Official:High Speed Rail Discussion(Omaha to Lincoln)

[Bomaha]

I have that report and it estimates a $80 million cost. That is from 2003, so i figured 90 million now. That is certainly feasible now. If we can spend 100 on the D Expressway, we can certainly spend 80-90 million on a commuter rail between the two largest cities that will benefit a large portion of the area. Could you imagine Ashland becoming a vacation/amenities hot spot more so than it is now?

[S33]

I have that report and it estimates a $80 million cost. That is from 2003, so i figured 90 million now. That is certainly feasible now. If we can spend 100 on the D Expressway, we can certainly spend 80-90 million on a commuter rail between the two largest cities that will benefit a large portion of the area. Could you imagine Ashland becoming a vacation/amenities hot spot more so than it is now?

Yeah, if they flood it. I'm tired of taking my boat to Manawa. lol

[j4nu]

Check out this link talking about the presidents newly proposed U.S. rail system including high speed lines.  

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/16/ ... index.html

What do you think?  Wouldn't it be great to restore the Burlington station back to a modern train station as the Omaha stop shown on the map in the article?  Then tie it in with a light rail line in the city.  Nothing no one hasn't brought up on here before but with Obama's new push into rail this may be the time.

[Uffda]

The map of proposed high speed rail

http://www.fra.dot.gov/Downloads/RRdev/hsrmap.pdf

[laserdisque]

I'm bummed that Omaha is not on any of the routes that are able to take advantage of the federal funding.  

[Big E]

I'm a little surprised there's no north-south Minneapolis/KC connection for Omaha to jump on, and that there's no Chicago/Omaha/Denver/Salt Lake/Vegas/San Fran cross-country route.

[justnick]

I'm a little surprised there's no north-south Minneapolis/KC connection for Omaha to jump on, and that there's no Chicago/Omaha/Denver/Salt Lake/Vegas/San Fran cross-country route.

Yeah, it's a bit insane that there's a giant gap in the middle. I know we're not gigantic in city terms, but we do exist.

[Mr.Nuke]

I'm a little surprised there's no north-south Minneapolis/KC connection for Omaha to jump on, and that there's no Chicago/Omaha/Denver/Salt Lake/Vegas/San Fran cross-country route.

I'm more surprised that above 90 mph is acceptable.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

I'm sad that we're not on the first round of corridors getting Federal funds, but this is phenomenal news for our nation. We're finally going to come into the TWENTIETH century with our transportation infrastructure!!!

Big E, I agree. These are corridors we should definitely see eventually, and for which Omaha and other cities on these routes should strongly lobby.

[Mr.Nuke]

I'm a little surprised there's no north-south Minneapolis/KC connection for Omaha to jump on, and that there's no Chicago/Omaha/Denver/Salt Lake/Vegas/San Fran cross-country route.

Slightly surprised by the lack of north south routes.  Not at all surprised by no x-country.  A cross country route doesn't make sense from a competitive standpoint.

[Brad]

High-Speed Rail: Costs likely to leave Nebraska sidetracked

http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2 ... d=10614298

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama's push for new high-speed rail systems has sparked discussions about bringing such service to Omaha, but not everyone is ready to climb aboard.

Federal agencies plan to begin awarding $8 billion this summer in economic stimulus funding to support high-speed rail projects. Many states already are lining up to grab that money.

It appears that the funding will be focused on ready-to-go projects and federally recognized high-speed corridors that don't include Nebraska or Iowa. Still, the Obama administration has invited long-range proposals from any interested communities.

That created a little buzz among staff members at the Greater Omaha Chamber of Commerce.

"As soon as we saw that come out, we started talking about it, . . . saying, 'Hey, why doesn't this come to Omaha?'" said Tim Stuart, the chamber's manager of transportation development.

For years, the political debate over railroads has focused on whether to cut public support for existing passenger train service. The idea of spending money to improve it is a new direction, Stuart said.

"Times change," he said.

Obama's proposal is intended to change the way America travels. He wants to take drivers off the road, reducing U.S. dependency on foreign oil and reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

Having such rail service connected to Omaha could be a boon to area businesses, Stuart said. Chamber representatives plan to look into the idea by talking to federal officials and the state's congressional delegation.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

I am so angry with Nebraska's leadership right now.

