Highway Funding Debate

[S33]

[Professor Woland]

There is no real way to know what a free society would look like one has to deal with what Bastiat called the seen and the unseen. While it seems likely that a free society would see fewer highways and more alternative modes of transport, it is not a given. Services provided absent monopoly are usually provided at lower prices and higher quality, it is entirely possible that there would be just as much or more roads and sprawl (neither of which are bad in their own right, they are only bad in so much as they represent an outcome other than what the sum total of consensual activity would have produced.) This is not to claim that what we have now in any way approximates market forces, it doesn't, and much to our detriment. Nevertheless it bears mention that the car and "car culture" have been incredibly liberating and have played a real role in the liberation of women, minorities, LGBT people, and the young (the ability to go where you want when you want regardless of some transit schedule was massively important for these groups especially in the era before cell phones and social media.)

[omaja]

This project is not a result of massive congestion caused by unceasing sprawl; you are arguing about one thing to support an argument about something else.

I will cede the point on "unceasing" sprawl. But 25 years ago Sapp Brothers to Lincoln was pretty much dark territory except for the Greenwood exit. While Mahoney State Park, SAC Museum, and Henry Doorly's "wild" animal park aren't a bad thing and the first thing to come to mind with sprawl; Walmart, Nebraska Crossing, and quite a few other developments in western Sarpy county certainly qualify as sprawl.

I'm not sure I understand. All of that with the exception of the developments around 370 was in place long before the current widening project.

It wasn't that long ago when eastbound traffic on West Dodge was backed up at 114th and folks hit the slow-down at Boys Town. Now folks hit the slow down at 168th.

The new lanes are on I-80 are needed now, but how adequate will they be in 2030? 2050?

Comparing I-80 between Lincoln and Omaha to Dodge west of 114th is really apples to oranges. One is an interurban freeway serving regional and national traffic while the other is a local freeway serving Omaha's western bedroom communities (Fremont, Elkhorn, etc.). Unless Ashland or Greenwood suddenly increases its population by 10000% in the next 30-40 years, there is no way traffic between Lincoln and Omaha will eat up current I-80 capacity the way that West Omaha sprawl has with Dodge. Omaha and Lincoln are just a bit too far to be the next Dallas-Fort Worth or Minneapolis-Saint Paul. The additional lane in each direction has much more to do with safety and the mix of traffic, not the total traffic numbers in and of themselves.

We can keep building and expanding roads to support new greenfield development or possibly try something different like a transit system and infill development. When are we going to pursue development that might provide affordable transportation and jobs to areas of Omaha (east of 72nd Street) that are lacking them today?

When are we going to pursue development that might provide affordable transportation and jobs to areas of Omaha (east of 72nd Street) that are lacking them today?

At the end of the day, I agree that there ought to be a focus on infill and more density. I find it ridiculous that we continue to argue over one or the other when in reality we need a comprehensive transportation plan that includes freeways and other roads in addition to rail and bus. Re-appropriating funds won't solve the problem; we simply are not investing enough in infrastructure. Period.

[Globochem]

I'm sorry, when I said around $200 million I was being conservative. It's more like $410 million! For an extra lane for a "better commute" for the (and it hasn't even been fully studied) "thousands" of commuters between Omaha and Lincoln.

So after spending around a half a billion dollars, the state never even bothered to count the number of people that will be using the highway. Now for those of us that would support rail, I would like to know if a commuter rail line could get off the ground while spending over $400 million but never bother to explain what the ridership would be.

If this wasn't as lazy a project analysis as I've ever seen, carried along with the inertia of more lanes, more cars, more congestion, more sprawl, I don't know what it is.

[Stargazer]

It's eye opening that I-10 between Phoenix and Tucson... several times larger than the combined areas of Omaha/Lincoln (I'll bet Tucson is quickly nearing the combined populations of our two cities alone!)... still get by with two lanes of interstate between them! It IS a waste of money.

I think the West Dodge Expressway is carrying nearly twice as many people as the stretch of I-80 between Omaha/Lincoln.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

Well, my goal with making that initial "trolling" comment was to start a dialog, and I'm frankly happy with what has ensued.

I'm going to refrain from making my probably obvious comments for now, and suffice to say,"thank you" to everyone for your comments.

[omaja]

It's eye opening that I-10 between Phoenix and Tucson... several times larger than the combined areas of Omaha/Lincoln (I'll bet Tucson is quickly nearing the combined populations of our two cities alone!)... still get by with two lanes of interstate between them! It IS a waste of money.

I think the West Dodge Expressway is carrying nearly twice as many people as the stretch of I-80 between Omaha/Lincoln.

