Official: Omaha Light Rail Discussion

[the1wags]

Just a side note that Denver is already over their year 2020 light rail rider projections.

[DTO Luv]

Big Kudos to Omaja!
:banger:

[Brad]

While Omaha doesn't have the traffic problems of most major cities, it would be nice to get a plan together now, before the problem is here.

For those of you complaining about the Ballpark and the light rail and such.... Look at the Qwest Center, how many of you bitched about the qwest center saying it would not work???

[Brad]

Big Kudos to Omaja!
:banger:

i must have missed that while I was posting....

[CapitalGuy]

I've noticed that you are usually positive when the discussion is about Lincoln, and to be quite honest, I think you are just bitter because the discussion has never been about light rail coming to Lincoln, and that however long it takes Omaha to get its act together, it will take Lincoln at least quadruple that amount of time.

This part is especially funny. Omaja, I have lived approximately 94% of my life in Omaha. I was born in Omaha, my parents live in Omaha, my siblings live in Omaha, I am one of the few on this board that can claim alumni status at UNO. You don't need to tell me about Omaha.

And as far as light rail, again, you have fantasy supporting your argument, I have reality. Well see. In the long run, it will happen but not tomorrow. Until then I would implore you to make the most of Omaha's mass transit opportunities. Especially the #2 that follows the very same route as your light rail line. Maybe if you close your eyes, you'll be able to sit back and almost think your riding light rail. The MAT system will get you where you need to go, Lord knows it did for me for a couple of years.

[riceweb]

I think that with rising fuel costs, we'll see mass transportation come to the forefront, just as we saw a drive for innovation in the early 80s.

With no end in sight to this inflationary environment and an impending, potentially long-lasting recession at hand for America, now would be a perfect time to put together a comprehensive mass transit solution.

[omaja]

I've noticed that you are usually positive when the discussion is about Lincoln, and to be quite honest, I think you are just bitter because the discussion has never been about light rail coming to Lincoln, and that however long it takes Omaha to get its act together, it will take Lincoln at least quadruple that amount of time.

This part is especially funny. Omaja, I have lived approximately 94% of my life in Omaha. I was born in Omaha, my parents live in Omaha, my siblings live in Omaha, I am one of the few on this board that can claim alumni status at UNO. You don't need to tell me about Omaha.

And as far as light rail, again, you have fantasy supporting your argument, I have reality. Well see. In the long run, it will happen but not tomorrow. Until then I would implore you to make the most of Omaha's mass transit opportunities. Especially the #2 that follows the very same route as your light rail line. Maybe if you close your eyes, you'll be able to sit back and almost think your riding light rail. The MAT system will get you where you need to go, Lord knows it did for me for a couple of years.

That was my last-ditch effort to make sense of why you are arguing against light rail. Seeing as how you claim that not to be true, would you care to present some sensible argument? So far all of your unfounded conclusions and seemingly ignorant statements have been met with examples and thoughtful analysis. There is no fantasy which supports successful light rail. The only fantasy is the one in which roads are the only meaningful mode of transportation. Roads are a black hole for funding. If this is just about playing devil's advocate, it is failing miserably and your posts seem ignorant and misinformed.

I enjoy Boston's T system (not to mention MBTA buses) immensely and quite frequently, too, so I don't need to imagine what it is like to use such a system. The amazing thing is that I actually can get within walking distance of pretty much anywhere in the city. And no, MAT won't get me anywhere because when I am in Omaha, I am living six miles away from your beloved Number 2. And more than a mile from the nearest bus stop, which only runs morning and evening rush hours. I don't know the exact population of the western, northwestern, and southern suburban areas, but what with it virtually all consisting of housing developments, it has to be around half of the entire city. That is not a small number that has virtually zero access to MAT. Even the roads aren't adequate. And that is supposed to work? Of course light rail won't happen tomorrow. But it ought to happen sooner rather than later. Proposing such an idea before jumping to the conclusion that Dodge needs to be widened would work toward that. Widening Dodge will do just that: widen a road.

[joeglow]

While Omaha doesn't have the traffic problems of most major cities, it would be nice to get a plan together now, before the problem is here.

For those of you complaining about the Ballpark and the light rail and such.... Look at the Qwest Center, how many of you bitched about the qwest center saying it would not work???

Don't get me wrong, I love the Qwest and was a HUGE supporter of it. However, to borrow a line from Pulp Fiction, "lets not starting sucking each other's ****s just yet." The Qwest is starting to present it's own set of financial issues. Add to it:

1. A BILLION dollar plus sewer project
2. City pensions that are out of control and underfunded
3. $100,000,000 for a new ball park.
4. Provided it is on lot C, how many millions more for a parking garage down there.

