How Would You Like Omaha's Future Interstate System To Look?

RockHarbor · Post by **RockHarbor** » Fri Jun 03, 2016 11:57 pm

I'm not sure if this should go here, or the "Transportation" section.

OK, my question is: With the ever-sprawling Omaha metro, how would you like our future highway/interstate system to look (or be laid-out)? Here's mine. I just used Google Maps, and Paint to do it.

Since I created this several years ago, they have built that Bellevue/I-29 bridge. I also learned they plan to extend the North Freeway to I-680 finally, but it will meet up with I-680 over in Iowa, just across the Mormon Bridge. That will be so nice. I've always disliked how the North Freeway just comes short of I-680.

Honestly, the north portion of I-680 annoys me. It has served its purpose, and I understand why it was strung the way it was. But, to me, nowadays it just hems in Omaha on the north/northwest side in a very restrictive way. I wish they would just extend I-680 north, using the Blair Highway as the footprint, and curve it over (north of Fort Calhoun) to where I-680 currently meets I-29 in Iowa, creating a smooth interchange, and creating a whole new northern section of freeway to develop. Also, I feel it would open up the "frontier" of northern Douglas County for quicker development. With this plan I laid-out, you could drive from Bennington to Downtown Omaha all on freeway.

I just don't feel there is a need to funnel fast-moving, interstate traffic from West Omaha over to Crescent, IA. To keep that road to Crescent, I wish they would just then turn the current northern portion of I-680 into a four-lane highway (like West Maple is) or something.

Maybe it's a good idea, maybe it's a bad idea. I don't know.

Just an idea...

What's your idea?

Post by **BRoss** » Sat Jun 04, 2016 11:54 am

I had posted this in http://eomahaforums.com/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=202 a few years back, but it looks like the images no longer exist.

I-829 follows the proposed beltway route and I-529 (the North Freeway) is extended along 16th Street and then across the Missouri as was proposed a few years back.

: Future of Omaha.jpg (78.71 KiB) Viewed 2941 times

daveoma · Post by **daveoma** » Sat Jun 04, 2016 1:28 pm

Where did you guys make those maps?

I've said it in this forum before and I'll give my two cents again. I personally feel that a sprawling Omaha is costly to the tax payers and instead of increasing billions of dollars in an environmentally damaging freeway that caused even more sprawl, we should invest in strategies to increase density within the city. That way you save farms, lower taxes, the city grows its population while creating a more interactive community, and the degradation of environment is lessened.

TitosBuritoBarn · Post by **TitosBuritoBarn** » Sat Jun 04, 2016 2:32 pm

Get rid of or bury all of I-480

Post by **BRoss** » Sat Jun 04, 2016 3:11 pm

daveoma wrote:Where did you guys make those maps?

I've said it in this forum before and I'll give my two cents again. I personally feel that a sprawling Omaha is costly to the tax payers and instead of increasing billions of dollars in an environmentally damaging freeway that caused even more sprawl, we should invest in strategies to increase density within the city. That way you save farms, lower taxes, the city grows its population while creating a more interactive community, and the degradation of environment is lessened.

There's a map maker for Google Maps where I've done something similar. But I think back then I just took a screenshot and used MS Paint. Now that I think of it, I do have a Google Maps version where I laid out where all the exits would be as well. I'll have to dig it up and post it.

Now I do agree with the sprawl argument and that we need better mass transit like light rail. But when coming up with this I was thinking more realistically about what Omaha would do because I think we are decades (if not more than a century) away from light rail.

Post by **BRoss** » Sat Jun 04, 2016 3:16 pm

Here's another concept I made doing a mix of the outer and inner beltways. I also put in a freeway on Blair High Rd.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/embed?mid ... 9rq3LQ9qlE

RockHarbor · Post by **RockHarbor** » Sat Jun 04, 2016 3:28 pm

I love those HR Paperstack! Thx for posting. I love both of them. I think I like the 2nd one a bit better, as everytime I drive back from Des Moines, and drive on that little I-680 portion in Iowa, I just want it to continue westward past I-29, and hook traffic up with the existing I-680 of West Omaha smoothly. I also want the northern portion of Douglas County opened up for development. It's really pretty up there, I think. If you drive the newly-widened Blair Highway, it is not hard to picture that a freeway.

