City's transport plan to get update

[StreetsOfOmaha]

Well, thanks for also showing us that you can't do math and have no interest in reality.

Globochem, very well said. What you just described is Complete Streets to a T, and yes, it is flabbergasting that anyone could be opposed to the notion of complete streets that are safe for all users. You are also right that this is exactly what government is charged with, especially on federally funded roads. Thanks.

[Seth]

I use my bicycle as my primary means of commuting to work. My wife and I share a car, and do quite a bit of driving. I also ride Amtrak occasionally. I would use mass transit here in Omaha if it ever was going where I needed to when I needed to. My wife and I walk quite a bit, often to get to places we want to go.

So, I use five different modes of transportation. Maybe that makes me biased towards a balanced approach, but all this petty ranting about one specific mode of transportation is simplistic and short-sighted. Maybe it's because everything is directed to Americans in a binary manner, but life is not black and white, folks! I know it's a tough hill to climb (tougher than an Omaha hill on a bike, yikes there are some doozies!), but why can't we look beyond liberal vs. conservative, democrat vs. republican, cars vs. bikes, and actually talk about the appropriate balance?

[StreetsOfOmaha]

Bingo! It IS about balance. Well said, Seth, and thank you.

And again, the fact that having a balanced transportation system is in any way a political and partisan issue in this country just speaks to how confused we are as a society.

[Garrett]

I think København (I refuse to acknowledge the English name) has the highest bike commuting rate at about 36%. They are shooting for 50% by 2015. And Actually, streets, your number for Minneapolis is low. It was around 4.3% in 2008. Based on its growth rate over the years leading up to 2008, I would estimate the current rate is around 6%. Portland, the highest, is 8%.

[bigredmed]

I think København (I refuse to acknowledge the English name) has the highest bike commuting rate at about 36%. They are shooting for 50% by 2015. And Actually, streets, your number for Minneapolis is low. It was around 4.3% in 2008. Based on its growth rate over the years leading up to 2008, I would estimate the current rate is around 6%. Portland, the highest, is 8%.

Kobenhavn has been hardcore for decades. Was there in2000 and saw several multilevel bike racks. Around the center city, bike racks are two level and half a dozen or so around the trainstation and Tivoli. Amazing cycle use.

Of course the town makes Lincoln look alpine. It is so flat they think they are climbing whenever they ride past a picture of a hill. Gas is about $8/gallon, the license fee for cars is considerable, and while the bike racks are legendary, the places to park cars are definitely limited. There are cool trains with fee structures that make it really stupid to even own a car.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

Axel, I grabbed my data directly from the City of Minneapolis who in turn had gotten it from US Census and ACS data. Do you have supporting references? Even 8% for Portland seems high. I thought theirs was still hovering around 5%. Perhaps it's bike and pedestrian commuters combined. Or, perhaps it's just the percentage among neighborhoods with the highest rates in the City of Portland. I don't know. Again, if you have supporting documentation I'd love to see it!

And just think, BigRedMed, none of what you just mentioned about Copenhagen is the result of happenstance; it's all policy, and the result of having leaders and a citizenry who collectively decided they wanted to find a better way of living.

[Garrett]

Axel, I grabbed my data directly from the City of Minneapolis who in turn had gotten it from US Census and ACS data. Do you have supporting references? Even 8% for Portland seems high. I thought theirs was still hovering around 5%. Perhaps it's bike and pedestrian commuters combined. Or, perhaps it's just the percentage among neighborhoods with the highest rates in the City of Portland. I don't know. Again, if you have supporting documentation I'd love to see it!

And just think, BigRedMed, none of what you just mentioned about Copenhagen is the result of happenstance; it's all policy, and the result of having leaders and a citizenry who collectively decided they wanted to find a better way of living.

Heh, wikipedia. But, the source wikipedia uses is this.

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ST ... &-_lang=en

So basically, the census bureau directly. But it does turn out Portland is 8%. Typo on my part.

Edit: or maybe I intended the 8% to be the estimate... ehh whatever.

If you wanna cry a little, look at the Omaha stats.

[bigredmed]

Axel, I grabbed my data directly from the City of Minneapolis who in turn had gotten it from US Census and ACS data. Do you have supporting references? Even 8% for Portland seems high. I thought theirs was still hovering around 5%. Perhaps it's bike and pedestrian commuters combined. Or, perhaps it's just the percentage among neighborhoods with the highest rates in the City of Portland. I don't know. Again, if you have supporting documentation I'd love to see it!

And just think, BigRedMed, none of what you just mentioned about Copenhagen is the result of happenstance; it's all policy, and the result of having leaders and a citizenry who collectively decided they wanted to find a better way of living.

