City's transport plan to get update

[almighty_tuna]

I'd love to see light rail on Dodge St, but not at the expense of killing automobile traffic there. With some thought and planning, I'm sure we could easily find a rational compromise.

Build a Subway!

And it could totally pop out to surface rail underneath the West Dodge Expressway! :thumb:

[StreetsOfOmaha]

omaja, I think I'm done debating this for right now. Broadway is not the issue, only an example, and I disagree with you about Dodge Street.

Yes, Brad, if the car capacity on Dodge is to be retained, something would have to be buried.

However, I would envision burying the rail (or running it down the median), turning Dodge into one dedicated lane of traffic in each direction, a wide central median, parallel parking, broad bikeways protected by the parking, and a wide, tree-lined pedestrian promenade on both sides.

[S33]

However, I would envision burying the rail (or running it down the median), turning Dodge into one dedicated lane of traffic in each direction, a wide central median, parallel parking, broad bikeways protected by the parking, and a wide, tree-lined pedestrian promenade on both sides.

How many blocks west would this system stretch?

[StreetsOfOmaha]

I would envision that specific configuration probably between about Midtown Crossing (Turner Blvd.) and just west of UNO.

[S33]

I would envision that specific configuration probably between about Midtown Crossing (Turner Blvd.) and just west of UNO.

How do we solve the problem of getting the thousands and thousands of people from west and northwest Omaha to their jobs Downtown with that configuration? All I am seeing is two lanes of 12 hour gridlock.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

I would envision that specific configuration probably between about Midtown Crossing (Turner Blvd.) and just west of UNO.

How do we solve the problem of getting the thousands and thousands of people from west and northwest Omaha to their jobs Downtown with that configuration? All I am seeing is two lanes of 12 hour gridlock.

I'm assuming you mean "in a car."

Well, as I mentioned, W. Dodge Expressway (or I-80 in SW O) to 680 to 80 to 480 serves those in far west Omaha with an uninterrupted expressway route directly into Downtown. As for NW Omaha, well, maybe Sorensen Parkway to the North Freeway? A revamped NW Radial/Military Avenue corridor?

Is Dodge Street really how people in NW Omaha and far west Omaha are getting to Downtown? I don't think it is.

Of course this new Dodge Street wouldn't exist in a vacuum. There would also ideally be other new transit alternative facilities serving all areas of the metro.

Trust me, this would not be the end of the world. In deed it would offer a new level of livability the likes of which the city has never experienced.

[S33]

I would envision that specific configuration probably between about Midtown Crossing (Turner Blvd.) and just west of UNO.

How do we solve the problem of getting the thousands and thousands of people from west and northwest Omaha to their jobs Downtown with that configuration? All I am seeing is two lanes of 12 hour gridlock.

I'm assuming you mean "in a car."

Lol no, I meant a spaceship.

Well, as I mentioned, W. Dodge Expressway (or I-80 in SW O) to 680 to 80 to 480 serves those in far west Omaha with an uninterrupted expressway route directly into Downtown. As for NW Omaha, well, maybe Sorensen Parkway to the North Freeway? A revamped NW Radial/Military Avenue corridor?

Is Dodge Street really how people in NW Omaha and far west Omaha are getting to Downtown? I don't think it is.

Yes, it is. The majority of west/nw Omaha residents simply take a north/south feeder road and jump right on Dodge and head east toward downtown. And in case you've never seen 80-east in the morning, that extra traffic from Dodge would not work.

Of course this new Dodge Street wouldn't exist in a vacuum. There would also ideally be other new transit alternative facilities serving all areas of the metro.

Trust me, this would not be the end of the world. In deed it would offer a new level of livability the likes of which the city has never experienced.

That is what I was asking. To me it was sounding like you wanted to simply eliminate all but two lanes of Dodge Street traffic and simply throw in a train.

[Uffda]

The majority of west/nw Omaha residents simply take a north/south feeder road and jump right on Dodge and head east toward downtown

If that is what they are doing they need to work on their route. I can take Sorensen to North 75 and be downtown in about 15 mins. Of course that depends on what someone is calling NW Omaha.

