT you pre pay before you board... though not sure where in these concepts.

[TitosBuritoBarn]

And why do we need new stops it's just a longer bus.

Because no one will ride it if it looks like |expletive|. Everyone in this town has a car so they need to sell an experience that will make people want to get around without a car. The way the city is designed right now, there's no way it will obtain decent ridership purely on a convenience factor.

[Dundeemaha]

In the US, BRT rarely means the efficient well designed systems found in Colombia, Mexico, etc. It's basically just buses with different branding.

US BRT are talked about as bronze, silver, gold level. With ours almost certainly bronze.
Features that make the difference between levels are
Dedicated lanes
Pre pay stations
Signal priority
Line jumps
Nicer stops than normal bus stops

We will likely have none of these plus these station "designs" do almost nothing to shield people waiting from the elements.

[PotatoeEatsFish]

At least make the stations indoors please! No one will wait outside in winter for 10 minutes waiting for a bus.

[brick]

In the US, BRT rarely means the efficient well designed systems found in Colombia, Mexico, etc. It's basically just buses with different branding.

US BRT are talked about as bronze, silver, gold level. With ours almost certainly bronze.
Features that make the difference between levels are
Dedicated lanes
Pre pay stations
Signal priority
Line jumps
Nicer stops than normal bus stops

We will likely have none of these plus these station "designs" do almost nothing to shield people waiting from the elements.

It will have dedicated lanes (downtown)
It will have off-board fare collection
It will have signal priority
It will have queue jumps at some intersections
It will have nicer stations than normal metro bus stops

so sounds a little better than "bronze" to me

[Dundeemaha]

It will have dedicated lanes (downtown)
It will have off-board fare collection
It will have signal priority
It will have queue jumps at some intersections
It will have nicer stations than normal metro bus stops

so sounds a little better than "bronze" to me

1.5 miles
I'm interested to see how that is incorporated into the proposed designs
Happily surprised, I've never been on a brt system without dedicated lanes so I'm not sure if the impact of this. How long can it hold the green?
It may* have queue jumps
Nicer stations than a sign on a pole, very little apparent protection from the elements.

[Stargazer]

KC MAX stops

[Louie]

Well Omaha's stops look a little better IMO...

[Busguy2010]

I think we're taking good advantage learning from Kansas City. We are getting longer buses, dedicated lanes, and hopefully better stations. People can only complain so much about being in mixed traffic on Dodge. There's just no room for anything better unless there's more money.

[U R my Helix]

Interesting in looking at these KC stops to see the large glass/acrylic panels. Every bus stop in Omaha seams to have the glass smashed as though it is part of a midnight madness game for teenagers. Are they using a smash proof bullet proof material? The curves over the seating bench must be to discourage people from sleeping on the benches?

[PotatoeEatsFish]

I have a feeling the city of Omaha is waiting to see how the new streetcar in Kansas City will go.

[Omababe]

I have a feeling the city of Omaha is waiting to see how the new streetcar in Kansas City will go.

I have a feeling that serious transit is about the farthest thing from their mind!

[Dundeemaha]

I have a feeling the city of Omaha is waiting to see how the new streetcar in Kansas City will go.

I have a feeling that serious transit is about the farthest thing from their mind!

I have an opinion that having the proposed streetcar is worse for serious transit in Omaha than not having it.

[Linkin5]

I have a feeling the city of Omaha is waiting to see how the new streetcar in Kansas City will go.

I have a feeling that serious transit is about the farthest thing from their mind!

I have an opinion that having the proposed streetcar is worse for serious transit in Omaha than not having it.

That's an interesting opinion, please provide a reason why you think this.

[bigredmed]

I will offer a thought.

1. Once you spend a dollar, its gone and can be resent.
2. Each city can only borrow so much.
3. Once you spend your dollars and borrow the max, you are done.
4. If you blow all the bucks on some overwrought scheme for one little part of the city, you have no way to add to it when other parts of the city want their share of the program. Especially if we accept that human nature craves fairness, the unserved groups will look at Cadillac plan and the crappy left overs they are being offered and get angry.

[Dundeemaha]

That's an interesting opinion, please provide a reason why you think this.

• We've already committed to BRT on the exact same corridor so this very expensive street car line provides little additional service
  
  My view is that an in-traffic street car or circulator (unlike a line with dedicated lanes/right of ways) provides very little transit benefit over buses with the primary benefit instead being property investment.
  
  The corridor in question already has revitalization well under way (a different route connecting an under-developed area, like North or South Omaha would provide more benefit, especially if it connects with the BRT route already agreed upon)
  
  A street car system is very expensive per mile and will be highly scrutinized especially given Omaha's political and transit climate.

So if you agree on these things, then I think it follows that if the current route or an urban circulator is built there will be a negative knee jerk reaction to continued transit investment in Omaha. Which would set us back significantly.

