Vision Zero

[Dusty]

I thought they shut down the traffic cameras in CB? Thought I read the company hired to run the cameras was caught messing with the duration of light cycles. Meaning they rigged the timing to change from green to red very quickly. A scam to collect more money.

Regardless, we can do a lot better methods to curb bad driving behavior than cameras.

[Renovator2559]

Red light and speed cameras are unconstitutional in Nebraska, so it's, thankfully, never going to happen here without a constitutional ammendment.

While the benefits of adopting the speed cameras may bring some benefits; I can see how they can be abused. Its best to uphold our constitution, even in such matters. We can still get creative in discouraging unsafe driving by implementing street narrowing, tree lined medians, roundabouts, multimodal where appropriate.

not really. We've gotten kind of used to the timing. If it is a stale green light, just slow a little so you can stop. I have no actual figures other than anecdotal evidence, but anytime I'm on broadway I don't see wrecks. I do see nebraska drivers (who aren't used to them) go through red lights often enough though

Oh they may be confident in the moment, that they ran them. Only for 2 weeks later to get a letter with a photo evidence of their car and their license plate, committing the infraction and being ordered to pay the fine to Pottawatomie county.

Trust me, I got one 3 years ago and had to pay the fine; I learned my lesson. I am sure Pottawatomie county is earning good revenue from unsuspecting Omaha drivers.

I thought they shut down the traffic cameras in CB? Thought I read the company hired to run the cameras was caught messing with the duration of light cycles. Meaning they rigged the timing to change from green to red very quickly. A scam to collect more money.

Regardless, we can do a lot better methods to curb bad driving behavior than cameras.

Also, navigator software such as Sygic, and Google maps; beeps whenever there are speed cameras, Broadway is full of them and yes speed cameras are still active to this day.

On a stroad like Broadway, I don't know if there are any better tools to curve bad driving habits through a stroad but at least their methods are better than what we have in Omaha stroads; posted speed signs.

[TitosBuritoBarn]

Roads that are designed to be uncomfortable to drive at high speed as well as greater protection between different modes is how we are looking to prevent deaths and serious injuries.

Even if pedestrians are being irresponsible it’s better if the result is they are mildly injured instead of killed.

[Dusty]

Daylighting- Eliminating car parking closest to intersection to increase visibility of pedestrians and cyclists.
Seems like a cheap and easy solution to save lives.

[Coyote]

Preview: Omaha's Complete Vision Zero Action Plan headed to City Council Tuesday



Safer streets in Omaha with the goal of eliminating all traffic fatalities by 2045. Omaha's Vision Zero Action plan is complete and is headed to City Council for approval.

[Renovator2559]

NPR just published an article on how skinny roads reduce crashes and fast moving roads increase crashes, for those that still have the belief that fast moving wide roads are a good thing.

[ita]

Omaha City Council unanimously approves Vision Zero traffic safety plan

he Omaha City Council on Tuesday unanimously approved a traffic safety plan for the city that has been years in the making.

The Vision Zero Omaha action plan prioritizes traffic safety — for drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists — with an overall goal of eliminating all deadly and serious-injury crashes.

It calls for reconfiguring lanes and using speed management plans to lower speeds, bolstering police enforcement and traffic safety education to make it safer for drivers and pedestrians, and road designs to make the streets themselves safer.

Spearheaded in Omaha by Mayor Jean Stothert over the past several years, Vision Zero is based on a model adopted in Sweden in the 1990s and is now embraced in roughly 50 U.S. cities, including biggies like New York and Chicago.

Here's a link to the action plan: https://s3.amazonaws.com/dcgis_photos/I ... n_Plan.pdf

[Dusty]

Thanks for adding Ita!
A lot of data in here, but I felt like the comments were the most interesting. There was definitely a few topics that dominated the want list. Protected bike lanes, better transit options, and mixed bag for/against roundabouts.

There was one comment that really stood out for me. "No hawk crossings. Continuous Sidewalks."
I wonder who would write such a comment. LOL! (wink, wink @ Athomsfere)

[Athomsfere]

Thanks for adding Ita!
A lot of data in here, but I felt like the comments were the most interesting. There was definitely a few topics that dominated the want list. Protected bike lanes, better transit options, and mixed bag for/against roundabouts.