Personally I avoid Dodge east of 72nd

[S33]

I guess when I think of North O I think of anything north of Dodge, West of 680.

[omaja]

Well, as I mentioned, W. Dodge Expressway (or I-80 in SW O) to 680 to 80 to 480 serves those in far west Omaha with an uninterrupted expressway route directly into Downtown. As for NW Omaha, well, maybe Sorensen Parkway to the North Freeway? A revamped NW Radial/Military Avenue corridor?

Is Dodge Street really how people in NW Omaha and far west Omaha are getting to Downtown? I don't think it is.

Of course this new Dodge Street wouldn't exist in a vacuum. There would also ideally be other new transit alternative facilities serving all areas of the metro.

For people north of Pacific and south Blondo, Dodge is probably the preferred route. Between Pacific and Center it is probably a toss-up. South of Center it is decidedly I-80/I-480 into Downtown. A detour along I-680/I-80/I-480 isn't really practical for people who use Dodge considering that would add six or so miles to a one-way trip. At any rate, anyone north of Blondo is probably better off taking Maple/Radial or Sorensen to I-480, depending on where they are.

Trust me, this would not be the end of the world. In deed it would offer a new level of livability the likes of which the city has never experienced.

I have trouble believing that there wouldn't be adverse effects along other streets (and Dodge itself, for that matter) from reducing capacity on Dodge by more than half. Can you think of a city whose most traveled major urban thoroughfare has only two traffic lanes? I've been trying to but I don't think one exists. I hope when the City does decide to sink some money into Dodge that they do it right: widening the corridor appropriately so that cars, pedestrians, cyclists, and bus/rail can all be included.

[Brad]

Is Dodge Street really how people in NW Omaha and far west Omaha are getting to Downtown? I don't think it is.

I take Fort St to NW Radial down to Cuming and east to downtown or I take Maple to 72nd Street, over to Blondo, down Blondo to Metcaf Park, then over to Saddlecreek, then Saddlecreek to Cuming and then downtown on Cuming.

[S33]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/12/02/fi ... latestnews

Because of natural occurrences, a traffic signal in Spokane, Washington gives pedestrians the bird.

[mrdwhsr]

Is Dodge Street really how people in NW Omaha and far west Omaha are getting to Downtown? I don't think it is.

Dodge Street is heavily used by people in NW and far west Omaha. It is also used by several W.O. Commuters through downtown Omaha to Council Bluffs. I've been told it is less congested than I-80, zips along at a decent pace with only a few red lights, takes about the same amount of time, and saves six-miles a day. I don't care for either alternative. That is why I live and work in the suburbs with a 3.5 mile commute. If I worked downtown I would want to live close to downtown, but my kids are all 30-somethings.

I would guess that a lot of the I-80 traffic is a) through traffic, b) commuters from southern Douglas and Sarpy counties, c) commuters from Blair, Fremont, Valley, Lincoln who entered Omaha on the Expressways and Interstates and don't feel a need to get off until downtown.

Hey, maybe we put the cars in the subway - save money on snow removal and I still have a view from the light-rail? With heated station stops, OK?

[Zilla]

However, I would envision burying the rail (or running it down the median), turning Dodge into one dedicated lane of traffic in each direction, a wide central median, parallel parking, broad bikeways protected by the parking, and a wide, tree-lined pedestrian promenade on both sides.

Holy Zombie Jesus, I hope this never happens. I might just drive that auto paving machine from Cars right down this middle median. One lane down Dodge....LOL!

[StreetsOfOmaha]

I have trouble believing that there wouldn't be adverse effects along other streets (and Dodge itself, for that matter) from reducing capacity on Dodge by more than half.

Adverse effects for whom? Certainly not those who want non-automobile transportation alternatives, nor the city itself or the environment at large. Adverse effects on car commuters' travel times? Well yes, you bet, but that is partially the point.

Can you think of a city whose most traveled major urban thoroughfare has only two traffic lanes? I've been trying to but I don't think one exists.