On my map, for some reason, I put the outer, western loop more on the hilly land west of the Platte/Elkhorn River Valley. Back then, I didn't like the idea of the loop being in the low valley. But now, I don't mind...and would likely do what you did if I redid my map.

Omaha Sprawl: OK, I get the "anti-sprawl" talk. I really do. I respect cities, like Portland, OR, that have done a good job with that. Phoenix & Dallas/Fort Worth show what happens when it runs out-of-control. But, let's talk about reality and what is real, rather than what we want to be real. The fact is: Omaha, like Portland even, will continue to sprawl to a degree, because there is always that market for the new single family home on a lot. Not everybody wants to live in a condo in the inner city, and have their kids play in a small neighborhood park as their "yard", and take the subway or rail to work. Ya know? So, Omaha will continue to sprawl, and our existing freeway systems are becoming too confined, imo.

Dundeemaha · Post by **Dundeemaha** » Sun Jun 05, 2016 12:55 am

I'd make all of the existing interstate exists in Omaha toll booths. Get rid of this subsidy for moving out of the city.

While we're at it, tear down 480 for its ill effects on property values.

RockHarbor · Post by **RockHarbor** » Sun Jun 05, 2016 2:51 am

I don't understand this talk on I-480 being removed. I understand the annoyance of how an interstate kind of divides neighborhoods. In fact, I kinda wish they would remove the northern section of the tight ring of freeways around Downtown Kansas City. (I just don't feel the northern portion is needed, and it causes a sad division between Downtown KC and the neighborhood just north of it, imo.) But, thankfully, Omaha's freeway ring is not super tight, and we couldn't realistically expect everybody to exit I-80 and get to Downtown Omaha by driving several miles north, on 13th Street or something. Ya know? How would removing I-480 really benefit the city? (I think it would be embarrassing having a downtown of a major city several miles from a freeway or any spur.)

Post by **BRoss** » Sun Jun 05, 2016 9:47 am

It would be cool to bury 480 though and build on top to reconnect the neighborhoods. But I agree RockHarbor - we do need 480 to provide access to downtown. And living at MTC, I love having it to just jump on and go to I-80 and go west to wherever!

I wish this city could have better options, but in the meantime I like what we have and wouldn't want to get rid of any of it.

Post by **BRoss** » Sun Jun 05, 2016 9:55 am

A bit off topic, but thinking about transit here reminded me that I made this map a while back as well with some conceptual light rail lines.

I would love having this so I could just take the train to/from work everyday.

I know what I laid out is very unlikely, but I can dream...

S33 · Post by **S33** » Sun Jun 05, 2016 9:47 pm

Omaha's current footprint is not going to change. And currently, western and southern portions of the metro could use additional beltways to relieve congestion in other parts of the city.

I agree, though, that we cannot keep adding freeways that enable endless growth south and westward, unless we are also adding significant density and transportation options across the metro.

So whatever is proposed, should always bear this in mind, maybe even try to incorporate designs that can include forms of rail transit, as well.

RockHarbor · Post by **RockHarbor** » Sun Jun 05, 2016 11:15 pm

I think rail is awesome, too. It is really cool & urban. It is nice seeing it now in cities like Denver & Phoenix. But, honestly, is Omaha large enough to justify rail?

S33: I agree somewhat, but it is not like we are Phoenix or Houston -- ya know, cities adding a new freeway ring every decade or so, as the spreading "pancake batter" of sprawl moves continually onward really fast. I mean, I've watched McKinney, TX (north of Dallas) totally sprawl amazingly fast in the last 3 years or so, with the satellite view on Google Maps. Omaha doesn't even all sprawl that fast, imo. Believe me, I've lived in Phoenix and Vegas, and there, whole neighborhoods spring-up within months, subdivisions leap-frogging everywhere. Yes, you go out to West Omaha, and it almost looks like a "sea of new houses", like it does south of Denver, or something. But, in reality, it has taken decades for that growth to happen. Here, I'll post an aerial of Northwest & Southwest Omaha to show you how slow we really sprawl.

