City's transport plan to get update

[StreetsOfOmaha]

Valid points.

The debate about improved transit (and bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure) in Omaha has nothing to do with costs and everything to do with the values of average Omahans.

For instance, how was it politically feasible to throw hundreds of millions of dollars into getting the West Dodge Expressway built, but the idea of Omaha (or the State) spending ... well, really ANYTHING on improved transit is virtually dead on arrival?

Omaha will start to see the sustainable, progressive changes to its transportation policy and infrastructure that many of us support when Omaha's citizens at large come to see the benefits of those changes, too.

For that to happen, it will take charismatic leadership and the political will to bring about consensus and a much greater understanding of transportation issues among Omahans.

I'll continue to hold on to my faith in the citizens of Omaha, and I'll keep waiting for that leadership.

[Garrett]

How about this, one line along Center street, another along Maple. The Maple line would turn at NW Radial and go North-South until dodge, where it will then go east into Downtown. The Center line would cross the interstate at Martha and then go to the zoo, South Omaha, The Botanical Gardens, and another line up to Downtown. Out west, the Center line would turn north at Bob boozer and the Maple line would turn South at 168th and they would meet near village pointe.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

That might prove to be a fine alignment. But that's not what we should be concerned with here. That would all come into play once the political will to do it exists.

Really all I'm saying is that Dodge Street (like all of Omaha's other major corridors) cannot and will not remain a wide conduit for single-occupant automobiles with tiny, dangerous sidewalks squeezed onto the sides. It has to be completely rethought.

[omaja]

I can easily tell the difference between car and commute. Selling the idea of light-rail on Dodge Street, especially a version that would reduce traffic lanes, isn't going to sell politically in Omaha under current conditions. The cost of subway construction from downtown to 72nd is probably a non-starter as well. If you really don't want light-rail, keep pushing the Dodge Street idea. End Rant.

Sure it can. It is all in the marketing. The benefits of billions of dollars in infill and new developments and a higher quality of life outweigh the cost of making a person's commute from Fremont to Midtown five minutes longer. Commuting times will invariably increase with or without a reduction in lanes and the light rail line would provide a significant commuting capacity increase along the corridor to compensate for any eliminated lanes.

You want to talk about killing light rail? Try not including the wealthy northwestern and southwestern suburbs from the onset and see how much support you get.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

Commuting times will invariably increase with or without a reduction in lanes and the light rail line would provide a significant commuting capacity increase along the corridor to compensate for any eliminated lanes.

Exactly!!!

That's why OmahaBen's comments earlier about it "taking away Omaha's second busiest commuter corridor" are complete tripe. It shows the level of misunderstanding that exists regarding transportation issues, even among learned lawyers.

[Brad]

Omaha really needs to look at Underground rail. Since Omaha's weather can range from -20 to 110 and we get everything from Blizzards to Tornadoes and Hail, we really need to keep the weather out of the mix. Underground subway is the only way to go!

[Stargazer]

I'm trying to imagine what the cost of building a subway in this day and age would be.

On the positive side, it will only take another 50 million or so people out of work... and this will become feasible.

[nativeomahan]

I don't see it happening for a LONG time (if ever), but that probably is the best concept for any light rail/commuter rail in Omaha. It would HAVE to be separated from street traffic and have stops spaced far enough apart to make it faster to ride down the corridor than drive (at least during rush hour). With a few feeder bus routes branching off to existing residential development, it could be an attractive commuting route for both downtown workers and those in the 84th, and 120th area.

Realistically, I think there is more existing potential in revitalizing older neighborhoods closer to downtown and midtown. With projects like Midtown Crossing and the other multi-unit and single-family renovations nearby, a streetcar serving downtown/old market would probably accomplish more. With already low traffic on Harney and Farnam, it wouldn't need to be separated from traffic like a light rail line on Dodge St. would.

I agree. Light rail just isn't economically (or politically) feasible in Omaha, or anywhere in Nebraska, and it won't be for a very long time. Too long for anyone on this forum to really care about it.