This article provides a "road map" (NO pun intended) to everything that is wrong with our state's top officials and their lack of leadership ability.

Rep. Lee Terry, R-Neb., was skeptical, however...
..."It's a cool concept with a lot of romance involved with it, but I think when it gets down to really designing a plan . . . most of that plan's going to be eliminated or never happen," Terry said.

Jake Thompson, a spokesman for Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., said the senator has not pushed for Omaha to be considered for high-speed rail.

"There has not been any strong interest expressed by state, civic or business leaders in Nebraska for this in recent memory," Thompson said.

Thompson suggested that Omaha does not have the population density or traffic congestion to justify the kinds of high-speed rail projects that the stimulus funding is intended to support.

Governors from eight Midwestern states, including Iowa, and the mayor of Chicago already have written a letter lobbying for stimulus money to start building high-speed rail lines connecting Chicago to other parts of the region.

Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman was not among those who sent the letter.

Mary Jo Oie, a spokeswoman for the Nebraska Department of Roads, said the state has no plans to pursue funding for high-speed rail projects.

What the |expletive| is wrong with these people? The Obama Administration is basically saying, if you want to get on board and get projects going in your states, we want to help you make it happen.

AHHHHHH! Sometimes I get SO |expletive| frustrated with the people in charge of our state.

[the1wags]

Exactly right Streets. This is a PERFECT opportunity that our "leaders" are dropping the ball on. Funny, people went to DC to lobby for Omaha and Lincoln to be considered as one metro, and now are turning a blind eye towards what would be a MAJOR part of getting that done. Ridiculous.

[GetUrban]

Our Republican governor and representatives are likely to reject anything proposed by the Obama administration. Daub appears to want light rail though....he would be a good vehicle to push it through.

I say propose/justify it for Husker football, and that alone could generate the necessary funding to get it built. Might as well make connections on existing rail lines across the entire state to justify it further.

[mrdwhsr]

When someone says High-Speed Rail, I get this mental image of Japan's Bullet Train, France's TGV, or at least the Metro-Liner, 150mph + passenger service.
The more I have been reading some of the details of High Speed Rail, only in California and Boston to Washington Northeast Corridor will we see anything like the TGV. Most of what I have read concerning the Chicago centered routes to Minneapolis, Detroit, St Louis; plans in Ohio; and the South-East US (at least beyond North Carolina would get us back to 110mph non-electrified railroad. The Hiawatha regularly topped 100 mph with steam locomotive power in the 1930s. That isn't a bad thing, just not what I think about when they say High Speed Rail.

I wouldn't get too worried about HSR support in Nebraska. I think the people in Iowa City and Des Moines will carry the water for us on HSR. Omaha is needed to justify ridership on the old Rock Island line into Chicago. Maybe with a solid proposal our Nebraska politicians would jump on board? Hmmm....

I really like the idea of Minneapolis-St Paul to Omaha and Kansas City, mentioned in an earlier post. Extend that to Tulsa and Oklahoma City with morning and evening trains in each direction and we might be close to what Amtrak should be providing. Add Portland Rose connection to the Zephyr in Utah and I might just consider Omaha and the west to be as well served by Amtrak as the Coasts and Chicago. That would get us good rail connections to every major West Coast city, Oklahoma-Texas, St Louis. Even at 79mph (or 110) I'd be onboard.

[S33]

The main issue I see with passenger rail from city to city in our region is that with the exception of Minneapolis and Chicago, there are really no city wide transportation systems. Street car or light rail would have to be implemented first before passenger rail would be feasible. I just don't see enough people willing to travel from Omaha to Des Moines or KC knowing they will have to get a cab or ride the bus once they arrive.

I do think at the very least they could have lobbied for the funding (assuming it wouldn't be mandated that it be spent within a given period of time)

[mrdwhsr]

The main issue I see with passenger rail from city to city in our region is that with the exception of Minneapolis and Chicago, there are really no city wide transportation systems. Street car or light rail would have to be implemented first before passenger rail would be feasible. I just don't see enough people willing to travel from Omaha to Des Moines or KC knowing they will have to get a cab or ride the bus once they arrive.