Red = Built in 70's & 80's
Yellow = Built in 1990's
Light Blue = built since 2000

(My quickly-drawn color boundaries are not perfect, but they are pretty close... I've always followed Omaha's growth through the years, since I was very young.)

cdub · Post by **cdub** » Mon Jun 06, 2016 9:07 am

Interesting that I see this the same day I read all the facebook comments about the WOWT article about PW not fixing substandard streets. The problem is already here. We can't afford the infrastructure we've built. Everyone wants a smooth street in front of their house, lots of Interstate lanes so they never wait in traffic, and they want the wheel tax and restaurant tax to go away. Wish in one hand...

Post by **BRoss** » Mon Jun 06, 2016 9:22 am

Thanks RockHarbor for that. It's amazing you can remember the timeframe for all these neighborhoods.

Garrett · Post by **Garrett** » Mon Jun 06, 2016 6:50 pm

No expansion of freeways. It never works.

Ideally what I would like to see is for the section of 480 that splits Downtown/North Downtown to come down in some way or another. That would be a major victory in my book. The western section could stay, for now.

RockHarbor · Post by **RockHarbor** » Mon Jun 06, 2016 7:18 pm

HR Paperstacks wrote:Thanks RockHarbor for that. It's amazing you can remember the timeframe for all these neighborhoods.

Growing up, I was practically obsessed w/ Omaha sprawling bigger & larger, and would make note of any new subdivision going in. Now, I don't really care. I lived away from 1996-2008, so some of those subdivisions I put in the blue section (keyed as built 2000 or after) may have been started in 1999, or something. But, it is pretty accurate overall.

Cdub: I wouldn't mind seeing that article.

Garrett: What do you mean "No Expansion of freeways. It never works." ?? Don't you agree that Omaha will eventually need new freeways installed around the metro, because the old outer loop (I-680, of course) is now in the center of town?

Are you saying Denver's new northern loop doesn't work? Are you saying all of Phoenix's new loops & extensions don't work? Are you saying the new freeways north of Dallas don't work? (I hear getting around sprawling Phoenix was awful before they put those freeways in.)

I know what you mean about I-480 splitting downtown up. But, because it is elevated, it doesn't divide it like it would have if it was a sunken freeway, imo. Plus, I do like how you can drive into Omaha on a freeway, and the buildings are standing tall right there. Most major cities have that skyscraper + freeway feature, so I'm glad Omaha does, too. Just my opinion...

mrsticka · Post by **mrsticka** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 12:33 am

I always envisioned NE 370 being a full freeway from I-80 to US 75. Could you imagine L Street having been built as a freeway from 108th to Elkhorn and the freeway ending at 204th Street there? Oh, man. That would be crazy. There would be 3 freeways in that area: I-80/I-680 and L Street. Maybe it would be known as the "3-Freeway-Meet"?

Personally, I think I-29 should've been built through Nebraska so it could serve Omaha directly-The path that US 75 follows (Kennedy Freeway, I-480 and the North Freeway) would be it.

I also agree with Blair High Road being a freeway, too.

I think those on/off ramps to and from Dodge that go to 108th Street should've been built for 114th instead and just have Dodge pass over 114th. Also, 96th would either be an overpass or underpass at Dodge. There would be frontage roads on both sides of Dodge between 90th and 96th that have access to the office buildings. So that would make Dodge a completely uninterrupted freeway from 90th west of there.