I don't think one exists either because that is an oxymoron. If a city's most traveled urban thoroughfare has only two traffic lanes - and nothing else - then it probably exists in some alternate universe. 

I hope when the City does decide to sink some money into Dodge that they do it right: widening the corridor appropriately so that cars, pedestrians, cyclists, and bus/rail can all be included.

That's the problem - the corridor is essentially widened to capacity. At a bare minimum, nothing will be done, and automobile congestion will continue to increase on the corridor and eventually completely choke off the entire artery for all users - even non-motorists.

If other modes are going to be accommodated without a massive tunneling project, Dodge Streets auto capacity will have to be reduced. But this is where many of you seem to be running into trouble: Reduced auto capacity does not equal reduced total capacity. Done right, it would increase the total number of commuters who are able to efficiently travel to and from Omaha's urban core on its most central route.

[omaja]

I'd wager that reducing Dodge's auto capacity by over half would significantly reduce its total capacity. Unless, of course, you have a guaranteed 50+ percent switching to other means of transportation.

So you DO get it!!!

Yes, I get it. That's why I don't understand why you are proposing to reduce overall capacity on the busiest corridor in the city.

[mrdwhsr]

I'd wager that reducing Dodge's auto capacity by over half would significantly reduce its total capacity. Unless, of course, you have a guaranteed 50+ percent switching to other means of transportation.

So you DO get it!!!

Yes, I get it. That's why I don't understand why you are proposing to reduce overall capacity on the busiest corridor in the city.

It's the stick approach. You vill learn to use public transportation und you vill luff it!

[StreetsOfOmaha]

I'd wager that reducing Dodge's auto capacity by over half would significantly reduce its total capacity. Unless, of course, you have a guaranteed 50+ percent switching to other means of transportation.

So you DO get it!!!

Yes, I get it. That's why I don't understand why you are proposing to reduce overall capacity on the busiest corridor in the city.

Oh, you don't get it. :(

[S33]

I'd wager that reducing Dodge's auto capacity by over half would significantly reduce its total capacity. Unless, of course, you have a guaranteed 50+ percent switching to other means of transportation.

So you DO get it!!!

Yes, I get it. That's why I don't understand why you are proposing to reduce overall capacity on the busiest corridor in the city.

Oh, you don't get it. :(

You're the only enlightened one here, Streets. I don't even know why you bother to debate with us, it's almost like scolding an aboriginal tribe about their hygiene habits.

[omaja]

I'd wager that reducing Dodge's auto capacity by over half would significantly reduce its total capacity. Unless, of course, you have a guaranteed 50+ percent switching to other means of transportation.

So you DO get it!!!

Yes, I get it. That's why I don't understand why you are proposing to reduce overall capacity on the busiest corridor in the city.

Oh, you don't get it. :(

Quite frankly I think it is you who doesn't get it. And you probably won't get it until you come down from your ivory tower. Theory might work well in the classroom, but it has to be adapted to the real world. It also doesn't say much when even with your supposedly superior knowledge on the subject, you fail to back up your argument with evidence, research, statistics, and any sort of meaningful analysis.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

you fail to back up your argument with evidence, research, statistics, and any sort of meaningful analysis.

Right now, I'm putting that effort into school work. I've decided devoting any sizable chunk of time to such things on the forum is completely futile. It's just not worth it - not in this medium.

I don't know what kind of statistics or research you might be looking for anyway... The principles behind my reasoning for this are widely accepted - environmental impact, sustainability, conservation, preservation, climate change, social equity...

What I was getting at before was that you do seem to get that what I'm proposing would drastically reduce automobile mode-share, and that in order for that to happen, and in deed for Dodge Street's capacity to increase, many thousands of people would face a choice between sitting in gridlocked auto congestion or choosing to use alternative means of transportation that, consequently, are better for their health, that of the environment, and of the urban environment.

No ivory tower here. Just a 26 year old urban planning master's student.