Right, the mountains were voted out of Denmark. The flatness of that part of the world has a lot to do with their bike friendliness. Their absence of domestic petroleum has a lot to do with the cost of gas. The Danish nation has been in existence since about 800 ad. They started in Roskilde and currently the royal family is in Kobenhavn. That is the same as starting out in Omaha and taking 1300 years to move to Greenwood. In other words, a very compact country. The small size helps foster a bike friendly environment.

Now I agree that they have made good choices with what they had.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

In terms of compactness, oldness, and petroleum production, Denmark and the Netherlands aren't much different than the rest of Europe. Yes, flat terrain make bicycling very easy, but has surprisingly little to do with how bike-friendly a place is (i.e. places like Portland, San Francisco, Boulder, and even Omaha that are hilly yet very bike friendly or striving to be better, and where many people bicycle every day).

All I'm saying is that it's easy to say "this is why bicycling works over there but can't work here" but cities are pretty much lining up to disprove these myths.

[S33]

So what comes first? The people wanting to commute via bike, or the infrastructure making it more enticing for people to bike?

I have nothing against spending, much the same way as roads, for bike-friendly infrastructure changes, but not if only a small minority of people would ultimately end up using it.

[bigredmed]

So what comes first? The people wanting to commute via bike, or the infrastructure making it more enticing for people to bike?

I have nothing against spending, much the same way as roads, for bike-friendly infrastructure changes, but not if only a small minority of people would ultimately end up using it.

False premise. Both happen spontaneously. There are the current cyclists who will cycle more if safe and effective infrastructure at a few key places are there. From there, more users are enticed to try. This expands the infrastructure demand and prompts people to say things like we need more than two bike racks on a bus, so let's try 4. The ultimate result is better use and an organic infrastructure. Kobenhavn is a great example. No frilly bike racks, just simple and readily expandable racks. Lots of simple commuter bikes, not many $3K road bikes. Lots of people who move there look at the simple bikes and figure that they can afford one, so why not give it a try? The racks are really basic, so a business locale that has one, can easily get two, or a double decker parking rack. By staying simple and focusing on the need areas to start with, you get sustained organic growth.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

That's a good summation of how it can work, bigredmed.

I guess I would add that it's not really about demand at all, and to think of it in those terms is a great mistake (in fact, we owe our current transportation dysfunction to the "travel demand forecasting models" of the 20th Century that are still being used today). We need to stop thinking about things in terms of demand for certain types of localized surface travel. Plain and simple, there is a latent and pure demand for travel, that is, to get yourself from where you are to where you want to go.

Until we're all living in the Matrix, this demand will remain steady, ever present, and ultimately equal across populations.

People are smart enough to figure out how to best function within a system, and have become very good at figuring out the quickest, easiest, or most cost-effective means of transportation within a system.

This is exactly why creating the infrastructure to support biking, walking, and public transit is imperative; but perhaps more imperative are the policy underpinnings that will allow travelers to make decisions that aren't only right and best for them, but right and best for everyone.

So, getting back to the specific topic of the thread, I am so happy that this new transportation plan is considering various policy tools above and beyond painting bike sharrows on streets.

[cdub]

We can't rely on what we think people would prefer if it continues to send us closer to the poor house. Frankly, even if it was unanimous that everyone wanted a 15k sq ft lot on a culdesac reasonable public policy would have to deny that desire. Fact is at some point we will have to make other modes of movement more agreeable and hope people start taking the bait before it is forced.

At least as big of an issue is density and further development westward. If we could at least quit building so many new streets that would help immensely.

[bigredmed]

We can't rely on what we think people would prefer if it continues to send us closer to the poor house. Frankly, even if it was unanimous that everyone wanted a 15k sq ft lot on a culdesac reasonable public policy would have to deny that desire. Fact is at some point we will have to make other modes of movement more agreeable and hope people start taking the bait before it is forced.

At least as big of an issue is density and further development westward. If we could at least quit building so many new streets that would help immensely.

Sure, but we have to also be honest with ourselves (and yes, that means even liberals and people who wax orgasmic over the idea of living in the urban core) about the fact that people make logical decisions based on their perceptions of options available vs their needs and resources. People drive right by Burke HS on their way to Millard, because they are told that OPS is a crappy school district. OPS does dumb things like refusing to give a school board member an org chart with names on it. This gets immediate media attention and reinforces everyone's perception that OPS is run by a bunch of clowns.

If I move to town, and can't afford District 66, and I need to get a good and reliable school for my kid, (and keeping in mind that I don't know the ins and outs of OPS, so I can't pick the one of the good schools), I am going to do what my relocation agent tells me to do, and move to Millard. Thus big chunks of desirable Omaha are basically "catholic only". You can live south of UNMC if you use Holy Cross. Do you really want to send your kid to Norris JR High? If you could live in Duckville or Holy Cross and work at UNMC either way, sure would be easier to bite that urban lifestyle option if your kids were going to a reliably good school instead of one that is known for it's crime problem more than anything else.