Seriously, we can't act like my 2 year old in the supermarket store line, throwing a temper tantrum because we don't get everything we want (i.e. "I rode one in Denver and loved it, so we should get it too). I think a roller coaster from West Omaha to Downtown would be kick |expletive| for my commute, but am not going to lobby for it just based on that.

[joeglow]

Here is an interesting study showing how light rails really don't decrease the needs for roads:

http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-fwy&lrt.htm

[CapitalGuy]

Thank you Joe, maybe it will mean more coming from another source.

[Big E]

I'm not disputing the study or its findings, but its hardly relevant to this discussion. All it shows is that people aren't utilizing light rail to its full potential. Gee, wonder why that is? Maybe all the |expletive| roads we've been building to everywhere for the last 100 years?

On top of that, the cities in the graphs aren't exactly your standard bearers for mass transit. Four of the ten are in southern California: an entire section of the country built specifically for the car age. Where are the numbers for NYC, DC, Philly?

I can make any point I want with fancy graphs if I get to cherry pick statistics to specifically support my argument.

-Big E

[CapitalGuy]

When did I ever expect that to happen? When did anyone expect that? Our major beef is that there are ZERO plans for EVER getting it done.

And I agree, that there should be some forward thought and research as to what will happen if and when a contingency such as a drastic increase in oil prices occur. However, if we are talking about the same things, such a happening would mean a complete paradigm shift away from the automobile. One light rail is not going to save us on such an occasion.

What I have missed during this discussion is what we are talking about exactly. At one point it is mainly car with supplemental light rail. Then Big E states you are using car-oriented cities. So do I take this to mean that this debate centers around whether light rail can operate as the primary form of transportation? And Big E the California cities are closer to Omaha than Omaha is to NYC or Boston. I don't think you can dispute that much.

[Andrew]

For roads or against roads, cars are the only vehicle that can get you from any Point A to any Point B. Mass transit can only get you anywhere you need to if it is on a route. Don't try to pull this parking depot business over my head because once people are in their cars, they aren't going to bother getting out to wait for a rail or probably even walk 4 blocks out of their way. You need major destinations for this to become viable and Omaha is spread out all over the place. How many of these cars that are congesting the roads now are really starting at one major stop and ending at another? Probably a pretty good chance there is some oddball north-south travel to reach their destination. This would probably work in a densely packed population setup but I can't see it being feasible in today's sprawling Omaha.

[almighty_tuna]

Thank you Joe, maybe it will mean more coming from another source.

Mmm...not really. Especially since it cites 12yr old data which, citing Denver's T-Rex & light rail projects as a major change since this article, makes it entirely irrelevant. Also, I don't think anyone on here, or in Omaha for that matter, has ever claimed that light rail could ever replace 6 lanes of traffic, as stated in the first line of the article.

Light rail will not decrease the need for roads. Even in a hypothetical situation where a light rail line goes from 204th & Dodge to 10th & Douglas, over the years traffic counts will still rise as the population grows and some roads will inevitably need to be upgraded. However I firmly believe that light rail would at least help to delay such improvements.

[Big E]

(I'll make an attempt to get this rant in one thread instead of the five it is currently in.)

It's pretty obvious that the people that are against light rail are going to stay against it for the foreseeable future. I'm done beating my head against that wall for the time being (although don't expect my snarky comments to stop).

I would, however, like to pose the following question for the antis:

What is the breaking point for you?

$10 gas? Rationing during World War III? $20 gas? A flammable atmosphere? $50 gas? The collapse of the American auto industry? $100 gas? Every last drop of oil squeezed out of the planet? $200 gas? Every coastal city on the planet under water?

I know those scenarios are somewhat outlandish at the moment, but I pose the questions very seriously. A company recently unveiled a car that can be bought for as little as $2500 next year. What happens when 3 billion Chinese and Indians fire those bad boys up?

-Big E

[almighty_tuna]

Don't try to pull this parking depot business over my head because once people are in their cars, they aren't going to bother getting out to wait for a rail or probably even walk 4 blocks out of their way. You need major destinations for this to become viable and Omaha is spread out all over the place.

I completely disagree and will again cite Denver's light rail system, providing loads of park-and-ride locations.

http://www.rtd-denver.com

Here's another park-and-ride system I've seen first-hand in the car oriented LA area which is also very effective.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrolink_ ... alley_Line

lol @ pulling parking depot business over your head. what a great, uninformed soundbyte.