A much less expensive route to go would be to give Omaha a first class bus system. No roads would need to be torn up. No houses would need to be torn down. No massive investment in infrastructure would need to be undertaken (we are having hard enough time paying for the sewer separation infrastructure as it is). Yes, it would be nice to have street cars (we don't have the population density to support light rail), but street cars cannot be a priority except maybe for a MTC/downtown/zoo route until/unless the economy greatly improves for a long enough time to allow us to dig ourselves out of our fiscal hole. Anything else is simply wishful thinking, and a pipe dream. No harm in having pipe dreams, but recognize that is what they are.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

Thank you, omaja. You're right about congestion and you're right about the hypocrisy of bringing cost into the mix - case in point, all those outrageously expensive mega road projects you mentioned.

Light rail just isn't economically (or politically) feasible in Omaha, or anywhere in Nebraska, and it won't be for a very long time. Too long for anyone on this forum to really care about it.

And if that's the case, then why is that? Omaha certainly has the population base and the density to start implementing a system - he11, it should have been done a long time ago. So my only conclusion is that it is the people. There is something that people in other cities get that people in Omaha don't. But I don't think even that is an insurmountable road-block.

Also, if light rail wasn't feasible in Omaha, how could it be feasible anywhere else in Nebraska...?

Sometimes I feel like trying to convey the value of improved transit and light rail in Omaha is kind of like trying to sell a hot dog to a person with anorexia.

[Uffda]

Ya know Streets some times your analogies are really off base and crude/cruel.

[ShawJ]

Hey, I'm for anything that gets some Omaha drivers out of the driver seat.

I know it's probably not a long term solution, but how hard is it to have a nice, functioning bus system? Having buses that are on time, have routes that make sense, and have clear maps doesn't sound incredibly difficult. It seems like an overhaul of our bus system could be an easy fix until we come up with a new solution.

Or am I over simplifying?

[StreetsOfOmaha]

How many U.S. metro areas SMALLER than Omaha have a viable light rail system in place?

Well there's your problem.

All the metro areas Streets cited are larger...most are much larger, and all of them are growing much faster than Omaha. That creates an opportunity for directing the location of tens of thousands of new housing units to areas along transportation corridors equipped with or built for light rail. We don't have that option in Omaha. Wish upon a shooting star, our numbers just don't add up.

Charlotte..........1,745,524 (a 31.2% increase in past 9 years)
Houston............5,867,489 (a 24.4% increase in past 9 years)
Phoenix............4,364,094 (a 34.2% increase in past 9 years)
Denver.............2,552,195 (a 17.1% increase in past 9 years)
Salt Lake City....1,130,293 (a 16.6% increase in past 9 years)

Omaha............... 849,517 (a 10.7% increase in past 9 years)

While it wasn't me who cited those cities, I'm pretty sure Omaha's population density is higher than all those places - that's what matters. What percentage of those large metro area's population actually use it? I think Omaha could achieve the same numbers.

Light rail might make sense where suburbs sprawl into oblivion, but we don't have that, and won't anytime in the foreseeable future.

That's not where light rail makes sense at all! And the fact that we won't have suburbs that sprawl into oblivion anytime in the foreseeable future is a good thing!!!

Another question is, where do people want to go? Most Omahans do NOT work downtown. So where is the rail going to take them?

Downtown, Midtown, Uptown (Crossroads area), The airport, the zoo, Offutt, UNO, Metro's campuses, the Med Center, other major hospitals, and Omaha's plethora of major shopping centers - three of which are right on the Dodge Street corridor, and all of which are candidates for new mixed use infill and TODs on their sprawling parking lots.

Consistent 11% growth is nothing to scoff at. And why shouldn't that growth be planned for and directed in the right way?

What many of you who think light rail, commuter rail, streetcars, and improved bus transit in Omaha can't happen seem to refuse to accept is that the values of a culture change overtime. They have changed, are changing, and will continue to do so in the future. The days of saying these things can't happen in mid-sized and even smaller American cities are over.