There was one comment that really stood out for me. "No hawk crossings. Continuous Sidewalks."
I wonder who would write such a comment. LOL! (wink, wink @ Athomsfere)

Hehe, I'm eOmaha famous.

I was also the first one to put the oppose on safe routes to schools, and then chatted with Jake when I caught him laughing about it.

I like that half the comments are against round abouts, and the other half are asking for them (Half of the comments regarding them, not overall).

This was also mis-transliterated: "No Hawk crossings. Continuous sidewalks. No big buttons, pedestrian lead."

It was "no beg buttons".

Really, I think there are three big things that cities in NA get really wrong when looking at projects meant to make the city more vibrant and walkable.

A HAWK crossing is a great example. It takes a completely hostile area for people crossing and asks "How do we make this better?" But instead of making it better for anyone, its an overengineered confusing maze that still gives the cars almost all of the considerations so that ADTs and throughput aren't impacted.

When a city gets to the point where a HAWK or even for cars a Double Diverging Diamond start to make sense: We need to stop and ask ourselves what have we done so wrong that crossing a street has become this complex.

[Renovator2559]

I've noticed multiple times on Riverfront Drive, in front of the Luminarium. reckless driving, speeding and obnoxious engine revving.

This Saturday while docking my Heartland eBike, I noticed a pedestrian that nearly got hit by a speeding modded car, that was about to cross the street.

This is an area where children are around.

Has the city considered installing two speedbumps or other slowing devices along riverfront drive, where pedestrians commonly cross to the parking lot or the Martin Luther King pedestrian bridge?

[F0R_L1F3]

Awesome.

[Brad]

Looks like its made out of the same stuff as the roundabout in Ashland.

[meliketrains]

I absolutely LOVE the island installations. Has our mayor secretly had a change of heart about development practices? Islands are a really effective way to physically reduce speed, because it makes drivers feel that they need to slow down. There's many studies on this behavior in Europe, and it's one of the main reasons roads are kept narrow with tight turns in pedestrian-heavy areas. I hope they introduce more, and I'd really love to see 72nd and Dodge get this treatment at some point too.

[Dusty]

@ Athomsfere.

I remember you going on about continuous sidewalks awhile back.

I love the concept but feel like it would be hard to implement. I'm guessing public works would say they can't remove standard curbs because they need it for snow removal and rainwater channeling.

Would you have any suggestions on how to slowly implement continuous sidewalk policy?

[Athomsfere]

@ Athomsfere.

I remember you going on about continuous sidewalks awhile back.

I love the concept but feel like it would be hard to implement. I'm guessing public works would say they can't remove standard curbs because they need it for snow removal and rainwater channeling.

Would you have any suggestions on how to slowly implement continuous sidewalk policy?

Your @Athomsfere didn't work. Not sure these BBS forums or whatever backs these has that...

But at a glance those both look like The Nederlands?

So I think the obvious place to start is that Amsterdam and the Netherlands get more annual precipitation. With January averaging something like 12 inches of snow (from memory, double check if vital to your thoughts).

My next thought: There is no singular design for continuous sidewalks. Tokyo and Amsterdam you can easily find main arterials where the sidewalk is level with the street:

Near where I stayed last time in Amsterdam:
https://www.google.com/maps/@52.3640143 ... FQAw%3D%3D

The bikes and pedestrians are well protected, have continuous sidewalks with lots of little improvements.

Or this camera store I have spent way too much money at in Shinjuku:
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6595604 ... FQAw%3D%3D


I'd venture these are both suboptimal, but are also by design a compromise for cars too. But they offer the first baby step Omaha could take today: No turn on red.

And then enforce stopping before the zebras.

Also move back the traffic controls (signs, lights) to make them visible only when stopped correctly.

Lastly, move back any parking / features to give the drive much better visibility.


I'll semi randomly choose what I'd do for a lot of Omaha:





First bring everything in red to continuous:




Then move all of these lights:








And just like that: A pedestrian friendly area with housing, dining, a barber shop and even a tiny convenience store that sells momos.


Although I'd love some thoughts from our real planners here.

[TitosBuritoBarn]

Although I'd love some thoughts from our real planners here.