We need some people at the city father level to take OPS out behind the woodshed and give them the dutch uncle talk. We are not going to have re-urbanization as long as we can't get reliable, decent schools in OPS part of Omaha.

Same with crime. The idea that we let gang bangers terrorize witnesses is a huge component to our urban crime issue. Transportation plans won't do jack if everyone is too afraid to ride a bus.

[cdub]

We can't rely on what we think people would prefer if it continues to send us closer to the poor house. Frankly, even if it was unanimous that everyone wanted a 15k sq ft lot on a culdesac reasonable public policy would have to deny that desire. Fact is at some point we will have to make other modes of movement more agreeable and hope people start taking the bait before it is forced.

At least as big of an issue is density and further development westward. If we could at least quit building so many new streets that would help immensely.

Sure, but we have to also be honest with ourselves (and yes, that means even liberals and people who wax orgasmic over the idea of living in the urban core) about the fact that people make logical decisions based on their perceptions of options available vs their needs and resources. People drive right by Burke HS on their way to Millard, because they are told that OPS is a crappy school district. OPS does dumb things like refusing to give a school board member an org chart with names on it. This gets immediate media attention and reinforces everyone's perception that OPS is run by a bunch of clowns.

If I move to town, and can't afford District 66, and I need to get a good and reliable school for my kid, (and keeping in mind that I don't know the ins and outs of OPS, so I can't pick the one of the good schools), I am going to do what my relocation agent tells me to do, and move to Millard. Thus big chunks of desirable Omaha are basically "catholic only". You can live south of UNMC if you use Holy Cross. Do you really want to send your kid to Norris JR High? If you could live in Duckville or Holy Cross and work at UNMC either way, sure would be easier to bite that urban lifestyle option if your kids were going to a reliably good school instead of one that is known for it's crime problem more than anything else.

We need some people at the city father level to take OPS out behind the woodshed and give them the dutch uncle talk. We are not going to have re-urbanization as long as we can't get reliable, decent schools in OPS part of Omaha.

Same with crime. The idea that we let gang bangers terrorize witnesses is a huge component to our urban crime issue. Transportation plans won't do jack if everyone is too afraid to ride a bus.

This doesn't in any way take away from my premise. Unfortunately, its another perception problem related to these issues. It would be more than acceptable if we could add density and population within whatever districts existing (sub)urbanized area. Density and infill does not mean OPS only.


Edit - oh, and the school district thing is only an issue for a small and shrinking minority.

[Melissa]

There are the current cyclists who will cycle more if safe and effective infrastructure at a few key places are there.

This is me. Cycling on Leavenworth east of Saddle Creek can be downright scary.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

We can't rely on what we think people would prefer if it continues to send us closer to the poor house. Frankly, even if it was unanimous that everyone wanted a 15k sq ft lot on a culdesac reasonable public policy would have to deny that desire. Fact is at some point we will have to make other modes of movement more agreeable and hope people start taking the bait before it is forced.

Well said, cdub. And I do think other prudent and reasonable people like yourself are starting to become aware of this.

Though, with regard to people taking the bate before it is forced, I would argue that it is already being forced by reality (as opposed to policy), and our "bait" is lagging embarrassingly far behind. So now, we have people who are being forced---or "willingly nudged"---into the right direction of branching out from their car (the ownership and upkeep of which has likely become too financially burdensome) and trying to walk, bike, and take public transit, and they are finding an utterly abysmal, dysfunctional, and dangerous system.

[HuskerDave]

We can't rely on what we think people would prefer if it continues to send us closer to the poor house. Frankly, even if it was unanimous that everyone wanted a 15k sq ft lot on a culdesac reasonable public policy would have to deny that desire. Fact is at some point we will have to make other modes of movement more agreeable and hope people start taking the bait before it is forced.

Well said, cdub. And I do think other prudent and reasonable people like yourself are starting to become aware of this.

Though, with regard to people taking the bate before it is forced, I would argue that it is already being forced by reality (as opposed to policy), and our "bait" is lagging embarrassingly far behind. So now, we have people who are being forced---or "willingly nudged"---into the right direction of branching out from their car (the ownership and upkeep of which has likely become too financially burdensome) and trying to walk, bike, and take public transit, and they are finding an utterly abysmal, dysfunctional, and dangerous system.

What some of us realize though, is that the 'nudge' is the artificially-increased cost of cars itself. Ridiculous regulatory hurdles, overarching union labor costs, and an energy-unfriendly government administration are what's driving the cost.

Sure, riding a bike is very low cost, but time is also money. Driving a car two miles takes just a few minutes, and allows you to transport kids, groceries, refuse, recycling, etc. Even transporting just yourself on a bike takes much longer, and you're exposed to the elements. Now try carrying a 50-lb bag of dog food, or even two gallons of milk.

