Official: Omaha Light Rail Discussion

[joeglow]

Joeglow- I'm glad you sighted documents to back up your argument (so many arguments on this board are based on no research at all)...BUT one of the sources you sighted is owned by Rupert Murdoch (the owner of FOX News and a staunch anti-tax dude) and the other is reason.org (which is a libertarian, anti-tax organization).

Find me some articles by some neutral organizations and I'll be more likely to believe them.

-I have seen legitimate articles on biased websites (democraticunderground.com, freerepublic.com, etc) and biased articles on more legitimate websites (ABC, CNN, etc.). Frankly, I have never been a big fan of using the website address as a counter point. Let's focus on the articles. After all, if they are such pieces of |expletive| on piece of |expletive| websites, they should have more holes than swiss cheese.

Now, to my point. There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY, anyone can convince me that a light rail would offer ANYTHING near a break even cost/benefit for Omaha. I think a LOT of people want the cool ride and will massage the costs however they want. Just like people want all the expensive shopping centers and complain about standard strip malls (how ugly they are, etc.) and THEN complain about lack of locally owned business who could NEVER afford the rent on the standard of building they are looking for. I can't tell you how many times I have seen people here complain about chain restaurants, but ignore the fact that they are the only ones who can afford rent in the buildings demanded by these same people. Simple fact is that common sense HAS to play a role in investments of this size.

[CapitalGuy]

I think a LOT of people want the cool ride and will massage the costs however they want. Just like people want all the expensive shopping centers and complain about standard strip malls (how ugly they are, etc.) and THEN complain about lack of locally owned business who could NEVER afford the rent on the standard of building they are looking for. I can't tell you how many times I have seen people here complain about chain restaurants, but ignore the fact that they are the only ones who can afford rent in the buildings demanded by these same people. Simple fact is that common sense HAS to play a role in investments of this size.

BINGO on so many topics on this board. I feel like a lot never see past the first step or first effect. There is a big picture that needs to be considered. Now whether light rail fits into it or not, I'm not sure.

[the1wags]

All transportation is subsidized. Light rail, highway, etc, etc. Of course light rail isn't going to approach "break even" status. Let me know when we "break even" on highway construction.

[Big E]

Now, to my point. There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY, anyone can convince me that a light rail would offer ANYTHING near a break even cost/benefit for Omaha.

I don't know that I've ever tried to do that, nor do I think it is necessary. I know I think it is the responsibility of the government to provide things for the society that the "free market" would never provide effectively - such as mass transit or our beloved road system.

What our mountains of statistics show is no mass transit system paying for itself. I would never argue any were. I would point out that development has happened around light rail that doesn't go to the bottom line of the rail system. The mass transit system will never see the revenue for the property and sales tax generated around the hotels, businesses, etc that are built around a light rail stop (unless the legislation takes a cut, such as a ballpark tax).

I appreciate your fiscal responsibility, Joe, but running a government is not the same as running a business or a household. I, for one, would not want to live in a society that measured progress specifically by dollars and cents (although I wouldn't mind living in one that actually paid an ounce of attention to it, unlike the current one). Looking only at the financial repercussions is as short-sided as only building one part of a mass transit system. The pedestrian bridge will never EVER generate a penny of revenue - but what about the two Riverfront towers? (No, I'm not claiming the towers were built as a result of the bridge, but it certainly will enhance their appraised value.)

-Big E

[omaja]

Well, like the opinion piece said, so are roller coasters and log rides. Why not build those as "mass transit?" I would LOVE to take a roller coaster to work every day.

That is absurd, of which I'm sure you are aware. Comparing mass transportation to amusement rides shows just how extracting fact from editorials to legitimize an argument can be a dangerous path to take.

-I have seen legitimate articles on biased websites (democraticunderground.com, freerepublic.com, etc) and biased articles on more legitimate websites (ABC, CNN, etc.). Frankly, I have never been a big fan of using the website address as a counter point. Let's focus on the articles. After all, if they are such pieces of |expletive| on piece of |expletive| websites, they should have more holes than swiss cheese.