I do think at the very least they could have lobbied for the funding (assuming it wouldn't be mandated that it be spent within a given period of time)

Excellent point. Without local mass transit many of us would need long-term parking at the Amtrak station and maybe a rental car at the destination (especially Des Moines). I might survive KC without a car since you can walk from the Amtrak station to Jack Stax's BBQ across the tracks from KC Union Station.

[Mr.Nuke]

The main issue I see with passenger rail from city to city in our region is that with the exception of Minneapolis and Chicago, there are really no city wide transportation systems. Street car or light rail would have to be implemented first before passenger rail would be feasible. I just don't see enough people willing to travel from Omaha to Des Moines or KC knowing they will have to get a cab or ride the bus once they arrive.

I disagree.  I think if you build the city to city rail it will spur intercity public transportation to link up to the rail network.

[S33]

The main issue I see with passenger rail from city to city in our region is that with the exception of Minneapolis and Chicago, there are really no city wide transportation systems. Street car or light rail would have to be implemented first before passenger rail would be feasible. I just don't see enough people willing to travel from Omaha to Des Moines or KC knowing they will have to get a cab or ride the bus once they arrive.

I disagree.  I think if you build the city to city rail it will spur intercity public transportation to link up to the rail network.

Lol, explain that cause I'm gonna have to strongly disagree with your statement. I would have little desire to travel to a given city without first having some sort of decent public transportation available.

[Big E]

Lol, explain that cause I'm gonna have to strongly disagree with your statement. I would have little desire to travel to a given city without first having some sort of decent public transportation available.

Chicken, egg.  Egg, Chicken.  Discuss.

There's enough people on both sides of the issue that I think it would show the "powers what be" that there is interest.

[the1wags]

That's exactly what I was going to say. Build either one first and the other is highly likely to soon follow. I myself say go for the city level first.

[S33]

I just think it makes a heck of a lot more sense to have the inner cities transportation infrastructure in place before hand. It really is as simple as convenience. The high speed rail is not at all convenient when you have to call a cab or wait for a bus when you get off the train. Just doesn't make sense to me. I also don't think (in the case of Omaha and Lincoln) that the ridership would be significant at all without light rail in Omaha. Husker game days, sure, but not any other time.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

Oh my god. S33, I agree with you.  :shock:  :yes:

[mrdwhsr]

High-speed or not, here is another possible Omaha rail connection to Portland OR via the California Zephyr to Salt Lake City, and the Pioneer to Portland.

http://www.abc4.com/content/news/state/ ... cBGCA.cspx

And Portland with Light Rail and streetcars!!!! Would that make Amtrak the egg?

[Mr.Nuke]

I just think it makes a heck of a lot more sense to have the inner cities transportation infrastructure in place before hand. It really is as simple as convenience. The high speed rail is not at all convenient when you have to call a cab or wait for a bus when you get off the train. Just doesn't make sense to me. I also don't think (in the case of Omaha and Lincoln) that the ridership would be significant at all without light rail in Omaha. Husker game days, sure, but not any other time.

This is like saying flying isn't convenient when you have to rent a car at the destination.  Even in Europe the "utopia" of high speed rail, there are many train stations outside of the major cities where you are best served by renting a car.  I agree with your assessment if we are solely talking about an Omaha to Lincoln line.  I don't think such a line would a major success other than 7 Saturday's a year, but if a project was done eventually you would need one heck of an inner city transportation network in both Omaha and Lincoln.  I thought the discussion had shifted more to the possibility of Omaha to KC or Omaha to Minneapolis or Omaha to Chicago with the recent news from Washington.

[S33]

I just think it makes a heck of a lot more sense to have the inner cities transportation infrastructure in place before hand. It really is as simple as convenience. The high speed rail is not at all convenient when you have to call a cab or wait for a bus when you get off the train. Just doesn't make sense to me. I also don't think (in the case of Omaha and Lincoln) that the ridership would be significant at all without light rail in Omaha. Husker game days, sure, but not any other time.