If you choose a lifestyle that makes it easy to get by on a bike for some or all of your transportation - fine. When you support restrictions that interfere with my ability to choose a lifestyle that requires a car - I say back off.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

Dave, you view the situation backward; everything you have become used to with regard to the "affordability" of auto-mobility is the result of artificially low costs ENCOURAGED by government policy. Now, there are efforts to rectify that situation so that gasoline costs (or electric), insurance, and sticker prices are more in line with the real costs of that mode choice.

Face it. Your whole lifestyle, of which you are so protective, has been handed to you by the government by way of its housing, energy, and transportation policies over the last 80 years. Your lifestyle, like those of the other hundreds of millions of American suburbanite motorists, is an artificial construct, an experiment whose subjects have grown quite accustomed to its auspices and who are understandably distraught that the experiment is coming to an end.

Additionally, your perception of the amount of time it takes to travel by bicycle is completely off. For trips under 5 miles, the bicycle is almost always on par with a car trip. In fact, several of my colleagues in the Master's of Regional Planning program have taken to documenting travel times from where many of us live in Center Square, Albany to our campus (about 4 miles). We've found that whether biking, taking the bus, or driving, each different type of mode trip takes about the same amount of time---around 25 minutes (or anywhere from 20 to 30 minutes depending on conditions for each mode).

The reason for this parity is one that often slips people's minds when they think about trip time: finding parking and walking from that parking spot to your final destination. You haven't really "arrived" until you reach the door, but motorists often feel like they have arrived as soon as they pull into the parking lot and begin looking for a spot. Additionally, motorists may feel they have arrived the second they shift their car into park and get out---also a misconception.

Also, being "in the elements" is not anywhere near as bad as environment-deprived motorists imagine it to be. In fact, being in the elements is one of the joys of bicycling... year round!

But this also gets to the core of the topic of this discussion: having policies, infrastructure, and management that support these decisions. For example, winter bike commuting is aided by a city's public works department who is brought on board to make sure bike lanes and paths are cleared (usually as simple as making small adjustments to a plow or street cleaner). The same is true for transit stops and sidewalks.

But again, no one is forcing you to give up your car. As I have mentioned, you should actually be thankful for anyone who chooses not to drive, because their doing so actually makes your driving experience more enjoyable (less traffic, availability of parking, less dirty air, etc.). You just have be willing to fork up the dough for that "freedom." Maybe that means motoring will get back to its roots and become a pleasure activity for the rich.

Again, reality is making these decisions. Not policy.

[Brad]

I am going to call BS on the Time Issue!

I love my bike. I ride it as much as I can. I have headlights, saddle bags, and everything everything I need to make it possible to use it for transportation as much as I can. However I figure the AVERAGE person moves about 10 MPH. Sure I can get up to 20 MPH going downhill, but no where near that going up hill. My average speed on the way to work in the car is probably 35MPH. Basically I can make it to work in 1/3 to 1/4 of the time when I drive my car. My average car commute is just under 15 min and my average bike commute is just under 1 hour. If it took 15 min to ride my bike, I would ride it almost every day.

Like I said I love my bike, but I never have enough time to get done what I need to and I can't afford to spend an hour riding to work and another riding home.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

I am going to call BS on the Time Issue!

Nope. No BS. Sorry.

How far is your commute? Is it 5 miles or less, like I'm talking about? Do you have a reserved parking spot at work? I.e. is the availability of parking a guarantee for your work commute? If so, I imagine it is "free." I'm just asking because these are factors that artificially shorten and give preference to automobile commuting.

Of course, if your commute is longer than 5 miles like I mentioned, this is a moot point. Not that many people don't love their long bike commutes of 15, 20, even 30 miles each way. Again, for some people, knowledge of all the factors that go into our transportation choices is enough to make those commutes worth it. And what's even more than that, they love it.

[Brad]

Just over 5 miles. Probably right around 6. Free Parking.

I am just saying, I know from doing it, I don't ride my bike very often because I just don't have the time. It take 3 to 4 times longer. However I bet if Omaha was completely flat, I could cut my bike commute down to 20-30 min.

[Melissa]

I am three miles from work and it takes me about 10 minutes to commute by car and my bike commute is about 20-25 minutes. Time spent walking from my parking lot to the building is nulled by the time it takes me to change clothes in the locker room before going up to my office. That said, biking is far more enjoyable than driving and my energy levels when I get to work are significantly better. On the downside, when I bike I am not able to stop at Brueggers for my morning coffee.

Its hard to make the time argument work unless your route to work via vehicle has some major grid lock going on.

[Brad]

Time spent walking from my parking lot to the building is nulled by the time it takes me to change clothes in the locker room before going up to my office.

That's a good point too.

Again, nothing against bikes.

[cdub]

We can't rely on what we think people would prefer if it continues to send us closer to the poor house. Frankly, even if it was unanimous that everyone wanted a 15k sq ft lot on a culdesac reasonable public policy would have to deny that desire. Fact is at some point we will have to make other modes of movement more agreeable and hope people start taking the bait before it is forced.