Certainly most of what you are suggesting here should be doable. Otherwise, I only find two issues with your ideas, neither would necessarily kill them. First, the MUTCD, or Manual of Unified Traffic Control Devices, has national standards dictating how and where signals can be placed. I only have low level knowledge of the various standards, but as far as signal placement and sidewalk size and placement, I don't believe there is anything saying you can't. And there's nothing with regard to best practices to suggest it's a bad idea. It's only a concern I have because I don't know for sure but do understand there is a preference for signals to be placed on the far side of an intersection. Continuous sidewalks are fine.

Second, is the road or the intersecting road maintained by the state DOT? The intersection in your example is not to my knowledge so this would not be a concern. But if it were, many state DOTs have a hard time implementing transportation infrastructure that doesn't place motor vehicle traffic at the top of the transportation hierarchy with the primary goal for it to move as swiftly as reasonably possible through a corridor. This often means they won't allow infrastructure catering to safe movements (with safe being the key word) by other forms of transportation. They have their policies and ways of doing things and they don't tend to dive into "new" ideas unless those ideas primarily cater to the better movement of motor vehicles. So if you were looking at Maple through Benson, things would be a lot trickier because that is a state route. They have done some traffic calming and safety projects along Maple in Benson (bump outs, daylighting, high visibility crosswalks), but I'm guessing what's there today is about at the state's maximum for what it is willing to agree to.

As far as how to implement your idea successfully, there are two other things to consider. The first is vehicle speeds. A section of road with continuous sidewalks as well as the sections leading up to it should be designed to encourage a prevailing vehicle speed no higher than 30 MPH. Currently the speed limit is 35 and the prevailing speed is likely much higher. It's not sufficient to just change the speed limit, you would also want to implement various tactics revolving around both vertical and horizontal deflection that make the road only comfortable enough to drive at the speed you want drivers to drive at, creating a safer, more comfortable environment for all users. This is usually a natural part of a continuous sidewalk, but not always.

The second is compatible land use. With all the infrastructure in place, nobody will use if there is nobody to use it. So the surrounding area needs to be zoned for high and higher density uses to encourage foot and pedal traffic.

[Athomsfere]

I don't believe there is anything saying you can't. And there's nothing with regard to best practices to suggest it's a bad idea. It's only a concern I have because I don't know for sure but do understand there is a preference for signals to be placed on the far side of an intersection. Continuous sidewalks are fine.

Yay, I love feedback. And I somehow knew you'd be the first to respond.

My understanding here is that placement tends to be around:

1. Center intersection mounting: Like 72nd and Dodge. It's cheap. You get four lanes of control for about the price of one.
2. Far end signaling: Allows higher throughput of cars, makes it easier / safer for left hand turns as they can see the light while essentially in the conflict zone. Preventing braking before the intersection, thus reducing rear end collisions.

I could very easily be missing something there. But to me #2 seems like driver education / experience. If it were more normal it would be fine.

Second, is the road or the intersecting road maintained by the state DOT? The intersection in your example is not to my knowledge so this would not be a concern. But if it were, many state DOTs have a hard time implementing transportation infrastructure that doesn't place motor vehicle traffic at the top of the transportation hierarchy with the primary goal for it to move as swiftly as reasonably possible through a corridor.

That's why I specifically avoided Dodge. Although US 6 is a fun one to follow across the country. In merges with other highways, interstates, splits, runs parallel to interstates it was part of a mile ago, comes to T- intersections, and then picks back up a mile later.

It makes me think if we wanted it badly enough, it could be done. But I'd avoid it when there is lower hanging fruit to prove it first.

As far as how to implement your idea successfully, there are two other things to consider. The first is vehicle speeds. A section of road with continuous sidewalks as well as the sections leading up to it should be designed to encourage a prevailing vehicle speed no higher than 30 MPH. Currently the speed limit is 35 and the prevailing speed is likely much higher.

Exactly why I want more of these in the USA and Omaha. I have long said traffic engineers are misunderstood, but also are incentivized to provide the worst possible solutions for any low dispersion areas.

The second is compatible land use. With all the infrastructure in place, nobody will use if there is nobody to use it. So the surrounding area needs to be zoned for high and higher density uses to encourage foot and pedal traffic.