[Omababe]

How many U.S. metro areas SMALLER than Omaha have a viable light rail system in place?

Depends on what you mean by "viable light rail".

I know of several areas which are smaller or about the same size as Omaha and have some kind of an operating trolley system, but most of them are kind of a cross between a nostalgia or amusement thing and a serious people-mover. Smaller ones might be Galveston and Fort Collins. There are several others.

Kenosha has restored trolleys feeding into commuter rail.

For the smaller (not necessarily smaller than Omaha) areas which have actual successful attempts at light rail systems which I know of, Cleveland, St. Louis, and Sacramento come to mind immediately. IIRC, these are all where a "city proper" is smaller than Omaha but the metro area may be larger.

N'awlins is kind of a special case. Last I was aware of they were still rebuilding their trolley system from the Katrina damage.

A similar question which might be worth asking is how many metro areas LARGER than Omaha have resisted serious mass transit? (And why?)

[S33]

It's been said that Omaha is one of the ten most compact cities in the nation, I'm curious as to why Omaha would not be a good candidate for light rail while other cities, much larger in size, yet much less dense and compact with sprawling suburbs are able to implement the system? It just doesn't add up to think that it wouldn't be economically feasible for Omaha to have such a system without having to accommodate such a huge, sprawling mess.

But I am far from an expert, of course...

[Omababe]

It's been said that Omaha is one of the ten most compact cities in the nation, .

Not to start an argument here, but I'm really questioning this?

Are you speaking in terms of population density?

The reason I'm bringing this up is right after I joined this system I made a remark of how sparse or non-dense Omaha was and somebody jumped all over me saying something about Omaha being one of the more dense cities there is. (My initial response was "no {f-bomb}ing way!" but I did not feel like arguing.)

Well, I did a little research and IIRC, Omaha, city proper, is something like 3000-some bodies per square mile. That's really nothing compared to most major cities, even less dense than places like Denver and Las Vegas, which I both consider to be very spread out.

Where is this information (compactness? density?) coming from? Why is there this impression that Omaha (city proper or the metro area) is dense?

(Oh, and I really don't believe that Omaha is one of the most unhealthy places either!)

[Big E]

I've often wondered this, too. Ultimately, the statistic is useless as "compactness" is irrelevant if you can't get to 90% of it without a car.

[mrdwhsr]

It's been said that Omaha is one of the ten most compact cities in the nation, .

Not to start an argument here, but I'm really questioning this?

Are you speaking in terms of population density?

The reason I'm bringing this up is right after I joined this system I made a remark of how sparse or non-dense Omaha was and somebody jumped all over me saying something about Omaha being one of the more dense cities there is. (My initial response was "no {f-bomb}ing way!" but I did not feel like arguing.)

Well, I did a little research and IIRC, Omaha, city proper, is something like 3000-some bodies per square mile. That's really nothing compared to most major cities, even less dense than places like Denver and Las Vegas, which I both consider to be very spread out.

Where is this information (compactness? density?) coming from? Why is there this impression that Omaha (city proper or the metro area) is dense?

(Oh, and I really don't believe that Omaha is one of the most unhealthy places either!)

Oh that definition of density.

[omaja]

Omaha doesn't have the sprawl that Denver or Las Vegas has. Over 50 percent of Omaha's metro lives in the city proper whereas Denver and Las Vegas proper are home to only roughly 25 percent of their metropolitan populations. Denver and Las Vegas are roughly the same size as Omaha, too, making Omaha much more centralized and compact by comparison. Looking at urbanized areas instead of just city (which is too small) and metropolitan area (which is too large) provides a good picture of this.

[S33]

It's been said that Omaha is one of the ten most compact cities in the nation, .

Not to start an argument here, but I'm really questioning this?

Are you speaking in terms of population density?

The reason I'm bringing this up is right after I joined this system I made a remark of how sparse or non-dense Omaha was and somebody jumped all over me saying something about Omaha being one of the more dense cities there is. (My initial response was "no {f-bomb}ing way!" but I did not feel like arguing.)