It is asinine to assert that widening I-80 is a waste of money by comparing it to Dodge or I-10 between Phoenix and Tucson.

I-10 Phoenix-Tucson and I-80 Omaha-Lincoln aren't at all comparable. For one, Tucson is quite a bit further from Phoenix than Lincoln is from Omaha. Secondly, it traverses through uninhabited desert for the majority of its journey. And for the third time, overall traffic volume doesn't tell the whole story because it says nothing about the types of vehicles that are utilizing the road.

Heavy vehicle (truck) traffic on I-80 between Omaha and Lincoln averaged around 20% of total traffic in 2008. When you're averaging over 7,500 trucks per day on a stretch of highway, combined with the mix of local/regional/commuter traffic I-80 sees, four lanes will get crowded pretty quickly. Dodge is able to sustain higher overall traffic volumes because of the markedly decreased heavy vehicle traffic it sees: only 1.5% or 1,150 trucks per day. So, in 2008 I-80 was handling 35% of Dodge's total traffic volume at 66% of Dodge's lane capacity while carrying five times Dodge's heavy vehicle traffic. All of that truck traffic I-80 sees has a significant impact in terms of design, capacity and safety.

And while Arizona's traffic data is not as readily available and in such an easy format as Nebraska's, I'd wager that the stretch of I-10 between Tucson and Phoenix doesn't cine close to approaching the percentage of truck traffic I-80 has between Omaha and Lincoln. You can thank being at the crossroads of a major transcontinental Interstate (I-80) and another that connects Canada and Mexico (I-29 via I-35) for that reality.

If this wasn't as lazy a project analysis as I've ever seen, carried along with the inertia of more lanes, more cars, more congestion, more sprawl, I don't know what it is.

Again, you are using this widening project to argue something that it really has nothing to do with.

[Globochem]

Ok, Omaja, now you are playing it blind in both directions. First you claim that the only reason the expand to six lanes is to relieve the overwhelming heavy vehicle traffic. This notion isn't touched on at all in the World Herald article and mostly irrelevant outside of trucking company lobbyists. But to follow the logic why should this be unique to the stretch between Omaha and Lincoln? Otherwise all of I80 should be equally widened, from New York to California. But, as I'm sure you will agree, that particular stretch is widened because the aggregate personal vehicle traffic that naturally occurs as cities separated by 50 miles tend to grow. That, by the way, is the principle notion behind the article and the argument heard during the project's consideration. This means that you HAVE to agree that widening the interstate is due, in no small part, to the supposed rising number of commuters, not the sudden spike in Omaha to Lincoln 18-wheeler traffic.

But then you claim that interstate widening is in no way a driver for more congestion and urban sprawl. Uh, not according to any serious study about driving habits. People choose to drive in wider streets. Mark my words, fewer people will drive along Highway 6. This attenuates any benefit from widening. In turn this encourages sprawling development along these corridors. And you don't have to believe me. Take any beltway around any major, and many not so major, American cities and report back what you see. Lots of green space? I don't think so.

Call this what it is. A bureaucratic decision to following the path of least resistance. No vision. No creativity. No particular need even. Just the usual NDOT "time to lay more pavement".

I think what a lot of us in this forum want is to consider some alternatives. Like really consider. Before it's too late. God forbid this area become like Phoenix!

[OmahaBen]

It's eye opening that I-10 between Phoenix and Tucson... several times larger than the combined areas of Omaha/Lincoln (I'll bet Tucson is quickly nearing the combined populations of our two cities alone!)... still get by with two lanes of interstate between them! It IS a waste of money.

I think the West Dodge Expressway is carrying nearly twice as many people as the stretch of I-80 between Omaha/Lincoln.

Having driven that stretch of highway several times while taking the Arizona bar examination, there's no comparison that I-80 is more heavily trafficked.

[omaja]

Ok, Omaja, now you are playing it blind in both directions. First you claim that the only reason the expand to six lanes is to relieve the overwhelming heavy vehicle traffic. This notion isn't touched on at all in the World Herald article and mostly irrelevant outside of trucking company lobbyists.

If I am playing it blind, you are just making |expletive| up. Not once have I claimed that truck traffic was the only reason to expand I-80. Please reread what I wrote. It is most certainly a significant part of the rationale for the project, regardless of the nonsense that the World Herald reports or doesn't report on. If trucks were not such a heavy consideration (as is the case of I-10 between Phoenix and Tucson), I-80 would not need to be widened because it is well under capacity in terms of total traffic volume. Is it really that difficult to see that the mix of traffic has far, far more to do with this project than overall traffic volumes?