I didn't choose it for that reason: But I think that area would fit the bill between the townhomes and Elmwood Tower sitting on the block, no? As a good starting point at least. Across the street are also rowhouses. And with the proximity to UNMC I wouldn't be surprised to see many homes around there go more dense in the next 20 years.

Regardless, I am happy to see your responses! I know I don't get everything right, but I feel at least validated for not being too far off base.

[Dusty]

Why spend all the money to move all the traffic lights/signs when you can move the stop line back? Create a recessed stop line to force drivers to stop farther back so they can see the lights and pedestrians better. If you add the no right turn on red, that will prevent people creeping past and blocking the crosswalk

When NW Radial was brought up, the solutions were more car centric solutions like speed bumps and roundabouts. This is because it's still classified as a Highway. I see this as an amazing multi-modal corridor. Center lane transit lane for bus or rail, protected bike lanes, car lane, and yes...continuous sidewalks. But this would involve decommissioning it from highway to road. If you can accomplish that, then you have a lot more options to make this a safer corridor.

I think your best bet to sell continuous sidewalks is to approach business districts. They could use some of the funds from the improvement district to convert a few intersections. They have the foot traffic to constitute a change for safety reasons. Once people can see them in person, you will have leverage to ask for more from the city.

[Athomsfere]

Why spend all the money to move all the traffic lights/signs when you can move the stop line back?

Because it helps incentivize / force the driver to stop where you want them to, before the zebras. People tend to stop as close to the lights as they can reasonably can, and still see them.

It also helps when the zebra visibility is suboptimal in like rain, snow or a low sun: You don't have to find the zebra, or the stop line: Just stop when the red light or stop sign as about at your a-pillar and you've stopped perfectly.



My personal opinion would be to try and stop thinking of it in terms of business districts and exclusionary zoning. The city default should be more like Blackstone, where defaults like at grade crossings only make the most sense. Taking something like that 52nd intersection and making it into a mini-blackstone/ Dundee /Benson is IMO the quickest route there.

[TitosBuritoBarn]

Regardless, I am happy to see your responses! I know I don't get everything right, but I feel at least validated for not being too far off base.

I hope it was helpful! I tend to type things quickly and, upon rereading, wonder if my train-of-thought writing style makes sense.

2. Far end signaling: Allows higher throughput of cars, makes it easier / safer for left hand turns as they can see the light while essentially in the conflict zone. Preventing braking before the intersection, thus reducing rear end collisions.

I could very easily be missing something there. But to me #2 seems like driver education / experience. If it were more normal it would be fine.

While ideally education/experience would help, you can implement near side signaling with some added elements to the signals. There's a movement in transportation engineering and planning these days called the Safe Systems Approach that emphasizes that everyone - engineers, drivers, pedestrians, emergency management, vehicle manufacturers - all have a responsibility to a safe transportation system. It encourages redundancies, so if a driver lacks education, the design of the system can still help them get to where they are going safely. All that to say you can restrict turning movements with red turn arrows or those light-up, conditional no-left/right turn signs you see on some traffic lights, removing the yielding element of turning, so that turning vehicles aren't stuck blind in the intersection with a near side signal trying to turn left or right.

I didn't choose it for that reason: But I think that area would fit the bill between the townhomes and Elmwood Tower sitting on the block, no? As a good starting point at least. Across the street are also rowhouses. And with the proximity to UNMC I wouldn't be surprised to see many homes around there go more dense in the next 20 years.

It's a good start for sure, but more couldn't hurt. If people who regularly travel the corridor often observe pedestrians or cyclists present, they'll train themselves to expect that every time and drive accordingly. So the more pedestrians/cyclists, the better.

[Athomsfere]

I hope it was helpful! I tend to type things quickly and, upon rereading, wonder if my train-of-thought writing style makes sense.

You absolutely did. I'm just a general nerd that probably over-reads weird |expletive|. I can't expect you to distill all of your education and experience into a couple of posts.

I just like to check myself when / where I can. I highly doubt I will ever have an option to apply any of this myself, but I also don't want to be making stuff up in case somehow someone who could apply were to listen to me.