Since we're going down the BRT route I think our best hope for real transit growth is to focus on it succeeding and then capitalize on that success with complimentary new services (whether they are more buses, more brt routes, or new light rail).

[Linkin5]

That's an interesting opinion, please provide a reason why you think this.

• We've already committed to BRT on the exact same corridor so this very expensive street car line provides little additional service

BRT is going to be primarily on Dodge heading from downtown out west to Westroads, whereas the first phase of the street car project would focus only on Downtown and Midtown and run on Farnam street. Unless I am missing something these two different kinds of transit would carry two different types of passengers and wouldn't impede on each other.

[Dundeemaha]

Farnam and Dodge are 2 blocks apart for the entire length of the proposed streetcar.
The two routes travel in parallel for the entirety of the proposed street except the end where the BRT line loops *closer* to the proposed streetcar.
The BRT line has stops 4 blocks apart on average from 33rd ST to 11th ST.

Anyone already on Dodge or north of it will just take the BRT rather than walk an extra 3 minutes to get to the streetcar. Generally people are willing to walk longer than that to get to a streetcar.

[Busguy2010]

I'm with Linkin on this. For every 6 stops the BRT will make on Dodge street east of 44th, the streetcar will make 12 on Farnam. That all makes sense because Farnam is more dense with residences than Dodge is. Of course, Metro Route 15 makes 24 stops in that same stretch, but you have to factor in the attraction of a streetcar.

[NEDodger]

I'm with Linkin on this. For every 6 stops the BRT will make on Dodge street east of 44th, the streetcar will make 12 on Farnam. That all makes sense because Farnam is more dense with residences than Dodge is. Of course, Metro Route 15 makes 24 stops in that same stretch, but you have to factor in the attraction of a streetcar.

The "attraction" of a streetcar? How many rides does it take before the novelty wears off? 3? 4?

[Omababe]

The "attraction" of a streetcar? How many rides does it take before the novelty wears off? 3? 4?

I really think that the use of the term "streetcar" hurts more than it helps. "Commuter Rail" or "Light Rail" or similar terms project the image of something modern and efficient, where "streetcar" evokes visions of the archetypal Toonerville Trolley crawling along being passed by cars and pedestrians.

Something like they have in Houston would probably work here, where it runs on tracks walled off from the street and really zips along. Baltimore has something similar but uses its own paths in some areas where it does not hog the street. Baltimore also has a "real" subway but its reach it limited.

The Houston and Baltimore rail cars are not really that large, maybe twice the size of a common city bus. Something that size would probably work here if you could only wean people away from their beloved cars!

[Dundeemaha]

I really think that the use of the term "streetcar" hurts more than it helps. "Commuter Rail" or "Light Rail" or similar terms project the image of something modern and efficient, where "streetcar" evokes visions of the archetypal Toonerville Trolley crawling along being passed by cars and pedestrians.

The problem here is that it's not just the term "streetcar" it's the reality of the proposed system. "Light Rail" is an ambiguous term that covers a broad spectrum but when most people think of a "streetcar" or "tram" or "trolley" they're thinking of a system that runs in the street without an exclusive right-of-way. These are not commuter systems, they're not mass transit. They connect walkable areas to each other broadening the area that is considered walkable. But due to the cost to lay the track and the lack of speed advantage from being in the road and needing to stop for red lights they aren't efficient and have limited range/usefulness.

If we were talking about "Commuter Rail" or even what most people consider "Light Rail" with a dedicated right of way for the majority of the route we'd have a real transit opportunity. But we went with bronze level BRT, which is still better than nothing.

[cdub]

Light rail is the wrong term though. Its either streetcar or urban circulator. Its not novelty if you actually wish to get around midtown/downtown and are tired of having to walk to your car and repark again when you arrive. In addition, it will bring employees and residents who may not even own or use a car.

[Linkin5]

I really think that the use of the term "streetcar" hurts more than it helps. "Commuter Rail" or "Light Rail" or similar terms project the image of something modern and efficient, where "streetcar" evokes visions of the archetypal Toonerville Trolley crawling along being passed by cars and pedestrians.

The problem here is that it's not just the term "streetcar" it's the reality of the proposed system. "Light Rail" is an ambiguous term that covers a broad spectrum but when most people think of a "streetcar" or "tram" or "trolley" they're thinking of a system that runs in the street without an exclusive right-of-way. These are not commuter systems, they're not mass transit. They connect walkable areas to each other broadening the area that is considered walkable. But due to the cost to lay the track and the lack of speed advantage from being in the road and needing to stop for red lights they aren't efficient and have limited range/usefulness.

If we were talking about "Commuter Rail" or even what most people consider "Light Rail" with a dedicated right of way for the majority of the route we'd have a real transit opportunity. But we went with bronze level BRT, which is still better than nothing.