[omaja]

And what I've been trying to tell you is that what you propose would likely decrease Dodge's utility and increase congestion for all types of transportation. (The buses and light rail would undoubtedly be caught up in the congestion as is any public transportation that is mixed with auto traffic.) Which is why I asked if you knew of any example where replacing 50 percent of a city's busiest street's auto capacity with alternative transportation actually resulted in an equally significant percentage of the auto demand shifting to alternative transportation along the corridor. Such a scenario seems far-fetched at best. It might look good on paper but that's probably just about the extent of its usefulness.

[2Adam29]

today I had my car in the shop and opted to take the bus to the gym. I sat at the stop for a half-hour before giving up just as the bus pulled up. I decided not to get on and just get a ride later. I might have understood the wait on a small side-street or during rush-hour, but I was on Dodge at 2pm. You should not have to wait a half hour to catch a bus on Omaha's most popular street.

Whatever happens, we definitely need this improvement. I can't imagine being someone who relies on the bus to get to work or school when we have such lousy bus service.

[S33]

today I had my car in the shop and opted to take the bus to the gym. I sat at the stop for a half-hour before giving up just as the bus pulled up. I decided not to get on and just get a ride later. I might have understood the wait on a small side-street or during rush-hour, but I was on Dodge at 2pm. You should not have to wait a half hour to catch a bus on Omaha's most popular street.

Whatever happens, we definitely need this improvement. I can't imagine being someone who relies on the bus to get to work or school when we have such lousy bus service.

Earth killer

[StreetsOfOmaha]

2adam29, your experience was not unique. I'm sure most first-time elective transit users in Omaha have a similarly negative experience. I know my first was extremely negative. Did you also have to deal with the confused, disapproving looks of pity from motorists as they passed or waited for the light to change at an intersection?

It is COMPLETELY understandable for people to not only not want to ride the bus in Omaha, but to even be completely repulsed by the the buses, the stops, the system, and how it's run.

Also, omaja, the light rail or BRT would be on its own dedicated right of way with prioritized signals at intersections. It wouldn't be subject to auto congestion at all - which is the point.

Do you really need an example of where it's been done before? Or would examples of successful transit/ped/auto corridors that were never monopolized by automobiles in the first place suffice?

[omaja]

Also, omaja, the light rail or BRT would be on its own dedicated right of way with prioritized signals at intersections. It wouldn't be subject to auto congestion at all - which is the point.

In theory, sure. In practice, it would still very much be subject to auto, pedestrian, and cyclist congestion. While prioritized signals would no doubt help, you're leaving out the plethora of entitled pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers that will cross or block the tracks of oncoming trains because crossing the street or making a u-turn is infinitely more important than inconveniencing hundreds of people. Regardless, street-running light rail with or without its own right-of-way isn't very efficient for such a densely populated area on a very narrow and restricted corridor as it is.

Do you really need an example of where it's been done before? Or would examples of successful transit/ped/auto corridors that were never monopolized by automobiles in the first place suffice?

I'm going to take that to mean the answer to my original request is no, which is just what I thought.

[S33]

2adam29, your experience was not unique. I'm sure most first-time elective transit users in Omaha have a similarly negative experience. I know my first was extremely negative. Did you also have to deal with the confused, disapproving looks of pity from motorists as they passed or waited for the light to change at an intersection?

It is COMPLETELY understandable for people to not only not want to ride the bus in Omaha, but to even be completely repulsed by the the buses, the stops, the system, and how it's run.

Is there anything you don't |expletive| about?

[StreetsOfOmaha]

omaja, I think we're envisioning different kinds of systems. For an example of what I'm talking about, see the photos of Lille that I posted a few pages back - the trams/light rail have limited grade crossings for cars and pedestrians, and the rest of the corridor is protected by creative landscaping (bushes, shrubs, decorative fencing, etc.) that would discourage anyone from trying to cross in places other than where it is intended.

But sure, a buried system would be ideal. Regardless, you're still looking at a reduction of automobile capacity either way if pedestrians, bicycles, and local bus service are going to be adequately accommodated.

Right? Isn't that your main concern? Reducing auto capacity? How can Dodge Street be improved to accommodate all these other road users and maintain or increase auto capacity? Even if this could happen, why should it happen?