[CapitalGuy]

Here in lies the problem, you are acknowledging that the road infrastructure will still need to be paid for. So why would we pay for a road infrastructure which is costly as is and then throw a more expensive light rail infrastructure on top of this. How is this saving the city any money?

[omaja]

You're study is just a little out of date. 1996? That was 12 years ago.

Using their definition of a freeway couplet (two lanes), and with the basic definition of 2000 vehicles per hour per lane (and even then that can be generous), a freeway couplet would handle 4000 vehicles per hour. If you use their 1.61 occupancy factor, that would bring freeway couplet capacity to 6440 passengers per hour.

If you divide the average daily passenger numbers by 24 hours, you'd get that:
New York's Subway, PATH, and SIR handle ~268,000 passengers per hour
Washington's Metrorail handles ~29,500 passengers per hour
Chicago's L handles ~27,500 passengers per hour
Boston's T handles ~25,000 passengers per hour
San Francisco's BART and Muni Metro handle ~22,000 passengers per hour
Philadelphia's SEPTA and PATCO handle ~14,000 passengers per hour
Los Angeles's Metro Rail handles ~11,000 passengers per hour
Atlanta's MARTA handles ~10,000 passengers per hour

But strictly light rail speaking, Boston's Green Line handles over 160 percent of the theoretical capacity of a freeway couplet. San Francisco's Muni Metro handles about the same volume, while Saint Louis, Portland and San Diego now handle 53, 70, and 80 percent, respectively (as of third-quarter 2007).

Like Big E said, this study doesn't prove that light rail doesn't work. If rail didn't work then it would be equally simple to just add the combined 300,000 daily trips of the Saint Louis, Portland, and San Diego systems into their current road infrastructure. New York was brought to a grinding halt in 2005 when it lost over one billion dollars due to the MTA's two-and-a-half-day strike. Adding New York's 268,000 transit riders into the freeway fray would require the equivalent of 41 more freeway lanes throughout the city. At six lanes a piece that would mean construction of (at least) seven additional freeways ripping through New York. This study only shows that rail infrastructure is underused in certain places. Compare freeway miles to rail miles and you'll probably come to the conclusion as to why that is the case. At any rate, the numbers for mass transportation are not going down. Just using that study as building ground, they previously stated that Saint Louis's MetroLink handled 66 percent less volume than a freeway couplet (or, more positively, MetroLink handled 44 percent of the volume of a freeway couplet). The gap is closing in as ridership in Saint Louis had increased.

[CapitalGuy]

Are you sure the Joeglow article isn't actually only 7-8 year old?

[omaja]

For roads or against roads, cars are the only vehicle that can get you from any Point A to any Point B. Mass transit can only get you anywhere you need to if it is on a route. Don't try to pull this parking depot business over my head because once people are in their cars, they aren't going to bother getting out to wait for a rail or probably even walk 4 blocks out of their way. You need major destinations for this to become viable and Omaha is spread out all over the place. How many of these cars that are congesting the roads now are really starting at one major stop and ending at another? Probably a pretty good chance there is some oddball north-south travel to reach their destination. This would probably work in a densely packed population setup but I can't see it being feasible in today's sprawling Omaha.

Have you ever visited a city with mass transportation? Frighteningly enough, people can and do live entirely without cars. I am in Boston right now without a car, and the combination of rail and bus routes makes getting virtually anywhere pretty simple. A car would make certain things more accessible (like going to the grocery store), but that is just because of the area I am in. Even scarier, the suburbanites use mass transportation to go places! It's just crazy! Those who live outside the scope of the T will drive to an outer station, park, and take the T into the city (for a Sox game or whatever) because parking is absurd and driving in Boston can be an absolute nightmare. They aren't called Massholes for no reason. ;) Get a whole bunch together and the party really gets started.

Here in lies the problem, you are acknowledging that the road infrastructure will still need to be paid for. So why would we pay for a road infrastructure which is costly as is and then throw a more expensive light rail infrastructure on top of this. How is this saving the city any money?

Light rail is not necessarily more expensive than roads. If by more expensive you mean laying down asphalt verses constructing a light rail right-of-way, then maybe. In all other terms, most definitely not. The cost savings come when the light rail line takes burden off Dodge, allowing the city to use those funds elsewhere (i.e. maintaining already built roads better--Omaha is horrible about this). The cost of maintaining a light rail system would be less than continually adding lanes to roads. Not to mention, light rail takes up a fraction of the space that a six-lane freeway does. If rail, and mass transportation for that matter, didn't make sense, they wouldn't exist.