Now, to my point. There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY, anyone can convince me that a light rail would offer ANYTHING near a break even cost/benefit for Omaha. I think a LOT of people want the cool ride and will massage the costs however they want. Just like people want all the expensive shopping centers and complain about standard strip malls (how ugly they are, etc.) and THEN complain about lack of locally owned business who could NEVER afford the rent on the standard of building they are looking for. I can't tell you how many times I have seen people here complain about chain restaurants, but ignore the fact that they are the only ones who can afford rent in the buildings demanded by these same people. Simple fact is that common sense HAS to play a role in investments of this size.

I forget the number off the top of my head, but Portland's light rail has spawned billions in development. The same can be said of other systems around the country and the world. But I suppose increased property values and better use of available real estate don't count? Not to mention livability, which can't really be given a monetary value. Good transportation is probably one of the first things people notice when visiting a city. I have heard many a person, upon returning to Omaha, say, in a tone of complete shock and disbelief, that people in these cities can actually get places without a car. Give people here something that works and I suspect you will be shocked. Somehow I doubt widening Dodge will bring about a sudden renaissance at the Crossroads. A light rail line could and most likely would make Omaha by Design's idea for the area a reality.

The big difference between your shopping center example and transportation is that transportation is, like wags said, subsidized regardless. Shopping centers are not, and are subjected to market pressures. If airlines were charged with paying all of an airports infrastructure they would all be bankrupt faster than you can say absolutely no way. Likewise, if roads weren't subsidized they wouldn't be viable either. Take away all that federal funding and see how far you can get without falling into a pothole the size of Lincoln, or taking a nice dive into the Missouri River via the I-80 bridge.

Edit: That's what I get for going away and not looking at the previous posts. haha Everything I mentioned was already talked about. Oh well.

[Big E]

Edit: That's what I get for going away and not looking at the previous posts. haha Everything I mentioned was already talked about. Oh well.

Hey, I think you sound BRILLIANT.

-Big E

[joeglow]

Now, to my point. There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY, anyone can convince me that a light rail would offer ANYTHING near a break even cost/benefit for Omaha.

I don't know that I've ever tried to do that, nor do I think it is necessary. I know I think it is the responsibility of the government to provide things for the society that the "free market" would never provide effectively - such as mass transit or our beloved road system.

What our mountains of statistics show is no mass transit system paying for itself. I would never argue any were. I would point out that development has happened around light rail that doesn't go to the bottom line of the rail system. The mass transit system will never see the revenue for the property and sales tax generated around the hotels, businesses, etc that are built around a light rail stop (unless the legislation takes a cut, such as a ballpark tax).

I appreciate your fiscal responsibility, Joe, but running a government is not the same as running a business or a household. I, for one, would not want to live in a society that measured progress specifically by dollars and cents (although I wouldn't mind living in one that actually paid an ounce of attention to it, unlike the current one). Looking only at the financial repercussions is as short-sided as only building one part of a mass transit system. The pedestrian bridge will never EVER generate a penny of revenue - but what about the two Riverfront towers? (No, I'm not claiming the towers were built as a result of the bridge, but it certainly will enhance their appraised value.)

-Big E

Sorry. I agree that that was a poor choice of wording. Of course, I don't expect the ridership revenue to offset the expenses. I just want to make sure we are in a reasonable range.

[joeglow]

I forget the number off the top of my head, but Portland's light rail has spawned billions in development. The same can be said of other systems around the country and the world. But I suppose increased property values and better use of available real estate don't count? Not to mention livability, which can't really be given a monetary value. Good transportation is probably one of the first things people notice when visiting a city. I have heard many a person, upon returning to Omaha, say, in a tone of complete shock and disbelief, that people in these cities can actually get places without a car. Give people here something that works and I suspect you will be shocked. Somehow I doubt widening Dodge will bring about a sudden renaissance at the Crossroads. A light rail line could and most likely would make Omaha by Design's idea for the area a reality.