Garrett · Post by **Garrett** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 7:54 am

RockHarbor wrote:
HR Paperstacks wrote:Thanks RockHarbor for that. It's amazing you can remember the timeframe for all these neighborhoods.
Growing up, I was practically obsessed w/ Omaha sprawling bigger & larger, and would make note of any new subdivision going in. Now, I don't really care. I lived away from 1996-2008, so some of those subdivisions I put in the blue section (keyed as built 2000 or after) may have been started in 1999, or something. But, it is pretty accurate overall.

Cdub: I wouldn't mind seeing that article.

Garrett: What do you mean "No Expansion of freeways. It never works." ?? Don't you agree that Omaha will eventually need new freeways installed around the metro, because the old outer loop (I-680, of course) is now in the center of town?

Are you saying Denver's new northern loop doesn't work? Are you saying all of Phoenix's new loops & extensions don't work? Are you saying the new freeways north of Dallas don't work? (I hear getting around sprawling Phoenix was awful before they put those freeways in.)

I know what you mean about I-480 splitting downtown up. But, because it is elevated, it doesn't divide it like it would have if it was a sunken freeway, imo. Plus, I do like how you can drive into Omaha on a freeway, and the buildings are standing tall right there. Most major cities have that skyscraper + freeway feature, so I'm glad Omaha does, too. Just my opinion...

I'm saying new/expanded freeways don't work because they don't actually bring traffic alleviation over the long term. They may alleviate traffic for, at best, 5-10 years before levels return to what they were if not greater. In the end, all that they end up doing is encouraging further rapid sprawl out from the city, and being another several billion dollar cash cow to maintain. They don't work. Trust me.

iamjacobm · Post by **iamjacobm** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 8:04 am

Someone on here a few years ago had a cool idea for for N 75. Bring it back up to grade and make it a grand boulevard to connect North Omaha again. Whoever suggested it then said to have light rail where the current road is below the boulevard, to save $$ they could even just make them BRT only lanes that wouldn't have to deal with weather.

TitosBuritoBarn · Post by **TitosBuritoBarn** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 1:24 pm

RockHarbor wrote:I don't understand this talk on I-480 being removed. I understand the annoyance of how an interstate kind of divides neighborhoods.

That's about it. If nothing else, turn the northern leg into an at-grade boulevard that connects to a nice, landmark bridge into Iowa. It just doesn't have the traffic counts to counter the psychological impacts on neighborhood connectivity (and, consequently, the potential of north downtown) and the financial impacts on maintaining it.

RockHarbor · Post by **RockHarbor** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 6:41 pm

Garrett wrote: I'm saying new/expanded freeways don't work because they don't actually bring traffic alleviation over the long term. They may alleviate traffic for, at best, 5-10 years before levels return to what they were if not greater. In the end, all that they end up doing is encouraging further rapid sprawl out from the city, and being another several billion dollar cash cow to maintain. They don't work. Trust me.

Well, you sound like a smart, professional, so I'm sure you're right. A lot of you on this board know details I don't about city planning, infastructure, ect. I have to say, I do love new freeways, though. Like, out in Phoenix, I love a new, wide freeway, with black cement and freshly painted dashed white lines, lined with cactus & desert landscaping, and sound walls with zig-zagging Native American Indian designs. I love it all.

iamjacob: That is an interesting idea. They have really improved a lot of areas of North Omaha, I have noticed. I actually like that urban area around 24th & Lake, where that "Omaha Star" business is located.

TitosBurritosBarn: I'm glad you brought that up. Because: I was thinking on this talk of having I-480 removed, and I was wondering what you all felt about what kind of bridge would/could then connect Omaha to Council Bluffs. Just a street bridge, eh? Honestly, with I-29 going through Council Bluffs, it is logical a freeway spur off that into Downtown Omaha exists. Ya know? If it didn't exist, then there would be a N-S freeway just west of Downtown Omaha (the I-480/North Freeway), and another paralleling, N-S freeway just east of Downtown Omaha across the river (I-29). Not having a freeway connecting the two would be weird, I think. Right?