But to follow the logic why should this be unique to the stretch between Omaha and Lincoln? Otherwise all of I80 should be equally widened, from New York to California. But, as I'm sure you will agree, that particular stretch is widened because the aggregate personal vehicle traffic that naturally occurs as cities separated by 50 miles tend to grow. That, by the way, is the principle notion behind the article and the argument heard during the project's consideration. This means that you HAVE to agree that widening the interstate is due, in no small part, to the supposed rising number of commuters, not the sudden spike in Omaha to Lincoln 18-wheeler traffic.

If all of I-80 averaged 20% truck traffic on total volumes of 40,000 vehicles per day, then perhaps you might be right. The reality is that it does not.

The stretch of I-80 between Omaha and Lincoln increased in overall traffic by 1.7% annually from 1998-2008. Truck traffic increased by 1.2% annually while car traffic increased by 1.4% or so. While the percentage increases are similar, each truck is taking up at least twice as much lane real estate as each car. What I have been saying all along is that if I-80 were 100% car traffic, it would be well under capacity for a four-lane Interstate. Certainly the growth in commuting/regional/local traffic plays a part in the overall increase in volume. But to say that is the reason for the widening is simply misinformed. The amount of long distance car and truck traffic is hugely important and plays a major role in the widening. Regardless of

But then you claim that interstate widening is in no way a driver for more congestion and urban sprawl. Uh, not according to any serious study about driving habits. People choose to drive in wider streets. Mark my words, fewer people will drive along Highway 6. This attenuates any benefit from widening. In turn this encourages sprawling development along these corridors. And you don't have to believe me. Take any beltway around any major, and many not so major, American cities and report back what you see. Lots of green space? I don't think so.

Where in the world did I claim anything of the sort? Once again, you are twisting my words into something not even resembling the originals. I am fully aware of the types of developments you are talking about. Adding two lanes to I-80 between Omaha and Lincoln is not the same as constructing an entirely new beltway around the city. This is an already-established route and if development were really ever going to explode, it would have already done so back in the 90s and early 00s when the economy was booming. The developments out near 370 and Gretna are more about Omaha sprawling than I-80 connecting Omaha to Lincoln. The relatively low number of commuters (not even enough to be considered a CSA) between the two areas demonstrates as much.

Call this what it is. A bureaucratic decision to following the path of least resistance. No vision. No creativity. No particular need even. Just the usual NDOT "time to lay more pavement".

I think what a lot of us in this forum want is to consider some alternatives. Like really consider. Before it's too late. God forbid this area become like Phoenix!

I'm not sure what alternative you would like to see here? Commuter rail between Omaha and Lincoln would provide marginal benefits in terms of removing from I-80 the relatively small proportion of Omahans and Lincolnites that work in the opposite county. Not to mention it would cost significantly more than the $400 million widening project is. We're still talking about a massive transcontinental corridor, smack dab in the middle of the country that is hugely important for all types of shipping and vehicular movements from the West/Southwest to the Midwest/Upper Midwest to the East/Northeast.

I am certainly a proponent of alternatives, particularly rail (see my posts in the threads about light rail if you don't believe it). But I don't see how arguing about this particular project proves anything that you want to prove. This isn't adding a 9th and 10th through lane to I-80 from I-680 to I-480 making commuting easier for West Omahans. Or building a beltway to make inter-suburban traffic movements easier. Or widening Dodge to 8 lanes to save Fremont commuters 5 minutes in rush hour. It is about improving travel along the corridor for cars and trucks alike; cars have a dedicated left lane for passing while trucks can continue to use the outer two lanes. Four lanes is not very efficient with I-80's overall volume and truck-to-car ratio.

It will take far more growth between Omaha and Lincoln before you can pinpoint sprawl, a lack of vision, etc. as the reason for widening. This is much more about moving people and goods efficiently through the two areas than it is moving people between them. The fact that they are planning on six-laning the entire stretch out to Grand Island further points to this reason as the impetus for widening.

[Stargazer]

Having driven that stretch of highway several times while taking the Arizona bar examination, there's no comparison that I-80 is more heavily trafficked.

ADOT estimates that I-10 traffic between the two metros will exceed 200,000 vpd by 2013.

200,000... and they're still debating whether to build a bypass to handle the traffic.

[OmahaBen]

Having driven that stretch of highway several times while taking the Arizona bar examination, there's no comparison that I-80 is more heavily trafficked.

ADOT estimates that I-10 traffic between the two metros will exceed 200,000 vpd by 2013.

200,000... and they're still debating whether to build a bypass to handle the traffic.

That's the average traffic between Phoenix and Tempe, not Phoenix and Tucson. And, coincidentally, there's 5+ lines of I-10 in that stretch.