The big difference between your shopping center example and transportation is that transportation is, like wags said, subsidized regardless. Shopping centers are not, and are subjected to market pressures. If airlines were charged with paying all of an airports infrastructure they would all be bankrupt faster than you can say absolutely no way. Likewise, if roads weren't subsidized they wouldn't be viable either. Take away all that federal funding and see how far you can get without falling into a pothole the size of Lincoln, or taking a nice dive into the Missouri River via the I-80 bridge.

Edit: That's what I get for going away and not looking at the previous posts. haha Everything I mentioned was already talked about. Oh well.

I am just a skeptic by nature. I certainly believe in the creation of wealth. Even so, I wonder how much of this development is simply to the detriment of a different part of town. I certainly agree that if you get a company to re-locate its corporate headquarters from another city or state, you have added value to the overall city. However, if all you did was provide a different location for a company that was already going to build in the city, the rail itself really does not add any value (just changes the location).

[Bomaha]

I am officially obsessed with light rail especially in Omaha. I have been working on these maps for awhile and I can atribute alot of this to Omaja's transit map with some variations on different lines and such. Here it goes: (BTW maps.live.com updated a large swath of Omaha I am guessing last June from what it looks like)

Here is the Legend Thing: (are in a somewhat timeline order of implementation)

Eppley-Bellevue Line (Silver)
Dodge Line (Red)
L St Line (Blue)
Center Line (Yellow)
Midlands-Eppley Line (Light Green)
Maple Line (Purple)
Big Four Line (Light Blue) (Southport, Oakview, VP, Lakeside)
Council Bluffs Line (Dark Red)
Bennington Line (Orange) (possibly earlier depending on how fast Northwest Douglas grows)
Gretna/370-Eppley Line (Dark Green)

Dotted Lines (Underground)
Black Lines Crossing (Elevated)
No specification on park N rides but most west of 90th would be along with others

Lines in the Downtown Area need to be worked out.
There also may be some variations in each of the maps regarding exact alignments and stations

Hope these work
Tell me what you think and don't be afraid to ask questions because they are extremely rough drafted














I thought about the alternate route for the Bennington Line (Orange). I think it would be better to have it follow blair high road til about Ames Avenue and continue east until 30th street where it turns south and follows 30th until Cuming where it would follow purple line and possible continue on to Eppley.

[Bomaha]

BTW all done in paint.

Regarding timelines: I think it would be fitting to have possible 6-8 lines out of 10 completed before 2054 coinciding with our 200th Birthday. I know its a ambitious, but averaging 1 line every 5-7 years. It is possible. Again all lines within the downtown area need to be ironed out. also those thinner lines around midtown and such are possible heritage streetcar lines plus another in North Omaha thats not on those maps. Council Bluffs could also have there line before their 200th birthday possibly. I am finally glad to have posted this and look forward to getting feedback.

Some highlights:

Underground Transfer Stations at
Oakview
Crossroads
Eppley
84th/L (Partially underground/partially above ground)
Frederick Square (idea for area below)


Other underground stations
UNO
Mutual

Qwest Center Station would have access to 5 lines possibly six including the orange line depending on its alignment
Lakeside would have two different stations instead of a single transfer station because of land constraints.
Special Military access required to continue passed 370 into Offutt (possible)
Locust Station for Carter Lake area

There are many issues system wide that would need to addressed but here are some large ones

Some issues regarding the Maple Line (purple):
NW radial would be narrowed to two lanes with tracks in the middle
Maple might have to be narrowed to two lanes through Benson
Military Avenue would be reduced to pedestrian walkway eliminating the traffic lights if any at Maple

Dodge Line (Red)
Large section (3 1/2 miles) underground to minimize affect on the surround neighborhoods

Midlands/Eppley Line (Light Green)
Huge section underground (section between Center to Maple)

Others later

[Bob from Omaha]

I'm not here to pour cold water on anything, but realistically how will this be paid for and how close will it ever get to breaking even?

[DTO Luv]

They never break even. Do roads break even?

[Mr.Nuke]

I'm not here to pour cold water on anything, but realistically how will this be paid for and how close will it ever get to breaking even?