TitosBuritoBarn · Post by **TitosBuritoBarn** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 8:43 pm

RockHarbor wrote:TitosBurritosBarn: I'm glad you brought that up. Because: I was thinking on this talk of having I-480 removed, and I was wondering what you all felt about what kind of bridge would/could then connect Omaha to Council Bluffs. Just a street bridge, eh? Honestly, with I-29 going through Council Bluffs, it is logical a freeway spur off that into Downtown Omaha exists. Ya know? If it didn't exist, then there would be a N-S freeway just west of Downtown Omaha (the I-480/North Freeway), and another paralleling, N-S freeway just east of Downtown Omaha across the river (I-29). Not having a freeway connecting the two would be weird, I think. Right?

I was thinking a high capacity street bridge not unlike what's there now. Something that would flow into a wide e/w boulevard.

I don't think it's too weird to not have a freeway connecting the two. Something very similar to what I have in mind was done in a town in California. There was an elevated freeway, SR-480 coincidentally, that connected a n/s freeway on the east side of downtown to a n/s freeway on the west side of downtown. It was actually never fully completed so there wasn't a full freeway connecting the two, but most of what was there was torn down and replaced with a boulevard.

That town is San Francisco and the freeway was the Embarcadero Freeway. It connected I-80 (which takes you northbound across the massive Bay Bridge into Oakland and southbound into Silicon Valley) with the almost as massive Golden Gate Bridge/US-101. Granted the demolition was partly prompted by the Loma Prieta earthquake of 1989 which rendered the elevated expressway unstable.

Here's a before and after:
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco ... photo.html

RockHarbor · Post by **RockHarbor** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 10:51 pm

TitosBuritoBarn wrote:
RockHarbor wrote:TitosBurritosBarn: I'm glad you brought that up. Because: I was thinking on this talk of having I-480 removed, and I was wondering what you all felt about what kind of bridge would/could then connect Omaha to Council Bluffs. Just a street bridge, eh? Honestly, with I-29 going through Council Bluffs, it is logical a freeway spur off that into Downtown Omaha exists. Ya know? If it didn't exist, then there would be a N-S freeway just west of Downtown Omaha (the I-480/North Freeway), and another paralleling, N-S freeway just east of Downtown Omaha across the river (I-29). Not having a freeway connecting the two would be weird, I think. Right?
I was thinking a high capacity street bridge not unlike what's there now. Something that would flow into a wide e/w boulevard.

I don't think it's too weird to not have a freeway connecting the two. Something very similar to what I have in mind was done in a town in California. There was an elevated freeway, SR-480 coincidentally, that connected a n/s freeway on the east side of downtown to a n/s freeway on the west side of downtown. It was actually never fully completed so there wasn't a full freeway connecting the two, but most of what was there was torn down and replaced with a boulevard.

That town is San Francisco and the freeway was the Embarcadero Freeway. It connected I-80 (which takes you northbound across the massive Bay Bridge into Oakland and southbound into Silicon Valley) with the almost as massive Golden Gate Bridge/US-101. Granted the demolition was partly prompted by the Loma Prieta earthquake of 1989 which rendered the elevated expressway unstable.

Here's a before and after:
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco ... photo.html

Oh, wow. I didn't know they removed that 'C' curve right there near Downtown San Francisco. (I've paid attention to that batch of red, modern/contemporary-style condos adjacent to that former freeway since I was a kid. I got really great grades on an elementary report card, so I was bought a book I wanted called "Above San Francisco." Those red, modern/contemporary San Francisco condos, hemmed-in by the corner of that curving freeway, existed way back then in the mid-80's.)

I know what you mean about having that elevated freeway removed. I've thought about it before. It's almost like, back in the 60's, it was a symbol of modern progression. Now, this many years later, it isn't necessarily thought of as the same. Those elevated expressways can feel like an urban nuisance or eyesore, dividing a city up in an undesirable way physically & psychologically. I like it there, and I don't like it there, too. A wide boulevard/avenue going across the river to Council Bluffs would feel nicer and easier, rather than searching for an "on ramp" to an interstate to get over the river. But, the bridge would have to be high enough for river traffic to pass under. So, would that boulevard idea really work?