Well said, cdub. And I do think other prudent and reasonable people like yourself are starting to become aware of this.

Though, with regard to people taking the bate before it is forced, I would argue that it is already being forced by reality (as opposed to policy), and our "bait" is lagging embarrassingly far behind. So now, we have people who are being forced---or "willingly nudged"---into the right direction of branching out from their car (the ownership and upkeep of which has likely become too financially burdensome) and trying to walk, bike, and take public transit, and they are finding an utterly abysmal, dysfunctional, and dangerous system.

What some of us realize though, is that the 'nudge' is the artificially-increased cost of cars itself. Ridiculous regulatory hurdles, overarching union labor costs, and an energy-unfriendly government administration are what's driving the cost.

Sure, riding a bike is very low cost, but time is also money. Driving a car two miles takes just a few minutes, and allows you to transport kids, groceries, refuse, recycling, etc. Even transporting just yourself on a bike takes much longer, and you're exposed to the elements. Now try carrying a 50-lb bag of dog food, or even two gallons of milk.

If you choose a lifestyle that makes it easy to get by on a bike for some or all of your transportation - fine. When you support restrictions that interfere with my ability to choose a lifestyle that requires a car - I say back off.

We don't really have to artificially nudge anything. If we allow true costs of providing car infrastructure to be known and paid by most users, they would be shocked. Omaha, and most everyone else, is finding that suburbia is not as affordable to maintain as it may have seemed to build. Things are going to have to change and many of them, most in fact, have nothing to do with bikes. I hope Omaha can get it done right before its a major problem like so many others face.

[HuskerDave]

Face it. Your whole lifestyle, of which you are so protective, has been handed to you by the government by way of its housing, energy, and transportation policies over the last 80 years. Your lifestyle, like those of the other hundreds of millions of American suburbanite motorists, is an artificial construct, an experiment whose subjects have grown quite accustomed to its auspices and who are understandably distraught that the experiment is coming to an end.

Wow... It's hard to know where to begin with this elitist, nonsensical statement. You are such a damned fool.

I bought my own car. The government didn't have a thing to do with it, except for the sales tax and other various registration fees and taxes they took for it, after they taxes the income I used to purchase it, of course. Oh yeah, and the personal property tax they'll continue to charge me for the privilege of owning private property.

I also pay for my own housing. The government doesn't do that either. Of course, I pay taxes for that too - a lot of taxes. Naturally, that income was taxed when earned too.

I pay for my own energy - gasoline in this case. The government takes a huge chunk of that in taxes, directly and through inordinately large tax on the companies that provide it. Oh yeah, that income was taxed when I earned it, too. Further, our current administration has publicly stated and demonstrated through their actions that they intend to bury the oil industry in this country, driving the prices up even more.

Your statement seems to suggest that I can live where I want, own personal property, and have freedom of travel merely because the central planners have willed it to be so. I think in your world our lovely government would tell us where to live, where to work, and how to get from one to another.

My lifestyle is my God-given right. Remember "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights?" That's the part you statists always gloss over when you think that the central planning you cook up in the universities is better than the way people might choose for themselves.

[icejammer]

Remember "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights?"

I just have to ask, which rights are inalienable, and which are not?

Anyway, any guess as to what the average annual cost per vehicle is in the US? (cost of ownership, inputs, direct and indirect expenses, etc.)? $5,000? $10,000? $15,000? More? Any guess as to how much that cost could be reduced by reducing the overall number of miles driven?

[Big E]

I just have to ask, which rights are inalienable, and which are not?

Whichever ones I've cherry-picked out of my |expletive| to suit my needs, of course.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

Dave, you just lack even a rudimentary understanding of government and how it is responsible for everything in your world.

Ha. In "my world" the government "would" decide where people live, work, and how they get from one to the other? They already have, do, and will continue to do so! My world is called the real |expletive| world. They do this via zoning and land-use regulations (widely supported by conservatives at their inception because of their stabilizing effect of property values), infrastructure spending, codes, ordinances, laws...

You are overly obsessed with big bad taxes which the government "takes" from you; but it's not about taxes. It's about how the government has used those monies to subsidize and preference various things over others, things that are in every way responsible for your "God-given" lifestyle, and things that in every way are responsible for the embarrassing, demoralizing landscape we've created in this country, physically and metaphorically.

You are oblivious, ignorant, and clueless, and I don't know if any amount of knowledge anyone could ever try to impart on you will ever change that.

Whether you care to acknowledge it or not, you are a cog in our vast country's government, with its horrifying and stifling agenda to keep its citizens happy, healthy, and safe.