Edit: The graphs say the data is from 1996. When the article was written, I have no idea. But basing a study off data which includes a then-three-year-old light rail system in Saint Louis doesn't make sense. If anything, it is very commendable that in such a short amount of time it was able to garner that much ridership.

[almighty_tuna]

Here in lies the problem, you are acknowledging that the road infrastructure will still need to be paid for. So why would we pay for a road infrastructure which is costly as is and then throw a more expensive light rail infrastructure on top of this. How is this saving the city any money?

Well on that logic, why have air travel when the interstate system gets people around perfectly well? Why should we pay for airport infrastructure on top of road maintenance? United Flight 230 to Denver won't get me to the front door of the Pepsi Center so I might as well just take my car. |expletive| it.

You can't have it both ways in this argument, CapitalGuy - herein the problem does not lie. Light rail/streetcar/bus does not replace the need for cars, roads or associated infrastructure. But clearly, as a informed debater, you knew that already, didn't you? To blindly follow multi-modal mass transit as the end-all replacement for cars is just plain dumb. However on the other end of the scale, which you seem to be familiar with, cars are not the only way to move people from place to place and an equally foolish platform on which to base your argument.

[CapitalGuy]

Well on that logic, why have air travel when the interstate system gets people around perfectly well? Why should we pay for airport infrastructure on top of road maintenance? United Flight 230 to Denver won't get me to the front door of the Pepsi Center so I might as well just take my car. |expletive| it.

Well, that isn't exactly a analogous situation, but I'm sure a seasoned debater like yourself realized that. In fact, I'm not going to go into the reasons why they are not analogous, because there are too many to list.

But clearly, as a informed debater, you knew that already, didn't you?

Actually, I didn't Socrates, but I'm sure with someone with as fantastic of reading comprehension skills as you have would have figured that out from the very post I made above asking that question. But, thank you for carrying out a civil discussion. You are truly a statesman.

[CapitalGuy]

DTO, if you are 6'0" and weigh 150, you don't need to worry. You can go up to 160 and not make changes.

[CapitalGuy]

Big E - here is my thing: most of the time pro LRT's seem to say LRT would simply supplement what we already have with cars. I am fine with this so long as it can be shown to be a cost effective supplement. What I don't get though is the doomsday scenarios you have put forth, because for about all of them I wouldn't drive a car PERIOD. So what do we do when we don't have cars? Even light rail isn't going to help us then, at least not until there is a HUGE societal paradigm shift. If this doomsday scenario of $50 a gallon gas is what we are truly concerned about, than we should be moving to alternative fuel sources and renewable fuel sources (which hopefully we are but not as much as we should with W in office). My largest problem with light rail is that as a supplement it may work, but as a primary it likely won't. We are too car-centric which isn't necessarily a bad thing (a car is simply individual transportation which even pro-LRT's would acknowledge has its place). So then why invest a bunch of money in LRT? I think your best answer may be that it would slow the onset. But isn't it just delaying the inevitable? Wouldn't the more prudent choice to avoid your doomsday scenarios be to invest in something that could 100% take the place of cars. Maybe LRT can do this, but my understanding from the ad nauseum thread below is that it is not intended to do that.

That's my 2 cents Big. I'd love it you provided some civil discussion on the topic (although the snarks can be entertaining, truth be told).

[omaja]

Omaha is putting on more than 10 pounds in road construction. It's not the most fit city in the country to begin with, all the while its just trying to keep up with all the exercise (maintenance) required to satisfy its horrible eating habits that pack on the pounds (extremely low-density suburban development). More time is being spent at the gym just sitting around doing nothing. And nothing brings little results.

[DTO Luv]

I think he's been rather intelligent in all of this. Besides I thought you were done with all of this?

[CapitalGuy]

One things that is missed in all of the horror of needing to widen this stretch of Dodge Street. Folks, this stretch was widen from 4 lanes to 6 lanes almost 30 years ago. THIRTY. This is hardly exponential growth. Maybe the need for more than 8 lanes will come faster, but still this fact has not been mentioned.

[CapitalGuy]

Dang, I have been trying to end it, but people keep directing comments at me that I need to respond to. Let's just say I have a whole new respect for the way you take unpopular stands on this board and hold your ground.

[DTO Luv]

But you're just talking about one stretch of road. How many other western roads were built at that time, still will be built, and still need to be maintained? We've gotten way off of widening Dodge into a bunch of other tangents but it's all kind of connected.