[skip]

And another car accident 10 ft from my bus stop on Leavenworth.... I know this street has been identified in vision zero for a road diet, but what does it take for it to actually happen? Who do we talk to? Sidewalks are terrifyingly narrow, cars are always having accidents, and pedestrians can't even cross safely.

[BuildTaller]

Quite a few deaths this year.

[swinquest]

Work began this week on the stretch of road from Maple to Fort on 108th Street. There will be a bike lane on each side, one driving lane on each side with a center turn lane.

Does anyone know if there is generally public input sought for something like this? Seeing a lot of noise on the Nextdoor app about it: https://nextdoor.com/p/LyTHKLSdkxWh?utm ... 83b6f86390

[Busguy2010]

I don't have an answer for your question, but there's been discussion about it in the "Road Diets" thread.

I'd be interested to hear the neighborhood chatter about it, but I dont have next door.

I probably go to that area once a week on average. Not my neighborhood, but I'm up there enough to know its not that busy. Not busy enough to fight back about lane reduction. All I ever see is unprotected left turns, and people speeding like a mo for. So I see no reason not to agree with this move.

Though, as I stated in the other thread, rather than bike lanes, I personally would prefer a transit lane, because yes, the lane reduction does mean sometimes you may be stuck behind a slow or stopped bus.

I have very strong doubts anybody is going to use 108th as a bike transportation route.

[locoluke]

My only objection to a a transit-only lane would be the fact that the stretch of road in question only sees hourly bus service. At the same time, paint isn’t infrastructure, and bike lanes without any sort of physical separation or even flex posts will always feel super sketchy to me.

[Busguy2010]

My only objection to a a transit-only lane would be the fact that the stretch of road in question only sees hourly bus service. At the same time, paint isn’t infrastructure, and bike lanes without any sort of physical separation or even flex posts will always feel super sketchy to me.

So, yeah. I get that the 14 only runs once an hour (the 120 also runs that stretch during rush hours), its a very particular consideration. Which would benefit most? Bike riders? Or motorists? In this particular part of town, I see narrowing the travel lanes not benefitting cyclists at all, due to the terrain, perceived danger, and lack of cycle traffic. So, why not trade the (projectably) relatively unused bike lanes for a transit lane? So at least for the 15 times a day, anybody who has the misfortune of being stuck behind the bus for a mile and change wouldn't have to deal with it. Also would make it safer for bus drivers and riders.

Versus, maybe - and I'm projecting - next to nobody using the bike lanes.

[Elkhorn_Urbanist]

My only objection to a a transit-only lane would be the fact that the stretch of road in question only sees hourly bus service. At the same time, paint isn’t infrastructure, and bike lanes without any sort of physical separation or even flex posts will always feel super sketchy to me.

So, yeah. I get that the 14 only runs once an hour (the 120 also runs that stretch during rush hours), its a very particular consideration. Which would benefit most? Bike riders? Or motorists? In this particular part of town, I see narrowing the travel lanes not benefitting cyclists at all, due to the terrain, perceived danger, and lack of cycle traffic. So, why not trade the (projectably) relatively unused bike lanes for a transit lane? So at least for the 15 times a day, anybody who has the misfortune of being stuck behind the bus for a mile and change wouldn't have to deal with it. Also would make it safer for bus drivers and riders.

Versus, maybe - and I'm projecting - next to nobody using the bike lanes.

I mean you keep saying that no one will use the bike lane, but how do we know that to be true? And even if comparatively few people use it why dedicate an entire lane to a service that only travels on the road once every hour? Transit lanes aren't for cars, they shouldn't exist to make driving on the road easier when 99% of the day cars will be completely unimpeded by the busses that run on this particular route. But if we want to actually have people bike as a means of transit then we actually have to start building (or at least painting) bike lanes. No one bikes on that stretch now because there is literally no accommodation for them. But what has been shown over and over again around the country and around the world is that if you provide biking infrastructure biking increases as a form of transit.

[Busguy2010]

My only objection to a a transit-only lane would be the fact that the stretch of road in question only sees hourly bus service. At the same time, paint isn’t infrastructure, and bike lanes without any sort of physical separation or even flex posts will always feel super sketchy to me.