Thinking about breaking even shouldn't even be an issue in a public transportation discussion. Most forms of public transportation are subsidized in some form or another. A city doesn't introduce or expand public transportation attempting to make a profit, they do it is as public service to the community and as an attempt to reduce pollution/traffic.

[Swift]

And increase commerce and productivity by increasing mobility.

[NDizona]

They never break even. Do roads break even?

Yes they do - in most road projects create value in the land around it - the increase in land value translates into higher property taxes and additional developments that bring in additional sales taxes.

The Dodge Expressway made the land between Elkhorn and Fremont much more attractive to development while making the land underneath it substantially less desirable. Only time will tell if the project was worth it but to say all road projects are not financially viable is just wrong.

[DTO Luv]

Well it seems to me that by using that logic, roads (improved transportation to an area) lead to higher land values which lead to higher tax revenues, then yes light rail would break even. One of the main arguments for light rail is that it increases property values.

[thenewguy]

it's funny, I'm watching a show on discovery science, and they're talking about how cities work. They had a small bit on Portland and how 20 years ago, it was in a massive decline so city leaders decided to reinvest in their downtown. They knocked down the freeway that cut through town, and (get this) built light rail transit, and forced people to be more pedestrian, and use downtown rather than bypass it. It is now a model for cities around the world, and is consistently listed at a top 10 livable city. Hopefully we can get our |expletive| together around here and follow suit

[Bomaha]

Here is my revised light rail plan, not including the streetcar, It is a master plan, over something like 30 years.
[/img]

[Brad]

Looks Good!

[StreetsOfOmaha]

You probably don't need to have EVERY SINGLE LINE go to the airport. ;)

[Bomaha]

Okay, maybe i did go a little overboard.

[Big E]

You probably don't need to have EVERY SINGLE LINE go to the airport. ;)

LOL, no kidding... why not just send that line from Village Pointe all the way to terminal C at O'Hare?

-Big E

[Brad]

LOL, no kidding... why not just send that line from Village Pointe all the way to terminal C at O'Hare?

Duh... Because the C Terminal at Denver is closer!

[Bomaha]

Now, as I have told you before I am obsessed with a light rail system for Omaha. I have fine tuned it and added an expanded streetcar system (receiving my inspiration from Toronto's streetcar system). I am also being very realistic, which might be a contradiction, but I'll let you decide.

I also came up with a name: OMaha Area Rail or OMAR Tell me watcha think.

Again, this is extreme long term and I do believe that we are capable of this.
And me trying to be as logical as possible.

I separated the six lines into the North Lines: Maple & Blair and the South Lines: Silver(Bellevue-Offutt), Green(R,LV,P), Yellow(West Center), Blue(I-80 > Gretna)

Now, I figured that the South Lines or at least one or two would be the built first before the North Lines even begin construction because of the large cost difference (I suspect).

All of the South Lines would be on their own ROW along the BNSF/UP? line meaning new bridges and such including overpasses (96th and 108th, possibly 32nd, 36th, and 42nd) They would all also terminate downtown at the Burlington Northern Station (I know it is supposedly being converted into condos, stupid idea) Here's for hopin'! It would be a perfect hub for the light rail, Amtrak, etc.. and possibly integrated with the inter-modal station around 13th.

Silver Line: Follows BNSF line south on own ROW into Fort Crook Road Area, following Fort Crook to terminate at Offutt
Green Line: Follows BNSF line west until 84th when it turns south and continues on the west side of 84th on own ROW but street level til Midlands/Shadow Lake
Yellow Line: Continues along the interstate til about L then turns and follows L/Industrial Road to West Center Road to LakeSide
Blue Line: Continues parallel along I-80 til about 370 when it turns west til ending in Gretna.

A large line missing from the North Lines would be the Dodge Line because of the extremely high cost of the project and difficulty navigating past 120th and beyond to Village Pointe and Metro-Elkhorn, however an extension of the Maple Line to Westroads seemed sufficient.