[DTO Luv]

I'm unpopular?

[CapitalGuy]

Just with everybody but me buddy.

[CapitalGuy]

Yeah, that is a problem, but forcing urban infill probably will do more harm than good at this point. Encouraging it would be the better idea.

[omaja]

You can't really encourage infill and make it that much easier for people to live west of 204th Street at the same time.

The issue I have with widening this stretch of Dodge isn't that it was widened a short while ago (unless you count the expressway which spawned the increase in traffic...). The problem is that widening Dodge won't solve anything. The marginal benefit of adding another lane in each direction is reduced to practically nothing because, as I have said before, the eight lanes would bottle-neck at either end of the widening area. Dodge east of 72nd is on a restricted right-of-way through developed neighborhoods, and with businesses located adjacent its five lanes. You are expecting to squeeze the newly-widened four lanes of eastbound traffic into the two lanes east of UNO? Then just look for congestion to shift eastward less than 10 blocks. Likewise, the traffic of the four westbound lanes west of 90th would be forced to battle for the two-lane ramp which leads to the express lanes. It will only exacerbate the problem, just like the expressway moved the 114th Street bottle-neck 24 blocks east to 90th Street. The same thing occurs every time a street is widened in West Omaha. It just pushes the evening backup further west. And then traffic builds. And then it needs to be widened again (West Center Road being the most obvious example).

The only thing that needs to be done to Dodge is a resurfacing job. Especially in the aforementioned area. From 72nd to Cass Dodge is an absolute disaster, quality-wise.

[omaja]

It must be really difficult to hold your ground when your argument is founded on quicksand with no firm ground in sight.

[CapitalGuy]

Good God. I am to the point of gathering up a couple of buddies and building a |expletive| light rail on my own if it means this topic is never discussed again on this board. I simply do not have the stamina to fight a multi-front battle with you guys on this. I think I could hire someone on a full-time basis just to read omaja's posts. So Uffda insert your beating the dead horse graphic and then Administrator lock this up or delete the light rail posts. Anything to end this e-migraine.

[CapitalGuy]

Jeez, you would have thought I would have learned from history. I've got all I can handle in one thread, and I choose to open fronts in this thread and another. If I don't quit writing checks that my |expletive| can't sign, I'll be suffocating in that quick sand of yours omaja. Enough of this for now. I'm ready for a cease fire and a lifetime light rail pass 8) .

[joeglow]

"Mass Transit Hysteria
Take the plunge, save the planet."

http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/fea ... =110006428

"Busway vs. Rail Capacity: Separating Myth from Fact"

http://www.reason.org/pu16.pdf

[Big E]

There are just two problems with mass transit. Nobody uses it, and it costs like heck.

Of course no one uses it: WE KEEP BUILDING |expletive| ROADS AS FAST AS THE SUN RISES.

Why can't people wrap their heads around the concept that no single one thing (light rail, street cars, toll roads, gas taxes, etc) is an overnight lightswitch magic bullet? We've dug ourselves a major hole here ("here" being everywhere in the country that has been developed since the advent of the car-culture), and the attitude of "Well, I'll be long gone before everyone is totally |expletive|, and besides - I like my Escalade" seems to be the prevailing logic.

There's a proposal for a federal $.40/gal gas tax to repair our infrastructure (which we all know won't pass, but it's there). That's just the roads, specifically the bridges, that have already been built. So not only are we making it more expensive to use the current system, we're trying to figure out a way to perpetuate it for the next generation. And the next, and the next.

I used doomsday scenarios because it's becoming apparent to me that those are the only way most people are going to budge on this. The really sad thing about those scenarios is most are plausible, if not inevitable, and so far the best solutions I've seen offered are sarcastic op-ed pieces from three years ago.

You can't possibly claim that the path we're on is feasible. You don't like mass transit. Fine, everyone doesn't have to agree. But I still offer the same challenge: What is YOUR solution?

-Big E

[joeglow]

You can't possibly claim that the path we're on is feasible. You don't like mass transit. Fine, everyone doesn't have to agree. But I still offer the same challenge: What is YOUR solution?

-Big E

-The 2 articles together seem to state that buses are a MUCH more efficient and effective solution. I think it goes back to what Brad said in the other thread. It is not about efficiency to a lot of other people. Many want it because "it is cool as ****." Well, like the opinion piece said, so are roller coasters and log rides. Why not build those as "mass transit?" I would LOVE to take a roller coaster to work every day.

[Swift]

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

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