Well, I did a little research and IIRC, Omaha, city proper, is something like 3000-some bodies per square mile. That's really nothing compared to most major cities, even less dense than places like Denver and Las Vegas, which I both consider to be very spread out.

Where is this information (compactness? density?) coming from? Why is there this impression that Omaha (city proper or the metro area) is dense?

(Oh, and I really don't believe that Omaha is one of the most unhealthy places either!)

From SmartGrowthAmerica.org which takes into account more factors than just population density alone.

http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/spraw ... rawl.pdf.1

Page 16 shows the least sprawling/most compact cities in America. The rest of the report explains its analysis.

I found it hard to believe myself, but this report seems pretty legit.

Here is the sprawl score sheet quick view without the entire report - http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/sprawlindex/chart.pdf

[Big E]

Well, I certainly can't dispute any numbers with any validity.

I will say, however, having been to the majority of the metros in the same Sprawl-O-Meter range as Omaha, I have absolutely zero idea how their methodology could possibly have grouped Omaha with the others.

[S33]

I don't get it either, I always figured Omaha was a poster child for suburban sprawl. I guess I'm just assuming they would know better than I.

[omaja]

It's an interesting study, S33. Thanks for sharing!

I think two things make Omaha seem more sprawled out than it is. The first is the street grid. While functional it doesn't leave much to the imagination so driving a mile (and, for that matter, walking) can feel longer than it actually is. The second is the lack of multistory developments that you see in Boston, NYC, Honolulu, San Francisco, Miami, etc., which makes Omaha feel more monotonous and open. I guess it comes down to the fact that Omaha is evenly spread out across the board: no super-dense corridors or districts and no mega-sprawl developments 20 or 30 miles outside of downtown.

Notice that Omaha is far and away the highest scoring Midwestern city. Certainly that would indicate Omaha has a strong enough core to support light rail. And it's confirmation that Omaha can and should be fighting above its weight class. Look at a city like Madrid. It is only the 45th largest urban agglomeration in the world and yet it supports the world's sixth longest heavy rail network (not to mention the entirely separate and enormous commuter rail network). Did the fact that Paris is many times its size stop Madrid from constructing a larger Metro? Nope.

It's geographic imprint isn't much larger than Omaha but it seems much, much larger than it really is thanks to the way that the Metro has influenced development. The fact that there aren't a bunch of multi-story developments lining Dodge or Center or 72nd already makes the proposition for light rail all the more enticing. Omaha has tremendous opportunities for infill and redevelopment. Someone needs to be brave enough to say no to the status quo.

[Brad]

I have done more thinking than posting on this subject. While I am absolutely pro mass transit, I think Omaha has gone about it and will probably continue to go about it all wrong. I have said before, I will always have a car, until the day I die, I will have some sort of classic car. However for every day commuting, sporting events, concerts or a night on the town, I can see myself using transit in the future. I don't every plan on living out west so I do see transit a viable option some day.

I still want a subway system due to weather (-20 to 110 and Tornadoes to Blizzards) and with Omaha's rock free clay soil I do see that as an option.

However the one that has got me really thinking lately is the Dodge street plan to convert it to a pedestrian corridor. I first I thought it was the dumbest thing I have ever heard of, but the more I have thought about it, to more it makes sense from UNO to Downtown. First off, I never use Dodge street. 95% of the time I use Cuming, Center, or Leavenworth. When I do use Dodge, he traffic is frustrating, the middle lane really bothers me and its is all around a dump. Granted there are some nice areas along there, but most of it is in serious need of a makeover, and not a CVS type a makeover. A nice pedestrian corridor can make a huge difference opening up street front retail. Mose new buildings going up along that stretch of Dodge don't have their front doors pointed to Dodge.

I know people think we can start with buses and work in to a small streetcar loop downtown, but I think that will just give the anti mass transit people more ammo to shoot down a city wide system saying "if the small route doesn't work, why would we spend money on a bigger system. We need to jump in with both feet and hit the ground running. Anything less that rail that covers from Crossroads to the Missouri River and from the Airport to the old market is a failure.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

Yep, you guys all beat me to it. It was Smart Growth's list of least-sprawled metros where Omaha fared extremely well - as it should have. It is easy to confuse, but no one is saying that Omaha's center city is as dense as the likes of San Francisco or NYC.