So, yeah. I get that the 14 only runs once an hour (the 120 also runs that stretch during rush hours), its a very particular consideration. Which would benefit most? Bike riders? Or motorists? In this particular part of town, I see narrowing the travel lanes not benefitting cyclists at all, due to the terrain, perceived danger, and lack of cycle traffic. So, why not trade the (projectably) relatively unused bike lanes for a transit lane? So at least for the 15 times a day, anybody who has the misfortune of being stuck behind the bus for a mile and change wouldn't have to deal with it. Also would make it safer for bus drivers and riders.

Versus, maybe - and I'm projecting - next to nobody using the bike lanes.

I mean you keep saying that no one will use the bike lane, but how do we know that to be true? And even if comparatively few people use it why dedicate an entire lane to a service that only travels on the road once every hour? Transit lanes aren't for cars, they shouldn't exist to make driving on the road easier when 99% of the day cars will be completely unimpeded by the busses that run on this particular route. But if we want to actually have people bike as a means of transit then we actually have to start building (or at least painting) bike lanes. No one bikes on that stretch now because there is literally no accommodation for them. But what has been shown over and over again around the country and around the world is that if you provide biking infrastructure biking increases as a form of transit.

I'm extrapolating, given the relative low density of the area, and the rigorous terrain of 108th. There's not really a lot of jobs or services that people in the area will access by bike along that stretch, so I see very few using it. Let alone, there's no recreation there either.

I know transit lanes aren't for motorists. but in this case, I think it would be beneficial to think outside the box. A transit lane would benefit transit and motorists, as rare as the interaction is throughout the day. The bus wouldn't hold up the through lane, nor would the bus have to tuck in and out to the curb for every stop. And in reality, people are going to pass the bus illegally anyway.

Versus, only the brave and fit few who would utilize the bike lanes. Let's say I Live at Tudor Heights (god forbid), and work at Hy-Vee at 108th & Fort, a commute entirely along the stretch of the bike lanes. How many days am I, or you, or they, going to use the bike lane? Probably none if you're asking me. Knowing the dynamic, I'd rather walk. It's like a 20 something minite walk, probably a 15 minute or so bike. There's not enough time saved for me for the risk of sweating through my clothes or being swerved into, getting my clothes dirty, etc.

The whole point of the road diet is to slow traffic, cool. And in this case especially, they just slap the bike lanes in so they can say the pavement is being used, and in a more "forward looking" way. But I doubt its actually benefiting any motorist, transit rider, or bicyclists. So I'd say, at the expense of sounding like I'm against multimodal transportation (I'm not), a transit lane would be more beneficial to both transit users and motorists, moreso than who's going to benefit from bike lanes.

It remains to be seen, of course. It just seems lazy not to consider other dynamics and just slap bike lanes on it and call it good. The 14, and 120 (98) have been there my whole life. They're not going anywhere. Now, you won't be able to pass em. And let me be honest, not everybody is as respectful or as qualified as you and I to be driving. So not only do I see bus/car accidents coming, also the few bicyclists to brave it stand to get caught up in the mess too.

[skip]

I use the bike lane almost every day down Leavenworth and back on St Mary's. I'm not gonna lie, it is sketchy as heck and I understand why people don't take it. Its not safe. 4 weeks ago a car hit me while they were turning on 29th and St Mary's, I sprained my ankle, and the car just drove off.

Cars won't take a bike lane in account when its barely noticeable. Trust me, when they implement the new bike lanes slated out in the master plan, there will be more ridership in the bike lanes.

[Busguy2010]

I use the bike lane almost every day down Leavenworth and back on St Mary's. I'm not gonna lie, it is sketchy as heck and I understand why people don't take it. Its not safe. 4 weeks ago a car hit me while they were turning on 29th and St Mary's, I sprained my ankle, and the car just drove off.

Cars won't take a bike lane in account when its barely noticeable. Trust me, when they implement the new bike lanes slated out in the master plan, there will be more ridership in the bike lanes.

The bike lanes make perfect sense in that urban environment. Out there on 108th, I feel they're just arbitrarily slapped on as a means to the lane reduction. Im okay with that approach, but it feels lazy to me.

The fact you don't feel safe traveling the Leavenworth bike lane says its just going to be crazy on 108th, where next to nobody is going to have experience with or regard for bicyclists.