Maple Line: This is a very tricky line because of the complicated nature of the line. In downtown, it takes up the southernmost lane going one way on Dodge as well as Douglas at street level. The turnaround is just east of Holland. The two lines combine/separate east of Turner Park just as Dodge/Douglas do. They are elevated at this point and the pylons are situated in the center lane. (Obviously no traffic in center lane at all, possibly turn lanes.) Continue this until roughly 70th where it stays somewhat elevated along Dodge to 90th where it turns north. Dodge at that point is 8 lanes w/double turn lanes, but to accommodate the line Dodge will be reduced to six lanes w/double turn lanes. Along 90th is tricky, but I think that the ROW within the median is alright. It would then turn onto Maple and continue in the median til about 120th where it would continue on the north side of the road until about 168th. Extensions could be made along 168th north to Ida.

Blair Line: Contrary to it's name the Blair Line basically follows NW Radial & Blair High Road til about Bennington Road. There is a split off at SaddleCreek and continues on a separate ROW within the inner most lanes of NW Radial.
l
l
<
M
>
l
l

Now a section is not six lanes and have to be widened to have 2 LTR tracks, possible turn lanes, and 4 traffic lanes. It could continue in the median past 72nd or north?

Those are the LTR lines.

Here are the Streetcar Lines: (with possible openings I dream, too)
Old Market - Creighton University
May-11
Old Market - UNMC
Aug-14
Downtown - Zoo
Apr-16
Downtown - Airport
Dec-16
Qwest Center & Saddle Creek
Jan-18
30th & Bondesson - 24th & O via Ames, 24th
Mar-20
30th & Bondesson - Downtown via 30th, Burt, Webster, 10th, Farnam
Apr-20
24th & O - 72nd & Ames via 24th
Apr-21
Creighton University - 72nd & Ames via 30th, Ames
Apr-21
Fort & Fontenelle Blvd - Bergen Mercy via Fontenelle Blvd, NW Radial, Saddle Creek, Center, Mercy
Nov-25
UNMC - 72nd & Q via 42nd, Q
Dec-25

[StreetsOfOmaha]

There are some great ideas there, and you've obviously put a lot of thought and time into researching "viable" routes and system configurations.

The name is OK. Catchy. You don't have to use the "OM" from Omaha. You can just call it Omaha Metro Area Rail. You could throw "Transit" on the end and make it "OMART". Anyway, it sounds funny in MY head because I've been calling the Old Market district the "OMar" for years.

As far as a Dodge Street line, I have to say I think the OPPOSITE of what you said is true. I think from 120th Street West would be the EASY part as far as laying track and building stations. It would be the eastern, urban areas of the city that would pose complications on Dodge Street.... But TOTALLY doable nonetheless.

[thenewguy]

Seeing as how there hasn't been talk in this thread for over a month, I'm hoping that the mayor's discussions of light rail wasn't just a flash in the pan, and that there is some stuff going on behind the scenes. It'd be nice to know that the momentum is still going, no matter how visible it is to the public or not.

[icejammer]

Looks like our 'neighbors' to the south are moving forward with light rail...

Size, complexity of light-rail project could bring cost to $727M

The light-rail starter line being planned in Kansas City would be among the most massive and complex construction projects ever undertaken here.

And at $727 million for the 12-mile route, it also would be among the most expensive.

The project will involve bridge construction and improvements, light-rail station construction, construction of the 12-mile dual-track rail line in the center of relatively narrow city streets, design and installation of a power supply, and construction of a $70 million maintenance and office facility. . . .

That's $60 million per mile! Yikes!

[gisbuxfan]

I am very excited about KC moving ahead with this...they desperately needed something!!

[stadsborgare]

I am very excited about KC moving ahead with this...they desperately needed something!!

I wonder if there is any funding for it in the Stimulus Bill 2009? As I love riding light rail, I'd make trips there just for that.

As for Omaha's light rail, usually cities begin with a "starter line". They can't put the complete system in at one time. So where would your starter line run?

[mrdwhsr]

As for Omaha's light rail, usually cities begin with a "starter line". They can't put the complete system in at one time. So where would your starter line run?