Granted, I do think it's a sad state of affairs when Omaha is considered one of the least-sprawled metros... unfortunately.

But wow. The level of consensus regarding rail in Omaha here is really encouraging!!! I feel like I could make a big long response, but you've all pretty much said it already!

I can feel the winds of change a blowin'. :yes:

And Brad, with regards to the rebirth of Dodge as a pedestrian (and bicycle and transit... and kind of cars) corridor... exactly!!!

[ShawJ]

I have done more thinking than posting on this subject. While I am absolutely pro mass transit, I think Omaha has gone about it and will probably continue to go about it all wrong. I have said before, I will always have a car, until the day I die, I will have some sort of classic car. However for every day commuting, sporting events, concerts or a night on the town, I can see myself using transit in the future. I don't every plan on living out west so I do see transit a viable option some day.

I still want a subway system due to weather (-20 to 110 and Tornadoes to Blizzards) and with Omaha's rock free clay soil I do see that as an option.

However the one that has got me really thinking lately is the Dodge street plan to convert it to a pedestrian corridor. I first I thought it was the dumbest thing I have ever heard of, but the more I have thought about it, to more it makes sense from UNO to Downtown. First off, I never use Dodge street. 95% of the time I use Cuming, Center, or Leavenworth. When I do use Dodge, he traffic is frustrating, the middle lane really bothers me and its is all around a dump. Granted there are some nice areas along there, but most of it is in serious need of a makeover, and not a CVS type a makeover. A nice pedestrian corridor can make a huge difference opening up street front retail. Mose new buildings going up along that stretch of Dodge don't have their front doors pointed to Dodge.

I know people think we can start with buses and work in to a small streetcar loop downtown, but I think that will just give the anti mass transit people more ammo to shoot down a city wide system saying "if the small route doesn't work, why would we spend money on a bigger system. We need to jump in with both feet and hit the ground running. Anything less that rail that covers from Crossroads to the Missouri River and from the Airport to the old market is a failure.

I hope I see a major overhaul of Dodge St in my life time. Being a main corridor through Omaha, it's a shame how unpleasant that street is.

[OmahaBen]

Commuting times will invariably increase with or without a reduction in lanes and the light rail line would provide a significant commuting capacity increase along the corridor to compensate for any eliminated lanes.

Exactly!!!

That's why OmahaBen's comments earlier about it "taking away Omaha's second busiest commuter corridor" are complete tripe. It shows the level of misunderstanding that exists regarding transportation issues, even among learned lawyers.

Screw you too, Streets. I know you're in your know-it-all phase of grad school, but you are not god's gift to mankind, either.

Chicago, Boston, New York, and Washington don't eliminate major road corridors when they expand their mass transit options; they are built in conjunction. Turning Dodge Street into just another road is not a cost-effective solution, as you'll still need to replace some of that lost auto capacity pretty much concurrently. Or you can shift the mass transit corridor over to a different road that still hits most of the major areas and avoid that double cost. Pacific-60th-Leavenworth is one, Farnam to Happy Hollow Blvd to Underwood to Cass to Dodge (by that point there is room to add the rail in addition to the current road) is another.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

Well, it was tripe! Not what I nor what anyone else is proposing would constitute the "taking away of a major commuter corridor." As I said, quite the opposite.

It's not being a know-it-all at all. This is what I am studying - what I'm exposed to day in and day out, during school and in my personal time. How can I not speak up about these things?

Again, I would never presume to debate you on law.
I would never presume to debate a surgeon about surgical procedures.
I would never lecture a fireman on how to put out a fire, or tell an engineer how she should calculate the force thrust upon some load-bearing structure.

In fact, I would probably rather listen to them and see if they have something they could teach me - as they are the specialist.