[Zilla]

Face it. Your whole lifestyle, of which you are so protective, has been handed to you by the government by way of its housing, energy, and transportation policies over the last 80 years. Your lifestyle, like those of the other hundreds of millions of American suburbanite motorists, is an artificial construct, an experiment whose subjects have grown quite accustomed to its auspices and who are understandably distraught that the experiment is coming to an end.

You seem to have this self-perpetuated stereotype of "suburanite motorists" that you like to perpetuate. Most aren't distraught over any experiment ending as you put it. They're distraught at rising costs and people trying to force them into a lifestyle or situation that simply isn't currently viable. I'd love to give up my car and the costs that go with it. It simply isn't possible. With kids, job location (multiple facilities that I need to be able to reach in a reasonable amount of time), and family around the city, there's no way I could use a bike as primary means of transportation. Nor public transit for that matter. I took us 80 years to get to this point, it's going to take us probably half that to retreat from it....if that even happens. It certainly won't be overnight, or in a couple years. And raising prices to nudge people into your ideal direction won't make things go any faster either....not without the proper infrastructure changes already in place.

Additionally, your perception of the amount of time it takes to travel by bicycle is completely off. For trips under 5 miles, the bicycle is almost always on par with a car trip. In fact, several of my colleagues in the Master's of Regional Planning program have taken to documenting travel times from where many of us live in Center Square, Albany to our campus (about 4 miles). We've found that whether biking, taking the bus, or driving, each different type of mode trip takes about the same amount of time---around 25 minutes (or anywhere from 20 to 30 minutes depending on conditions for each mode).

That's swell, but it's not reality everywhere. Two of the guys I work with both bike to work. One by choice, the other not. Both have special considerations with the boss to allow them extra time in the morning since they are biking. Both are within 10 miles.

The reason for this parity is one that often slips people's minds when they think about trip time: finding parking and walking from that parking spot to your final destination. You haven't really "arrived" until you reach the door, but motorists often feel like they have arrived as soon as they pull into the parking lot and begin looking for a spot. Additionally, motorists may feel they have arrived the second they shift their car into park and get out---also a misconception.

As others have already mentioned, there's other factors involved in biking as well. Changing clothes once you arrive for example. The bike racks at one of our facilities is waaaaay on the other side of the building from the front door. Sure, poor placement maybe....but it's just one of the potential things you might have to deal with....like finding a parking spot. :)

Also, being "in the elements" is not anywhere near as bad as environment-deprived motorists imagine it to be. In fact, being in the elements is one of the joys of bicycling... year round!

That's entirely opinion. Both the guys that bike in complain about having to bike in the weather. Unless it's gorgeous out, they b***h about it nearly every day. I'm glad you enjoy it...not everyone would. Once again, it's that attitude of "It works great for me and my lifestyle, so it'll work great for everyone." Or even "It works great in this city, it'd work great in Omaha as well." Which is BS.

But again, no one is forcing you to give up your car. As I have mentioned, you should actually be thankful for anyone who chooses not to drive, because their doing so actually makes your driving experience more enjoyable (less traffic, availability of parking, less dirty air, etc.). You just have be willing to fork up the dough for that "freedom." Maybe that means motoring will get back to its roots and become a pleasure activity for the rich.

Or maybe all these "policies" and extra costs you'd love to see put in place will cause me to no longer afford to have my car. And since there is no viable mass transit for me or any possibility for me to bike to work (or do my job effectively without a car) I wouldn't be able to get to work or to the other locations I have to support for my job. So I'd lose my job and possibly become another American on Unemployment. Since I don't have my car costs I can probably afford daycare now....of course, I'd have no way to get them there. Which is OK, because I wouldn't have a job anymore anyways. But gee....as long as you can enjoy your bike ride, who cares!?

[StreetsOfOmaha]

Most aren't distraught over any experiment ending as you put it. They're distraught at rising costs and people trying to force them into a lifestyle or situation that simply isn't currently viable.

Yeah, exactly. Reality. That's the experiment coming to an end. It didn't work.

And you're right; it's a sh*tty hole we've dug ourselves into as a country. And it's a tough pill for people to swallow. I don't think anyone ever said it wasn't, or that anything would happen overnight.

And one other note about what I said about riding "in the elements" (huskerdave's words), I just in general meant outside. The whole point is that if you don't want to ride in the rain or snow (and who would? I don't), you shouldn't have to because you should have other options available. Maybe you take the bus home if the whether turns bad while you're at work, or have a friend that you can carpool with, etc. Basically, for every scenario anyone could ever come up with, there is a solution.

[Zilla]

And one other note about what I said about riding "in the elements" (huskerdave's words), I just in general meant outside. The whole point is that if you don't want to ride in the rain or snow (and who would? I don't), you shouldn't have to because you should have other options available. Maybe you take the bus home if the whether turns bad while you're at work, or have a friend that you can carpool with, etc. Basically, for every scenario anyone could ever come up with, there is a solution.