This is like saying flying isn't convenient when you have to rent a car at the destination.  Even in Europe the "utopia" of high speed rail, there are many train stations outside of the major cities where you are best served by renting a car.  I agree with your assessment if we are solely talking about an Omaha to Lincoln line.  I don't think such a line would a major success other than 7 Saturday's a year, but if a project was done eventually you would need one heck of an inner city transportation network in both Omaha and Lincoln.  I thought the discussion had shifted more to the possibility of Omaha to KC or Omaha to Minneapolis or Omaha to Chicago with the recent news from Washington.

Yeah, I suppose it did. I'm speaking of Omaha - Lincoln or Omaha - KC or Omaha - Des Moines. Just my opinion

[mrdwhsr]

I just think it makes a heck of a lot more sense to have the inner cities transportation infrastructure in place before hand. It really is as simple as convenience. The high speed rail is not at all convenient when you have to call a cab or wait for a bus when you get off the train. Just doesn't make sense to me. I also don't think (in the case of Omaha and Lincoln) that the ridership would be significant at all without light rail in Omaha. Husker game days, sure, but not any other time.

This is like saying flying isn't convenient when you have to rent a car at the destination.  Even in Europe the "utopia" of high speed rail, there are many train stations outside of the major cities where you are best served by renting a car.  I agree with your assessment if we are solely talking about an Omaha to Lincoln line.  I don't think such a line would a major success other than 7 Saturday's a year, but if a project was done eventually you would need one heck of an inner city transportation network in both Omaha and Lincoln.  I thought the discussion had shifted more to the possibility of Omaha to KC or Omaha to Minneapolis or Omaha to Chicago with the recent news from Washington.

Flying wouldn't be nearly as convenient if Eppley didn't have several car-rental counters in terminal. You have a bit of a walk or cab ride if you disembark the California Zephyr and want to rent a car at the Omaha Amshack. Maybe that isn't the case at Union Station - Chicago or Denver. But, the need for a rental car is greater in Omaha than either Chicago or Denver where I can get convenient, frequent, rail-transit to within a few blocks of my destination. Maybe that was the point I was trying to make in an earlier post.

Nothing against long-distance High-Speed Rail, but Metro-North's Long Island Railroad, New Jersey Transit, METRA, MBTA and other "commuter" lines carry as many daily passengers as Amtrack. A Husker game-day train from Omaha to Lincoln and return might just attract more riders on a Saturday than an Omaha-Chicago High-Speed Rail route does in a week. I'd just like to see transportation dollars first go where we get the most bang for the buck. It seems to me if we reduce local automobile trips first we have a bigger impact on the environment. I don't see the dollars for electrically operated light-rail and street-cars in the current Federal budget.

[S33]

I just think it makes a heck of a lot more sense to have the inner cities transportation infrastructure in place before hand. It really is as simple as convenience. The high speed rail is not at all convenient when you have to call a cab or wait for a bus when you get off the train. Just doesn't make sense to me. I also don't think (in the case of Omaha and Lincoln) that the ridership would be significant at all without light rail in Omaha. Husker game days, sure, but not any other time.

This is like saying flying isn't convenient when you have to rent a car at the destination.  Even in Europe the "utopia" of high speed rail, there are many train stations outside of the major cities where you are best served by renting a car.  I agree with your assessment if we are solely talking about an Omaha to Lincoln line.  I don't think such a line would a major success other than 7 Saturday's a year, but if a project was done eventually you would need one heck of an inner city transportation network in both Omaha and Lincoln.  I thought the discussion had shifted more to the possibility of Omaha to KC or Omaha to Minneapolis or Omaha to Chicago with the recent news from Washington.

Flying wouldn't be nearly as convenient if Eppley didn't have several car-rental counters in terminal. You have a bit of a walk or cab ride if you disembark the California Zephyr and want to rent a car at the Omaha Amshack. Maybe that isn't the case at Union Station - Chicago or Denver. But, the need for a rental car is greater in Omaha than either Chicago or Denver where I can get convenient, frequent, rail-transit to within a few blocks of my destination. Maybe that was the point I was trying to make in an earlier post.