How can you say, "street-running light rail with or without its own right-of-way isn't very efficient for such a densely populated area on a very narrow and restricted corridor"?

What?! That's exactly why it's an efficient use! Are you saying that five automobile lanes and tiny sidewalks is an "efficient" use of the corridor?

And no, I wasn't acquiescing to your question - just asking for clarification. I was also pointing out that you might be asking the wrong question. You're caught up on seeing an example of where this exact thing has been done before, when the better question might be "how did Dodge Street get like this in the first place?" My point was that I could provide a plethora of examples of successful transit/pedestrian/auto corridors that were never monopolized by cars in the first place.

S33, that wasn't even a complaint. I was commiserating with him and letting him know I completely understand how he feels.

Do you automatically mindlessly |expletive| about anything I say?

[S33]

Do you automatically mindlessly |expletive| about anything I say?

Yes

[StreetsOfOmaha]

Well, I appreciate your admission of mindlessness when commenting on my posts.

[S33]

Well, I appreciate your admission of mindlessness when commenting on my posts.

K, but you really have to stop using my statements to qualify your own... You should really be able to make your own point without using my sarcasm out of its context or intent.

Now lets get back to talking about trains again.

[the1wags]

Also, omaja, the light rail or BRT would be on its own dedicated right of way with prioritized signals at intersections. It wouldn't be subject to auto congestion at all - which is the point.

In theory, sure. In practice, it would still very much be subject to auto, pedestrian, and cyclist congestion. While prioritized signals would no doubt help, you're leaving out the plethora of entitled pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers that will cross or block the tracks of oncoming trains because crossing the street or making a u-turn is infinitely more important than inconveniencing hundreds of people.

Are you |expletive| kidding me with this? You haven't been to anywhere with light rail, have you?

[almighty_tuna]

Also, omaja, the light rail or BRT would be on its own dedicated right of way with prioritized signals at intersections. It wouldn't be subject to auto congestion at all - which is the point.

In theory, sure. In practice, it would still very much be subject to auto, pedestrian, and cyclist congestion. While prioritized signals would no doubt help, you're leaving out the plethora of entitled pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers that will cross or block the tracks of oncoming trains because crossing the street or making a u-turn is infinitely more important than inconveniencing hundreds of people.

Are you |expletive| kidding me with this? You haven't been to anywhere with light rail, have you?

sarcasm, Wags...it's sarcasm. ;)

[omaja]

omaja, I think we're envisioning different kinds of systems. For an example of what I'm talking about, see the photos of Lille that I posted a few pages back - the trams/light rail have limited grade crossings for cars and pedestrians, and the rest of the corridor is protected by creative landscaping (bushes, shrubs, decorative fencing, etc.) that would discourage anyone from trying to cross in places other than where it is intended.

But sure, a buried system would be ideal. Regardless, you're still looking at a reduction of automobile capacity either way if pedestrians, bicycles, and local bus service are going to be adequately accommodated.

Right? Isn't that your main concern? Reducing auto capacity? How can Dodge Street be improved to accommodate all these other road users and maintain or increase auto capacity? Even if this could happen, why should it happen?

That setup is identical to what is here in Boston on the Green Line's B, C, and E branches. Not exactly a model for efficiency. The thing is those corridors are over twice as wide as Dodge through Midtown, not to mention that the Green Line is a subway under the Back Bay which is Boston's equivalent to Midtown. Trying to fit two lanes of traffic, parking lanes, bus lanes, bicycle lanes, wide sidewalks, and a median in the same space as five traffic lanes would be impossible. Widening the corridor to accommodate all of that would also probably approach the cost of burying the rail to begin with.

My main concern isn't reducing auto capacity per se. My issue is that you are suggesting to eliminate over half of it. I've already suggested either converting the reversible lane into dedicated turning lanes or eliminating it entirely in favor of bicycle lanes, a median, and widened sidewalks. That right there is a pretty significant reduction in capacity, though certainly doable. A rail line would be buried while buses, pedestrians, and bicyclists would be adequately accommodated without a completely nonsensical disregard for the car.