Wait....what? I thought riding in the snow was most exhilarating and part of the joys of bicycling??

There's potential solutions. One that, in an ideal world, would be available....but that's not where we are. Let's take, for example, I'm working out of our Papillion office when one of our servers crash in our downtown data center. There's no way I have the luxury to peddle my booty out there. Nor can I wait for a bus and hope it'll even come near me or get close to our downtown office. Carpooling only works if there is someone else that has the time to take me, but then why not just send them instead of me? Getting home is the same problem. No buses come that far west, and nobody lives near me to make carpooling worth it.

Oh sure we can dream about buses servicing all of Omaha, every corner. Or jobs being all within biking distance and the city 100 times more bike friendly as one of those potential solutions. But if we're doing that I'd rather dream about having a personal jetpack or a hovercraft that drives itself!

And you're right; it's a sh*tty hole we've dug ourselves into as a country. And it's a tough pill for people to swallow. I don't think anyone ever said it wasn't, or that anything would happen overnight.

Well you certainly give off the perception that suburban dwellers are stubborn idiots who simply choose to live the devil's lifestyle. If they'd only see the light of Urban Way than things would be perfect.

Look, I realize where we're all trying to get to, but it's just not that simple. I understand you're smart enough to know it won't happen overnight, but try and understand it's far beyond people just wanting their "freedom" to live how/where they are now. People have built lives, sunk everything they have, and yes, even have gotten stuck where they are at (suburbia, car dependency). Why they are there is irrelevant. Assuming that people can just find another solution because you can is, frankly, naive.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

Wait....what? I thought riding in the snow was most exhilarating and part of the joys of bicycling??

Seriously? You're arguing the semantics of riding "while it's snowing" (which, yes, I would enjoy; but not everybody) vs. "riding during the winter while there's snow on the ground but cleared, dry concrete?" Not worth it. You should let that one go.

There's potential solutions. One that, in an ideal world, would be available....but that's not where we are.

Right. Who said we were? We're actually in a really sh*tty world.

In answer to your problem scenario, try multi-modalism. That's the key. I guarantee that a bus stop is within biking distance and that if there's not a bus stop right by your destination, you could close the last gap by biking.

But for that matter, in your company's hypothetical emergency, why is the burden of transportation on you and your private automobile? Take a taxi and have the company pay for it.

But yes, this all plays into the sh*tty hole we've dug ourselves into.

Well you certainly give off the perception that suburban dwellers are stubborn idiots

Certainly not ALL. But many. People like huskerdave definitely are. Is there anyone who would actually argue that?

Look, I realize that suburbanites are functioning in the system that has been handed to them. I don't blame them for that at all. But an unwillingness to look at the bigger picture to see what has gone totally wrong with the way our country is functioning is inexcusable and won't be met with sympathy by me. You either get with the program, or you choose irrelevancy.

[Big E]

I miss DeWalt.

[Linkin5]

Wait....what? I thought riding in the snow was most exhilarating and part of the joys of bicycling??

Seriously? You're arguing the semantics of riding "while it's snowing" (which, yes, I would enjoy; but not everybody) vs. "riding during the winter while there's snow on the ground but cleared, dry concrete?" Not worth it. You should let that one go.

There's potential solutions. One that, in an ideal world, would be available....but that's not where we are.

Right. Who said we were? We're actually in a really sh*tty world.

In answer to your problem scenario, try multi-modalism. That's the key. I guarantee that a bus stop is within biking distance and that if there's not a bus stop right by your destination, you could close the last gap by biking.

But for that matter, in your company's hypothetical emergency, why is the burden of transportation on you and your private automobile? Take a taxi and have the company pay for it.

But yes, this all plays into the sh*tty hole we've dug ourselves into.

Well you certainly give off the perception that suburban dwellers are stubborn idiots

Certainly not ALL. But many. People like huskerdave definitely are. Is there anyone who would actually argue that?

Look, I realize that suburbanites are functioning in the system that has been handed to them. I don't blame them for that at all. But an unwillingness to look at the bigger picture to see what has gone totally wrong with the way our country is functioning is inexcusable and won't be met with sympathy by me. You either get with the program, or you choose irrelevancy.

You say that, but a lot of your posts would indicate otherwise. There seems to be an inability for you to grasp the fact that most people cannot just completely alter their lives and live the way you do. I try my best to use alternative forms of transportation, but with how our infrastructure is set up I have to use my car for a lot of the things I do.

I know you will probably say "No I do get that" I am just letting you know that a vast majority of your posts indicate otherwise, and that is something that is very frustrating about how you convey your ideas to others hear.

[Zilla]

Seriously? You're arguing the semantics of riding "while it's snowing" (which, yes, I would enjoy; but not everybody) vs. "riding during the winter while there's snow on the ground but cleared, dry concrete?" Not worth it. You should let that one go.