I would start at Albright Park (south Omaha), along the ex-CRI&P and BN/UP lines to 15th, run north through downtown on 15th to Nicholas, then use old railroad right-of-ways to a park & ride at I-680 30th Street exit. There is a lot of room for infill development between downtown and the Storz Expressway. The only thing better would be to use the Illinois Central/Canadian National line from 15th and Nicholas to Abbott Drive/Freedom Park - then into the Airport. The problem with airport lines is the political battle with the taxi and shuttle services. There was once streetcar service from downtown Omaha to Council Bluffs over the IC/CN bridge (but I really wasn't around 100+ years ago to see it.) Maybe that would make a comeback? I think another member on this Forum had a similar idea a few years ago, at least on the South Omaha end.

Yep, there sure isn't much there along that route today. It would take some imagination to think of the transit oriented developments that might be built.

If Bellevue was on the ball, they could extend Omaha's light rail from Albright to Offut in a median in Fort Crook Road. Might be just the thing to revitalize businesses along that street?

[justnick]

I would start at Albright Park (south Omaha), along the ex-CRI&P and BN/UP lines to 15th, run north through downtown on 15th to Nicholas, then use old railroad right-of-ways to a park & ride at I-680 30th Street exit.

Yes, please.

[omahahawk]

Daub, Suttle both on board for Omaha light rail system

Hal Daub and Jim Suttle have clashed on many issues in Omaha's mayoral campaign. Here's one thing they agree on: Omaha needs a light rail system.

http://omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2798&u_sid=10619161

[StreetsOfOmaha]

From the OWH article:

The candidates acknowledge that it would be years before light rail was installed, but they would like to see significant steps taken over the next four years.

:banghead: :banghead:

OH. MY. GOD.

Omaha seems doomed to perpetually TALK about light rail and never make any physical progress.

What significant steps would we take over the next FOUR YEARS other that |expletive| installing the system???

By "significant steps", I think they just mean making sure to mention it in the State of the City address once a year, like Fahey has done.

[S33]

From the OWH article:

The candidates acknowledge that it would be years before light rail was installed, but they would like to see significant steps taken over the next four years.

:banghead: :banghead:

OH. MY. GOD.

Omaha seems doomed to perpetually TALK about light rail and never make any physical progress.

What significant steps would we take over the next FOUR YEARS other that |expletive| installing the system???

By "significant steps", I think they just mean making sure to mention it in the State of the City address once a year, like Fahey has done.

Just how much talking is necessary? I would think they just take action or shut up.

[TitosBuritoBarn]

I'm generally more democratic than republican, but Suttle commented that the light rail network would "not be about transportation, but development" (or something to that effect). Um...how about for both? Idiot. Otherwise what you have is a streetcar or a trolley system for a "heritage" aesthetic, not an LRT.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

That's EXACTLY what I was thinking.

I'm feeling extremely luke warm on both these mayoral candidates, seeing as how urban transit is one of my KEY vote-getters when it comes to city elections. So far, the candidates for mayor (I don't even want to get into the city council candidates) have shown themselves to be completely unwilling to lead on issues concerning urban transit in Omaha. And they're being complete pussies because they don't want to talk about anything that will use *GASP* money during this economic climate.

I find that any time there is a dialog concerning urban rail transit (light rail, streetcars, commuter rail), a staggering amount of hypocrisy and ignorance presents itself when it comes to the issues of A) How do you pay for it? and B) Is Omaha big enough to "support" these modes of transportation.

Some question the "demand" for such systems. I just want to slap these people. That's like saying, "I don't know if our metropolis has the demand for a functioning sewer system," or "I don't think the school-aged population in Omaha has quite reached the critical mass which would demand a successful and working education system."

As for Omaha's size/population, it frustrates me how many people focus on sheer population, while ignoring the one factor that REALLY matters: population DENSITY.

[mrdwhsr]

My cynical side is telling me Street Cars and Light Rail will just be talked to death but never built. I really want to be more hopeful.