How can you say, "street-running light rail with or without its own right-of-way isn't very efficient for such a densely populated area on a very narrow and restricted corridor"?

What?! That's exactly why it's an efficient use! Are you saying that five automobile lanes and tiny sidewalks is an "efficient" use of the corridor?

Because it isn't efficient. Why else do you suppose most major rail systems are either underground or elevated in and near city centers? The original decision to bury streetcar networks in the late 1800s and early 1900s wasn't solely because of the car but because of the increasingly troublesome mix of pedestrians, bicyclists, cars, and trains all vying for the same co-mingled or shared right-of-way.

I have never suggested that Dodge's five traffic lanes are efficient and would appreciate if you didn't put words in my mouth.

And no, I wasn't acquiescing to your question - just asking for clarification. I was also pointing out that you might be asking the wrong question. You're caught up on seeing an example of where this exact thing has been done before, when the better question might be "how did Dodge Street get like this in the first place?" My point was that I could provide a plethora of examples of successful transit/pedestrian/auto corridors that were never monopolized by cars in the first place.

A corridor that was "never monopolized by cars" will have almost nothing in common with Dodge and is likely not the city's busiest corridor. Why would we want to compare apples to oranges?

[omaja]

Also, omaja, the light rail or BRT would be on its own dedicated right of way with prioritized signals at intersections. It wouldn't be subject to auto congestion at all - which is the point.

In theory, sure. In practice, it would still very much be subject to auto, pedestrian, and cyclist congestion. While prioritized signals would no doubt help, you're leaving out the plethora of entitled pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers that will cross or block the tracks of oncoming trains because crossing the street or making a u-turn is infinitely more important than inconveniencing hundreds of people.

Are you |expletive| kidding me with this? You haven't been to anywhere with light rail, have you?

No. Which part are you confused about? The fact that street-running light rail is subject to interference from pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers, or the fact that many people from all three of those groups feel entitled to interfere with it?

And for the record, I happen to live in a city with both light and heavy rail and have been many places with both as well. I would think that is readily apparent.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

I've already suggested either converting the reversible lane into dedicated turning lanes or eliminating it entirely in favor of bicycle lanes, a median, and widened sidewalks. That right there is a pretty significant reduction in capacity, though certainly doable. A rail line would be buried while buses, pedestrians, and bicyclists would be adequately accommodated without a completely nonsensical disregard for the car.

I basically agree with this. Can we just say that we disagree on what the car capacity should be and leave it at that?

[omaja]

Isn't that pretty much the basis of our disagreement?

[the1wags]

Also, omaja, the light rail or BRT would be on its own dedicated right of way with prioritized signals at intersections. It wouldn't be subject to auto congestion at all - which is the point.

In theory, sure. In practice, it would still very much be subject to auto, pedestrian, and cyclist congestion. While prioritized signals would no doubt help, you're leaving out the plethora of entitled pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers that will cross or block the tracks of oncoming trains because crossing the street or making a u-turn is infinitely more important than inconveniencing hundreds of people.

Are you |expletive| kidding me with this? You haven't been to anywhere with light rail, have you?

No. Which part are you confused about? The fact that street-running light rail is subject to interference from pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers, or the fact that many people from all three of those groups feel entitled to interfere with it?

And for the record, I happen to live in a city with both light and heavy rail and have been many places with both as well. I would think that is readily apparent.

Boston must be full of idiots then. Here in Denver, when the multi ton thing with lights and a horn comes down the track, people tend to get out of the way. Its not the problem you make it out to be.

None of this likely matters though, as I see it unlikely that Omaha gets light rail in my lifetime. Omaha's good ol boy network of "leaders", combined with the fact of being in conservative Nebraska, will likely keep Omaha transportation in 1970s mode for a long while.

P.S. You guys talking about a subway in Omaha need to put down the crack pipe.

[Big E]

Boston must be full of idiots then.

They're wicked reTAHded.

[S33]

[youtube][/youtube]