RockHarbor · Post by **RockHarbor** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 11:01 pm

mrsticka wrote:I always envisioned NE 370 being a full freeway from I-80 to US 75. Could you imagine L Street having been built as a freeway from 108th to Elkhorn and the freeway ending at 204th Street there? Oh, man. That would be crazy. There would be 3 freeways in that area: I-80/I-680 and L Street. Maybe it would be known as the "3-Freeway-Meet"?

Personally, I think I-29 should've been built through Nebraska so it could serve Omaha directly-The path that US 75 follows (Kennedy Freeway, I-480 and the North Freeway) would be it.

I also agree with Blair High Road being a freeway, too.

I think those on/off ramps to and from Dodge that go to 108th Street should've been built for 114th instead and just have Dodge pass over 114th. Also, 96th would either be an overpass or underpass at Dodge. There would be frontage roads on both sides of Dodge between 90th and 96th that have access to the office buildings. So that would make Dodge a completely uninterrupted freeway from 90th west of there.

MrSticka: I read this, but forgot to respond earlier. Thanks for your input.

It would be nice to have I-29 run through Omaha instead. Now that I'm thinking about it, it would be kinda neat to have it come over from Iowa at that new Bellevue bridge, and then come up Highway 75 (as you said), and then use the North Freeway, then have it meet up with I-680 where they plan to connect it there. Then, they could remove I-29 through Council Bluffs, right along the river. I've never liked that stretch. But, they are totally redoing I-29 over by that Google Plant, so I-29 is obviously "there to stay" in Iowa -- of course.

Dodge: Yes, it would be nice to have 96th as an overpass or underpass. I do think of it as an uninterrupted freeway west of 90th, but yes, it technically is with that 96th Street.

Busguy2010 · Post by **Busguy2010** » Wed Jun 08, 2016 2:32 am

Considering Omaha and how it has developed thus far, (with hindsight) here's what I would do:

Highway 6 west of I-680 should have been a freeway and been built at the same time as I-680. I would have planned for eight lanes (and a median wide enough for light rail

). And no need for a darned elevated expressway!

72nd Street south of I-80 should have been a six-lane freeway to Plattview Road.

Abbot drive would be a four-lane freeway that filters directly to Eppley. in order to continue onto Abbot Dr, you'd have to take a separate exit.

North Freeway should connect into I-680 in Iowa.

Build this South Beltway route and have it connect to Highway 275 and Highway 6.

Highway 36 should be a freeway from Highway 275 to I-680.

Post by **Brad** » Wed Jun 08, 2016 1:46 pm

We need light rail/commuter rail/subways. We have enough interstate.

You are never going to get an interstate to Aksarben Village, Midtown Crossing, Benson, etc, but can you imagine if there was a subway stop in the basement of Zone 6 and the building yet to be built on the Clarinda and Page lot?

Post by **BRoss** » Wed Jun 08, 2016 3:03 pm

Brad wrote:Midtown Crossing

Well it already has 480. But I agree about the need for something else. It would be nice to take light rail from here to Old Mill.

Busguy2010 · Post by **Busguy2010** » Wed Jun 08, 2016 5:46 pm

I don't recall the specific plan, but I remember a series of maps that showed we could have streetcar in 2025. It went on in 5 year increments adding onto that route and by the 2040 map, there was a light rail portion added. Now, I don't know if this city actually understands what light rail entails, but I was thrilled to see it mentioned in any kind of city review.

RockHarbor · Post by **RockHarbor** » Thu Jun 09, 2016 11:22 pm

Interesting to think of Omaha actually having light rail. I like light rail, but I'm wondering if it has been a good move in cities smaller than NYC & Chicago & LA, in places like Denver, Dallas, and Phoenix. I'm assuming it has been, but I haven't looked at studies, or anything.

mrsticka · Post by **mrsticka** » Fri Jun 10, 2016 6:41 am

Is Omaha even big enough to justify a light rail system? The downtown area isn't as big as the downtowns of Minneapolis, Chicago, Detroit, Denver, Dallas, Houston, Seattle, LA, etc. Almost all of New York is a big downtown.