Nothing against long-distance High-Speed Rail, but Metro-North's Long Island Railroad, New Jersey Transit, METRA, MBTA and other "commuter" lines carry as many daily passengers as Amtrack. A Husker game-day train from Omaha to Lincoln and return might just attract more riders on a Saturday than an Omaha-Chicago High-Speed Rail route does in a week. I'd just like to see transportation dollars first go where we get the most bang for the buck. It seems to me if we reduce local automobile trips first we have a bigger impact on the environment. I don't see the dollars for electrically operated light-rail and street-cars in the current Federal budget.

It still doesn't make sense. These people traveling between Omaha and Lincoln are commuting for work...not tourism. They don't need a rental car, they need to get to work. So, this high speed train gets them to Omaha/Lincoln then what? They are all going different places around the cities to get to work, are we supposed to purchase and operate hundreds of shuttle buses?

It just makes no sense until each city has a substantial amount of public transportation. Currently we are sitting in the "close to none" category.

[Linkin5]

It still doesn't make sense. These people traveling between Omaha and Lincoln are commuting for work...not tourism. They don't need a rental car, they need to get to work. So, this high speed train gets them to Omaha/Lincoln then what? They are all going different places around the cities to get to work, are we supposed to purchase and operate hundreds of shuttle buses?

It just makes no sense until each city has a substantial amount of public transportation. Currently we are sitting in the "close to none" category.

+1

[mrdwhsr]

S33, I agree, we need decent local transit options first. I will also remember that this thread is Omaha to Lincoln -- a commuter distance, not Omaha to Chicago or Denver. I have this crazy notion that High speed rail and commuter rail are two different things. The California Zephyr is a tourist train. I think I'm over it.

[Big E]

It just makes no sense until each city has a substantial amount of public transportation. Currently we are sitting in the "close to none" category.

I buy that.  Now, how did we get to this point?  Couldn't be our shitty development plan of the last half century, could it?

[S33]

It just makes no sense until each city has a substantial amount of public transportation. Currently we are sitting in the "close to none" category.

I buy that.  Now, how did we get to this point?  Couldn't be our |expletive| development plan of the last half century, could it?

Development follows consumer demand and prices of commodities. There is a reason why Omaha was built the way it was. It wasn't a bunch of dumbasses sitting around thinking how they are going to upset off Big E 50 years down the road. They built according to American demand. Now, that demand is changing and we will have to adapt regardless of the expense. The fact is, in the day of the automobile, people would NOT have used a public street car when they had a perfectly good/affordable car sitting in their suburban driveway.

It's business and that's just the way it is. No amount of bitching and moaning is going to change that.

[DTO Luv]

It just makes no sense until each city has a substantial amount of public transportation. Currently we are sitting in the "close to none" category.

I buy that.  Now, how did we get to this point?  Couldn't be our |expletive| development plan of the last half century, could it?

Development follows consumer demand and prices of commodities. There is a reason why Omaha was built the way it was. It wasn't a bunch of dumbasses sitting around thinking how they are going to cream off Big E 50 years down the road. They built according to American demand. Now, that demand is changing and we will have to adapt regardless of the expense. The fact is, in the day of the automobile, people would NOT have used a public street car when they had a perfectly good/affordable car sitting in their suburban driveway.

It's business and that's just the way it is. No amount of bitching and moaning is going to change that.

How affordable is it really to have a car? I gave mine up years ago and suddenly I had hundreds of dollars that I didn't have before. My liver hurts more now than it did before, but I don't see a correlation.

[Uffda]

I think we need more of a regional transportation district like the Denver Metro area has had for years.  I remember seeing Park N Ride lots along I-25 long before they had their light rail. The RTD there covers several counties and it looks like it was planned for people to park their car and then ride in. I don't think Omaha Metro has many if any of those type of lots -- do we?  Build that type of thing up and then the light rail could link into those lots also.

[S33]

It just makes no sense until each city has a substantial amount of public transportation. Currently we are sitting in the "close to none" category.

I buy that.  Now, how did we get to this point?  Couldn't be our |expletive| development plan of the last half century, could it?

Development follows consumer demand and prices of commodities. There is a reason why Omaha was built the way it was. It wasn't a bunch of dumbasses sitting around thinking how they are going to cream off Big E 50 years down the road. They built according to American demand. Now, that demand is changing and we will have to adapt regardless of the expense. The fact is, in the day of the automobile, people would NOT have used a public street car when they had a perfectly good/affordable car sitting in their suburban driveway.