Let's save the money of another study (Mr Suttle) and actually build a starter line. 10th Street, Creighton-Old Market, Farnum to Med Center,
24th & Lake via North Downtown, pick one and build it. And let's actually provide service every 15 to 20 minutes minimum, not hourly like the
line in Tampa FL. That would be real proof that steel wheel on steel rail can attract riders, bring development, and provide jobs.

If we need to spend money on a study, let's have a study that will show if another bridge to Iowa (from North 16th Street) will provide 100 jobs
in North Omaha. The millions spent on roads: Sorenson Parkway, Storz Expressway, North Freeway haven't demonstrated results. ....which must
mean they aren't paying off, they are a drain on the taxpayers...we couldn't really afford them. [DTO - This is where I'd put the smiley face if I
could figure out how to use the emoticons].

And we can start a list of what 'road use' gasoline taxes don't pay for:

Residential Streets
Most of the Omaha arterial street widenings -- like Blondo, Fort Street, 132nd (bonds and wheel taxes that aren't tied to usage)
A parking spot at the work-place
A parking spot at the mall
A parking spot at school
A parking spot at home
A parking spot at the ball-park
The tax revenues lost to Omaha to add more freeway lanes for commuters from Sarpy County where most new development will go when
Western Douglas county is filled up and nobody has done anything to bring development to Omaha's urban core.
Not to mention the possibility discussed in the Unicameral to use state sales and income tax revenues to build more highways or maintain
the ones already built.

I need to go to my quiet place now.

[S33]

That's EXACTLY what I was thinking.

I'm feeling extremely luke warm on both these mayoral candidates, seeing as how urban transit is one of my KEY vote-getters when it comes to city elections. So far, the candidates for mayor (I don't even want to get into the city council candidates) have shown themselves to be completely unwilling to lead on issues concerning urban transit in Omaha. And they're being complete pussies because they don't want to talk about anything that will use *GASP* money during this economic climate.

I find that any time there is a dialog concerning urban rail transit (light rail, streetcars, commuter rail), a staggering amount of hypocrisy and ignorance presents itself when it comes to the issues of A) How do you pay for it? and B) Is Omaha big enough to "support" these modes of transportation.

Some question the "demand" for such systems. I just want to slap these people. That's like saying, "I don't know if our metropolis has the demand for a functioning sewer system," or "I don't think the school-aged population in Omaha has quite reached the critical mass which would demand a successful and working education system."

As for Omaha's size/population, it frustrates me how many people focus on sheer population, while ignoring the one factor that REALLY matters: population DENSITY.

"How do you pay for it" ??

I can't think of a more valid concern than how we plan to pay for it.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

It's CERTAINLY a valid concern.

I'm just saying that, for some reason, when it's highway and road construction, people tend to bend over and take what's given to them and accept the way it was paid for. They may casually bicker about their tax dollars being used on all this road construction, but they generally accept it. With urban rail transit, the mere mention of it brings out the "rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble" in people. This is the hypocrisy of which I was speaking.

We need highways, even though that takes money. We need schools, even though that takes money. We need utilities and sewers, even though that takes money.

Why can't people see that we need a viable, successful, modern, environmentally sustainable, urban transit system, EVEN THOUGH THAT TAKES MONEY.

[GetUrban]

A few thoughts...

Once people start seeing Light Rail as a solution to problems such as traffic congestion, excessive commute times, lack of parking/high parking costs, and pollution, they will want to spend money on Light Rail instead of new wider roads and bigger parking garages.

These problems aren't as big in Omaha as other cities such as Denver, Minneapolis, etc. People have to perceive taking the train to be more convenient than driving before they will actually do it. Feeling good about riding the train will not be enough to make people give up their cars. People will pay to ride the train if it is less expensive, faster, and more convenient than driving and parking. If more parking garages and surface lots keep getting built downtown, and it's easy to get there on the new highways, it will be hard to convince people it would be easier to take the train.

I think you have to divert money from road construction to pay for light rail. In effect you'd be solving the same problem (improving transportation) with the same money and a different more efficient solution.

Tying Eppley Airfield into the light rail system is a must from the start. Parking at the airport is a pain. I'm always surprised how long it takes to find a spot. I'd much rather not leave my car there.