Conventional thinking says a transit lane should be thought of as a solution to make the bus travel faster than the stopped up surrounding traffic. But where the car traffic isn't an issue, its fair to consider using a transit lane as a way to relieve the car traffic.

A perfect example are the ORBT transit lanes on Dodge and Douglas. Traffic was never an issue along those stretches. The transit lanes don't help ORBT pass up a whole bunch of car traffic, but what it does do is get the bus that stops 5 times in that stretch, out of the way, and reduce lanes, and theoretically achieve the purpose of slowing traffic and creating a safer environment.

Now, 108th isn't a busy transit corridor, but it differs in, that now, itll be single lane each way on a suburban arterial, that let's be honest, has had a rich history of people in a hurry. I just foresee very few courageous individuals using that stretch as a bike route, but I foresee a LOT of people being frustrated by the busses, to a point that many will pass, and the bus will also have to tuck in and out of the bike lane anyway. And I believe it would be more beneficial to the safety and dynamic of the street than slapping bike lanes that IMO, I predict a rare few using.

[Dusty]

I have said a number of times, build protected bikes lanes or don't build them at all. I'm very against standard (gutter) lanes. We have them nearly on every major street where I live now. Nobody rides in them. They ride on the sidewalks right next to it. This is proof people will cycle if separated from the traffic lane.

As for 108th, it does not have the ridership to support a transit lane. In fact, the corridor is a weak route for a bus line at all.
I would rather see them create a North-South bike highway. Think of it as a suburban cycle track. A road diet to slow down the cars and create a protected trail for cyclists.

[Busguy2010]

It just kinda seems like my point is being missed.

I know a transit lane is not justified here in the traditional way of thinking. There's not a lot of bus traffic on 108th. However, for 15 times a day, we're going to have a bus running up it. It's over a mile stretch. People in cars are going to be stuck behind that bus, and for every stop that bus makes, itll have to make an interaction with that car traffic.

So, instead of two, evidently useless bike lanes, swap them for a transit lane, just so for those 15 times a day, the motorists dont have to interact with a slow and stopping bus, vs *nobody* benefitting from bike lanes. Just merely for the optics of it. The fact is, they're reducing 108th to three lanes regardless, people are rabbling about it as is. But with a transit lane, at least, even as few buses as there are, the motorists stand to benefit from not being stuck behind a bus for that relatively long stretch.

VS

Two bike lanes that nobody will want to use.

[BRoss]

Bump outs at the stops would be better than a whole dedicated lane through this stretch.

[Busguy2010]

Bump outs at the stops would be better than a whole dedicated lane through this stretch.

I thought of that too, but then there is no flexibility. 108th isn’t not-busy. They're doing the road diet to try and help slow down the traffic that clearly barrels through a predominantly residential stretch, with two fairly large commercial destinations at each end.

It sounds to me like we're all in agreement here that "nobody" is going to have the confidence to use the bike lanes. Ill even raise the idea that, alright, maybe not one transit lane, but one extra wide bike lane on one side? Maybe that would raise confidence, but that still doesn’t erase the fact that its a suburban area, and generally speaking isnt typically conducive to bike transportation.

[skip]

I agree 108th isn't the right move. I'm talking about the St Mary's Leavenworth strip, Harney/Farnam, 13th st, and 24th st on that master plan. Protected and in urban core.

https://planning.cityofomaha.org/images ... ust/13.pdf

[Dusty]

It just kinda seems like my point is being missed.

I know a transit lane is not justified here in the traditional way of thinking. There's not a lot of bus traffic on 108th. However, for 15 times a day, we're going to have a bus running up it. It's over a mile stretch. People in cars are going to be stuck behind that bus, and for every stop that bus makes, itll have to make an interaction with that car traffic.

There are cities out there that build transit lanes that permit cyclists to use it as a bike lane. Of course, this would need to be on a corridor that is slower. If you did this on a higher capacity lane, the buses would keep getting delayed from cyclists in the way. It really comes down to our Complete Streets policy. Do we allow multi-modal lanes and to what circumstance?

But like you said, the stretch is for one mile. It might make more sense for bump outs for transit stops.