It's business and that's just the way it is. No amount of bitching and moaning is going to change that.

How affordable is it really to have a car? I gave mine up years ago and suddenly I had hundreds of dollars that I didn't have before. My liver hurts more now than it did before, but I don't see a correlation.

It's always been pretty affordable to a large majority of Americans. Right now, not so much.

And yes, I know many people who live downtown and as a direct result, their livers are hurtin lol

[StreetsOfOmaha]

Big E and S33, you're BOTH absolutely right. The city's (and country's) development over the last half century is what killed the viability of public transit in most cities, and it was city governments and developers just responding to demand... Granted, people were REALLY being retarded at the time, but they were creating the demand none-the-less.

That said, the Big Three automakers played an ACTIVE roll in killing rail transportation in this country. It didn't just happen as a byproduct of the automobile.

Anyway, lucky for everyone, the mistakes of the past can be repaired, and that's what we're starting to see today.

As far as needing to have better public transportation, Omaha is on the verge of making this happen.

Plus, don't you think that with a shiny new Omaha-Lincoln commuter train, and high-speed rail access to Minneapolis, Denver, Chicago, and KC, that Omaha might just respond to the demand by altering transit routes to serve those stops? And don't you think car-rental companies would want to set up shop REALLY close to those types of stations???

[DTO Luv]

It's always been pretty affordable to a large majority of Americans. Right now, not so much.

And yes, I know many people who live downtown and as a direct result, their livers are hurtin lol

I won't argue with you that many people "perceive" that they can afford a car. But look at what happened when gas went up to near $5 in the usually lower priced midwest. You would have thought we wer on the verge of the apocolypse. It's not just gas either.

Insurance, maintenance, and everything else with a car comes with a huge price tag and is exacerbated by a lower economic standing. When cars first came about they were luxury items. Why? Because they were costly to own. They still are but since we've become so accustomed to the luxury of having a car we've planned our environments and lives accordingly. Now that more people are realizing how much money is being wasted on the upkeep of a car they want other options. But damn, you live in Bellevue and your jobs in Millard. You also have 4 kids in 4 different schools and daycare that you need to move around to. The car made it easy to do all those things but also comes at an expense of your time and money.

Not to get off on a tangent we've already been down before but it's laughable to suggest that cars are affordable. I can also "afford" to throw some money out of my window from time to time but it doesn't mean that I have to work my life around having to throw money out of the window.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

Well put, D'Shawn.

[Big E]

It's business and that's just the way it is. No amount of bitching and moaning is going to change that.

Bitching and moaning is EXACTLY what changes that.  Demand better from developers.  Demand better from the government.  Demand better from your neighbors.  Demand better from yourself.

Sitting back and accepting the status quo is what doesn't change anything.

[mrdwhsr]

Development follows consumer demand and prices of commodities. There is a reason why Omaha was built the way it was. It wasn't a bunch of dumbasses sitting around thinking how they are going to cream off Big E 50 years down the road. They built according to American demand. Now, that demand is changing and we will have to adapt regardless of the expense. The fact is, in the day of the automobile, people would NOT have used a public street car when they had a perfectly good/affordable car sitting in their suburban driveway.

It's business and that's just the way it is. No amount of bitching and moaning is going to change that.

There is unlimited 'consumer demand' when a commodity is priced at zero.

If the auto registration fees, parking and road use taxes paid for the full cost of roads and parking and replaced property taxes lost when streets were widened and neighborhoods leveled to make way for interstate highways, I'd say there was a level playing field. And when the Unicameral considered using the state general fund to build and maintain highways was that business just the way it is?  

Next time you see a semi-truck with the 'THIS VEHICLE PAYS x-thousand dollars in Road Use taxes' keep in mind that those x-thousand dollars only cover about 93% of the cost of highway maintenance and construction (from State Highway department studies in places like Iowa). Your gas tax pays the rest. And the truck isn't paying anything for the use off city streets that aren't maintained out of state/federal highway revenues.

If the playing field were level, there would be no bitching from this corner.