Between Tempe and Tucson, the count drops below 40,000 in parts, and doesn't really pick back up until you hit the outskirts of Tucson 50 miles farther to the South. While they're predicting growth, they are most certainly not predicting 200,000 vpd on that entire 110 mile stretch of I-10, let alone within 2 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate ... ona_AADT-1
http://www.azdot.gov/mpd/data/Reports/P ... ecasts.pdf

[StreetsOfOmaha]

On a similar note, I noticed on my way down to NYC today that on much of the New York State Thruway between Albany and the City, it is only two lanes in each direction.

[omaja]

ADOT estimates that I-10 traffic between the two metros will exceed 200,000 vpd by 2013.

200,000... and they're still debating whether to build a bypass to handle the traffic.

The sections of I-10 that see 100,000+ AADT around Phoenix are significantly wider (6-14 total lanes including HOV). A four lane freeway would be a gridlocked parking lot (literally, not a euphemism here) long before it could come close to breaking the 200,000 AADT mark.

On a similar note, I noticed on my way down to NYC today that on much of the New York State Thruway between Albany and the City, it is only two lanes in each direction.

Great observation and one that helps support my assertion about I-80 between Omaha and Lincoln. I-87 between Albany and NYC has comparable average traffic volumes to I-80, but the average percentage of truck traffic along I-87 is considerably smaller. The entire 150ish mile corridor probably averages somewhere in the 10-15 percent truck traffic range. A significant number, for sure; but being a stub Interstate connecting NYC, Albany and Montreal, it certainly isn't increasing anywhere near as much as I-80.

https://www.nysdot.gov/divisions/engine ... ata-viewer
http://www.utrc2.org/research/assets/65 ... ridor1.pdf

[Stargazer]

Forget Phoenix/Tucson proper... I-10 has at least as much commercial traffic as I-80... the vpd counts between our two metros are comparable... yet Arizona is sitting on it's predominantly 4-lane stretch, talk of a bypass squelched... yet, there is no sign of their population slowing from it's 20+% decade numbers... while we're merely shifting people between the two metros. Meanwhile, we pave our 6-lane stretch without even giving it a moment's thought... the difference? Arizona property tax on median home price home ($243,000) $1,300 ... Nebraska property tax on median price home ($136,000) $2,500... income tax Arizona: 4.2-4.8% Nebraska: 6.8%

[omaja]

Forget Phoenix/Tucson proper... I-10 has at least as much commercial traffic as I-80... the vpd counts between our two metros are comparable...

No, it does not. The total volumes may be comparable, but I-80 moves far more commercial traffic than I-10 by virtue of its routing through the middle of the country.

yet Arizona is sitting on it's predominantly 4-lane stretch, talk of a bypass squelched... yet, there is no sign of their population slowing from it's 20+% decade numbers... while we're merely shifting people between the two metros. Meanwhile, we pave our 6-lane stretch without even giving it a moment's thought... the difference? Arizona property tax on median home price home ($243,000) $1,300 ... Nebraska property tax on median price home ($136,000) $2,500... income tax Arizona: 4.2-4.8% Nebraska: 6.8%

Not sure how any of that is at all relevant to the discussion at hand. Phoenix and Tucson are growing virtually entirely independent of one another; no overlap of air travel or TV/media markets, or any real cooperation between the two at all. Which should be expected--the distance between the two is twice the distance between Omaha and Lincoln.

[jessep28]

New state law funnels sales tax toward road construction


http://www.omaha.com/article/20130701/N ... nstruction

LINCOLN — A new state law to beef up highway funding will help relieve traffic jams on interstates through Omaha and replace a dangerous route to Blair with a four-lane expressway.

Legislative Bill 84, which passed in 2010 and took effect Monday, earmarks one-quarter cent of the state's sales tax for construction of new highways and bridges.

The measure is expected to generate $600 million in new revenue over the next 20 years, allowing long-delayed freeway and highway improvements to be completed.

[cdub]

New state law funnels sales tax toward road construction


http://www.omaha.com/article/20130701/N ... nstruction

LINCOLN — A new state law to beef up highway funding will help relieve traffic jams on interstates through Omaha and replace a dangerous route to Blair with a four-lane expressway.

Legislative Bill 84, which passed in 2010 and took effect Monday, earmarks one-quarter cent of the state's sales tax for construction of new highways and bridges.

The measure is expected to generate $600 million in new revenue over the next 20 years, allowing long-delayed freeway and highway improvements to be completed.

Forget Lincoln. 4 lanes to Blair.

We spend too much, pave too much and invest too little. When you have problems at both ends, its will eventually bite you in the behind.

[iamjacobm]

I would love to hear the outcry if we used a quarter cent of sales tax to fund public transportation.