Pfft. Where did it say you were specifying that difference? Regardless, it's not like you haven't beaten people up for something as trivial.

In answer to your problem scenario, try multi-modalism. That's the key. I guarantee that a bus stop is within biking distance and that if there's not a bus stop right by your destination, you could close the last gap by biking.

Still would take much longer than simply getting in my car and driving there. When we have a website down that brings in millions per hour, management is not going to be OK with me waiting 20, or even 10 minutes for a bus to arrive.

But for that matter, in your company's hypothetical emergency, why is the burden of transportation on you and your private automobile? Take a taxi and have the company pay for it.

LOL! Uh, how about because they'd can me for someone with a car that doesn't need to expense out travel. Seriously, because most companies require you have a dependable vehicle. I'd literally get laughed out of the accounting department if I tried that.

You say that, but a lot of your posts would indicate otherwise. There seems to be an inability for you to grasp the fact that most people cannot just completely alter their lives and live the way you do. I try my best to use alternative forms of transportation, but with how our infrastructure is set up I have to use my car for a lot of the things I do.

I know you will probably say "No I do get that" I am just letting you know that a vast majority of your posts indicate otherwise, and that is something that is very frustrating about how you convey your ideas to others hear.

Bravo.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

You say that, but a lot of your posts would indicate otherwise. There seems to be an inability for you to grasp the fact that most people cannot just completely alter their lives and live the way you do. I try my best to use alternative forms of transportation, but with how our infrastructure is set up I have to use my car for a lot of the things I do.

Well, it's time to recalibrate your opinion of me then, isn't it? Let my last couple of posts refine any previous posts of mine that you might have taken that way.

Zilla, wow, your coworkers are pretty lame if they would laugh you out of the accounting department for that.

Anyway, I realize it's a sh*tty system, and it's really tough to not use a car for pretty much everything in your life. As I said before, I don't blame you or anyone for existing the way you do in the system that you've been presented with. But I do expect you to see that things have to change, and to reflect that in who and what you vote for, how you choose to spend your money, and, ideally, where you choose to live and work where and when you can.

That's all.

[HuskerDave]

Dave, you just lack even a rudimentary understanding of government and how it is responsible for everything in your world.

Ha. In "my world" the government "would" decide where people live, work, and how they get from one to the other? They already have, do, and will continue to do so! My world is called the real |expletive| world. They do this via zoning and land-use regulations (widely supported by conservatives at their inception because of their stabilizing effect of property values), infrastructure spending, codes, ordinances, laws...

You are overly obsessed with big bad taxes which the government "takes" from you; but it's not about taxes. It's about how the government has used those monies to subsidize and preference various things over others, things that are in every way responsible for your "God-given" lifestyle, and things that in every way are responsible for the embarrassing, demoralizing landscape we've created in this country, physically and metaphorically.

You are oblivious, ignorant, and clueless, and I don't know if any amount of knowledge anyone could ever try to impart on you will ever change that.

Whether you care to acknowledge it or not, you are a cog in our vast country's government, with its horrifying and stifling agenda to keep its citizens happy, healthy, and safe.

Your "explanation" perfectly proves my point. You are a statist, a fool, and far more ignorant about government than you accuse me of being.

[HuskerDave]

I just read that Streets said one possibility when it's snowing, is to carpool...

So... ride with an evil car-owner when it's snowing, and defile him when it's sunny?

There's a name for that. Hypocrisy.

[Melissa]

Dear Freaking LORD. Does EVERY conversation on alternative transportation need to turn into this?

Here's the reality, most people in Omaha aren't going to give up their cars. Further, I think we can probably all agree that it is important to offer infrastructure for many kinds of transportation as long as it is economically viable to do so and supported by the majority. I enjoy walking from my house to UNO and biking from my house to work. Many times, I choose to drive to either of these destinations for a myriad of reasons I don't need to justify to anyone.

If it is economically viable, I would love for the city to add additional bike lanes to Leavenworth (making it more enticing to bike more than drive) and add a sidewalk to the west side of 63rd street along Aksarben Village behind the Scott Village dorms (making it more enticing to walk to campus). The critical part of both of these is economic viability, because while I am open to paying slightly more in taxes to fund these projects, I'm not willing to pay significantly more.

Should the city want to form a regional transportation district similar to other metros to fund projects like these that can collect taxes (sales, property, etc.) it should be put to the vote of the PEOPLE. Because while I am willing to pay some taxes for this, others are not. Unless the general consensus of the voting and tax paying district supports alternative transportation and is willing to pay for it, it should not occur.

It's not fair for those who don't use it to have to pay for alternative transportation if they are the majority voters. That said, I would love to have an input in continuing to develop our city at 240th street, because it escalates my taxes used for increased fire, policy and EMT service as well as utility and infrastructure costs. At the end of the day, the city needs to take into consideration what the MAJORITY values, not the extremists on either end.