TitosBuritoBarn · Post by **TitosBuritoBarn** » Fri Jun 10, 2016 9:42 am

It's not the size of the city necessarily, but the density. Phoenix is a massive city, but its light rail system isn't heavily utilized because the city doesn't currently exist in a form that is conducive to fast, convenient transit for many people; its built for cars.

I'm not sure the current population and business density of Omaha would allow for a heavily utilized light rail system. I think the nodes are there, but they need more density to make it worthwhile.

Dundeemaha · Post by **Dundeemaha** » Fri Jun 10, 2016 10:43 am

I think it really depends on what you mean by a "light rail system". I think Omaha would benefit greatly from a mixed public transit system with at most 2 light rail lines. That were part of a connected system including BRT and buses.

The light rail lines would be ideal for bringing suburban riders in to the core, and urban riders to the suburbs. Stations in Millard, Papillion, etc could serve as nexus points for the buses in those areas.

But practically I do not think Omaha can support more than that (2 might even be a stretch) until the other more economical pieces are in place. Denver is building out an extensive light rail system but Denver has over 20x as many public transit trips per year as Omaha.

mrsticka · Post by **mrsticka** » Tue Jun 14, 2016 5:51 am

Back to the freeways: What I find odd is that on I-80, the 5th lane (both east and west) repeatedly exits and re-enters at 84th, 72nd, 60th and 42nd Streets. Or it did. I think they should've just let those 5th lanes (on both sides) be uninterrupted all the way from I-680 to I-480.

Post by **BRoss** » Tue Jun 14, 2016 7:43 am

mrsticka wrote:Back to the freeways: What I find odd is that on I-80, the 5th lane (both east and west) repeatedly exits and re-enters at 84th, 72nd, 60th and 42nd Streets. Or it did. I think they should've just let those 5th lanes (on both sides) be uninterrupted all the way from I-680 to I-480.

They are auxiliary lanes that help people merge into/out of the mainline. With how busy it gets, it's beneficial to give more room for this instead of tapering right after the ramp.

Now they have added more lanes on the eastern portion just west of 480 over the past five years. Five lanes go through 42nd eastbound and a sixth starts after it. And six lanes go through 42nd westbound with a seventh as an auxiliary.

I feel that at some point they'll make it five mainline lanes with a sixth auxiliary throughout the rest to 680 in the next 20 years.

mrsticka · Post by **mrsticka** » Tue Jun 14, 2016 8:31 am

Those interchanges also don't have high mast lights posted at them. That's kind of a staple for Nebraska–Posting high mast lights at exits instead of just plain street lights. Most exits on I-80 have them.

Stargazer · Post by **Stargazer** » Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:27 pm

Yeah, the last thing Omaha needs is a bigger beltway. I feel like we had a chance to have something reasonable along 370 and Highway 6, but planners blew by that. Let's focus on improving our existing transportation infrastructure. Our tax base can only maintain so may miles of concrete.

iamjacobm · Post by **iamjacobm** » Tue Jun 14, 2016 10:28 pm

Stargazer wrote:Yeah, the last thing Omaha needs is a bigger beltway. I feel like we had a chance to have something reasonable along 370 and Highway 6, but planners blew by that. Let's focus on improving our existing transportation infrastructure. Our tax base can only maintain so may miles of concrete.

TBH our tax base can't maintain our current miles of concrete.

jessep28 · Post by **jessep28** » Wed Jun 15, 2016 10:18 am

Omaha wouldn't maintain a beltway. Interstate highway maintenance is funded and performed by the state.

Stargazer · Post by **Stargazer** » Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:15 pm

Well they (city, counties and other municipalities) sure as heck would be maintaining, the many MORE miles, of infrastructure filling in the existing and newly proposed beltways.