A streetcar isn't mass transit? What is it then?

[Dundeemaha]

A streetcar isn't mass transit? What is it then?

A property investment incentive. A walkability enhancement. Modest Transit

[Linkin5]

A streetcar isn't mass transit? What is it then?

A property investment incentive. A walkability enhancement. Modest Transit

[Busguy2010]

Streetcars initially are a property investment incentive. Once those properties are built as a result, streetcar becomes a reliable form of transportation for those who live and work within the line.

Can anybody imagine how crazy blackstone and MTC would be if we had a streetcar on Farnam?

For those of us who want better transit and a better city in general with more developments to cheese about, streetcar is the best place to start no matter the cost.

[PotatoeEatsFish]

A monorail would eliminate the problem of taking up street space. However... Aren't those super expensive?

[Garrett]

I'm with Linkin on this. For every 6 stops the BRT will make on Dodge street east of 44th, the streetcar will make 12 on Farnam. That all makes sense because Farnam is more dense with residences than Dodge is. Of course, Metro Route 15 makes 24 stops in that same stretch, but you have to factor in the attraction of a streetcar.

The "attraction" of a streetcar? How many rides does it take before the novelty wears off? 3? 4?

Streetcars, like any form of rail transit, are an attraction because they convey permanence and reliability. Bus routes change very easily. For rail, it's impossible to change routes without building new infrastructure. These factors make it much more attractive for development, especially if you want to get TOD in the mix.

[daveoma]

Light rail is the wrong term though. Its either streetcar or urban circulator. Its not novelty if you actually wish to get around midtown/downtown and are tired of having to walk to your car and repark again when you arrive. In addition, it will bring employees and residents who may not even own or use a car.

Agreed, I would've LOVED to have used a streetcar when I lived downtown. When living in a place with limited parking it's much better to use a streetcar than a car.

[Professor Woland]

Without massive TIF incentives streetcars don't really do anything for development other than cause it to be built one place instead of another. As for a streetcar's fixed nature being an advantage, I would posit it can be a huge disadvantage. If an area starts to lose business, for whatever reason, or the streetcar doesn't draw the riders its boosters predict, you are stuck with an incredibly expensive toy that doesn't actually do much. In such a case the city might close the streetcar down anyway to avoid hemorrhaging cash, whereas at least a bus could be rerouted to go elsewhere. Furthermore, as long as a bus route has consistent ridership, it will be there.

[cdub]

Without massive TIF incentives streetcars don't really do anything for development other than cause it to be built one place instead of another. As for a streetcar's fixed nature being an advantage, I would posit it can be a huge disadvantage. If an area starts to lose business, for whatever reason, or the streetcar doesn't draw the riders its boosters predict, you are stuck with an incredibly expensive toy that doesn't actually do much. In such a case the city might close the streetcar down anyway to avoid hemorrhaging cash, whereas at least a bus could be rerouted to go elsewhere. Furthermore, as long as a bus route has consistent ridership, it will be there.

This is nonsense, stop positing, prof.

Even if the development were going elsewhere, its better to have it aggregated. Secondly, stop acting like the investment isn't worth it unless you start talking about the massive mess that our road building gets us.

[Professor Woland]

Without massive TIF incentives streetcars don't really do anything for development other than cause it to be built one place instead of another. As for a streetcar's fixed nature being an advantage, I would posit it can be a huge disadvantage. If an area starts to lose business, for whatever reason, or the streetcar doesn't draw the riders its boosters predict, you are stuck with an incredibly expensive toy that doesn't actually do much. In such a case the city might close the streetcar down anyway to avoid hemorrhaging cash, whereas at least a bus could be rerouted to go elsewhere. Furthermore, as long as a bus route has consistent ridership, it will be there.

This is nonsense, stop positing, prof.

Even if the development were going elsewhere, its better to have it aggregated. Secondly, stop acting like the investment isn't worth it unless you start talking about the massive mess that our road building gets us.

It's not nonsense, and "the mess that our road building gets us" has nothing to do with this. Streetcars are inferior to buses in just about every way. The cost of building and maintaining a streetcar line are incredibly high and draw resources away from other areas of the transit budget, usually at the expense of poor people. Whatever benefit there is to having someone build along a streetcar line instead of three blocks away is probably not a good deal for the people forking over the money to subsidize the development. I'm not opposed to commuter rail per se, but streetcars don't make sense here, a system would probably work better in Lincoln serving the college students. The bus system could be improved dramatically for a portion of the cost to build a streetcar line.

If a streetcar is a catalyst for economic development, why build it in a gentrifying area, why not build it in North O? People in that part of the city could use better transit options and economic development.

[bigredmed]

Street cars are just toys bought with the money forced from other people's paychecks at gun point. The handful of land developers that can snap up attractive corners will make lots of money. The people who live within a block or two may see a bump in property value, though only if there is function attached to the street cars. The hipster urban planner types will have a temporarily cool way to go from spot to trendy spot. Temporary as once the streetcars are either closed before bar time, or don't go to where ever the new hot spot is, they will |expletive| that we need some new IPA delivery device, and that our city is just so insufferably backward because it only has streetcars.

[Linkin5]

Without massive TIF incentives streetcars don't really do anything for development other than cause it to be built one place instead of another. As for a streetcar's fixed nature being an advantage, I would posit it can be a huge disadvantage. If an area starts to lose business, for whatever reason, or the streetcar doesn't draw the riders its boosters predict, you are stuck with an incredibly expensive toy that doesn't actually do much. In such a case the city might close the streetcar down anyway to avoid hemorrhaging cash, whereas at least a bus could be rerouted to go elsewhere. Furthermore, as long as a bus route has consistent ridership, it will be there.

This is nonsense, stop positing, prof.

Even if the development were going elsewhere, its better to have it aggregated. Secondly, stop acting like the investment isn't worth it unless you start talking about the massive mess that our road building gets us.

If a streetcar is a catalyst for economic development, why build it in a gentrifying area, why not build it in North O? People in that part of the city could use better transit options and economic development.

Are you really asking why they would build a transit system linking major entertainment areas and huge employers in Downtown Omaha rather than somewhere else?

[Professor Woland]

Without massive TIF incentives streetcars don't really do anything for development other than cause it to be built one place instead of another. As for a streetcar's fixed nature being an advantage, I would posit it can be a huge disadvantage. If an area starts to lose business, for whatever reason, or the streetcar doesn't draw the riders its boosters predict, you are stuck with an incredibly expensive toy that doesn't actually do much. In such a case the city might close the streetcar down anyway to avoid hemorrhaging cash, whereas at least a bus could be rerouted to go elsewhere. Furthermore, as long as a bus route has consistent ridership, it will be there.

This is nonsense, stop positing, prof.

Even if the development were going elsewhere, its better to have it aggregated. Secondly, stop acting like the investment isn't worth it unless you start talking about the massive mess that our road building gets us.

If a streetcar is a catalyst for economic development, why build it in a gentrifying area, why not build it in North O? People in that part of the city could use better transit options and economic development.

Are you really asking why they would build a transit system linking major entertainment areas and huge employers in Downtown Omaha rather than somewhere else?

No, my point was that streetcars are sold as economic development drivers, their transit function is usually downplayed. I dispute their ability to encourage economic development, but if we granted that somehow building a streetcar will spur development, why should we bestow this bounty on an area that seems to be developing just fine without a streetcar? The argument seems to be that it will enable some (how many?) people who live downtown or near downtown to travel to Blackstone and vice versa. A regular bus route can accomplish the same thing, friends or relatives with cars can accomplish the same thing, Uber and Lyft can accomplish the same thing. These might not be as convenient and the people who would have to avail themselves of these options might not like it as much as they would like a streetcar, but the costs of a streetcar are far too high for the city to try to relieve them of this inconvenience.

[Linkin5]

Without massive TIF incentives streetcars don't really do anything for development other than cause it to be built one place instead of another. As for a streetcar's fixed nature being an advantage, I would posit it can be a huge disadvantage. If an area starts to lose business, for whatever reason, or the streetcar doesn't draw the riders its boosters predict, you are stuck with an incredibly expensive toy that doesn't actually do much. In such a case the city might close the streetcar down anyway to avoid hemorrhaging cash, whereas at least a bus could be rerouted to go elsewhere. Furthermore, as long as a bus route has consistent ridership, it will be there.

This is nonsense, stop positing, prof.

Even if the development were going elsewhere, its better to have it aggregated. Secondly, stop acting like the investment isn't worth it unless you start talking about the massive mess that our road building gets us.

If a streetcar is a catalyst for economic development, why build it in a gentrifying area, why not build it in North O? People in that part of the city could use better transit options and economic development.

Are you really asking why they would build a transit system linking major entertainment areas and huge employers in Downtown Omaha rather than somewhere else?

No, my point was that streetcars are sold as economic development drivers, their transit function is usually downplayed. I dispute their ability to encourage economic development, but if we granted that somehow building a streetcar will spur development, why should we bestow this bounty on an area that seems to be developing just fine without a streetcar? The argument seems to be that it will enable some (how many?) people who live downtown or near downtown to travel to Blackstone and vice versa. A regular bus route can accomplish the same thing, friends or relatives with cars can accomplish the same thing, Uber and Lyft can accomplish the same thing. These might not be as convenient and the people who would have to avail themselves of these options might not like it as much as they would like a streetcar, but the costs of a streetcar are far too high for the city to try to relieve them of this inconvenience.

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.