I'm not saying people can't disagree with me (or any planner). They obviously can and do.

What frustrates me is how everybody everywhere is somehow an expert on cities by virtue of the fact that they live in a city (or town, or village, or region).

[mrdwhsr]

Well, it was tripe! Not what I nor what anyone else is proposing would constitute the "taking away of a major commuter corridor." As I said, quite the opposite.

It's not being a know-it-all at all. This is what I am studying - what I'm exposed to day in and day out, during school and in my personal time. How can I not speak up about these things?

Again, I would never presume to debate you on law.
I would never presume to debate a surgeon about surgical procedures.
I would never lecture a fireman on how to put out a fire, or tell an engineer how she should calculate the force thrust upon some load-bearing structure.

In fact, I would probably rather listen to them and see if they have something they could teach me - as they are the specialist.

I'm not saying people can't disagree with me (or any planner). They obviously can and do.

What frustrates me is how everybody everywhere is somehow an expert on cities by virtue of the fact that they live in a city (or town, or village, or region).

Streets, I can understand the frustration you feel when people disagree with you. It is especially frustrating when we feel that the people we are dealing with just don't have the knowledge, facts, or whatever that we might posses. And I'm not saying my knowledge is in urban planning. Ever notice how so many Nebraskans know just what Bo should have done differently the day after Big Red loses a football game? I would bet that the lawyer, surgeon, fireman, engineer also encounter people that second guess whatever they do.

Democracy is messy.

If you aren't willing to "sell" the plan/project to "everybody everywhere" who is "somehow an expert on cities by virtue of the fact that they live" in one, that will be a problem. The "I am an expert by virtue of my education" answer isn't the best sales tool.

Patience friend.

And a question. When two "expert" planners with the equal credentials disagree on a matter, how should that be resolved?

[StreetsOfOmaha]

Chicago, Boston, New York, and Washington don't eliminate major road corridors...

Oh, and get with the program:

[quote="Esquire Magazine, "Janette Sadik-Khan: Urban Reengineer" By Lisa Taddeo http://www.esquire.com/features/brighte ... -khan-1210"]The boldest and most passionate change [Janette Sadik-Khan has] made is closing down Times Square to traffic and painting a plaza there. The plazas at Madison, Herald, and Union Squares have since followed, and now a whole long stretch of Broadway — two hundred thousand square feet, the size of three and a half football fields — is a pedestrian parkland, tables and flowers and sweating tourists resting their eighty-pound Toys 'R' Us bags while billboards glint commercially above them. In the most elementary terms, Sadik-Khan has plucked the city from under the chassis of the automobile and distributed it, Robin Hood — like, to runners and cyclists and mothers with strollers and large men with small dogs.[/quote]

What I have proposed for Dodge Street is not nearly this radical. And yes, this is exactly the kind of reform of urban space that is happening right now and reshaping American cities for the better.

Oh, and this is also mentioned later in that same article:

Sadik-Khan is shutting down half of Thirty-fourth Street to traffic, creating Manhattan's first river-to-river rapid bus corridor in 2012...

And, mrdwhsr, thanks for your words of wisdom. I will try to keep them in mind. In answer to your question, "within the field" is exactly where those conflicts should lie. But in my experience thus far, the disagreements and infighting within the field of planning regard methods of planning, types of implementation strategies, and even what the role of planners and planning is, should, or shouldn't be -- but the principles of what constitutes sound planning, design, and development seem to be widely agreed upon.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

Oh, and I can't forget to quote this gem, from the same Esquire article by Lisa Taddeo quoted above. This is exactly what I've been saying about congestion.

Say you drive your Honda Accord from a subway-starved swath of Queens to your job in midtown. And you've noticed the traffic is worse. Go find Sadik-Khan pedaling her Specialized Globe bike from her home in the West Village to her office downtown. Tell her you know, dammit, that traffic in midtown is worse. She will smile and say, Listen. If vehicles are going more slowly, then that's safer for everyone!

[omaja]

Chicago, Boston, New York, and Washington don't eliminate major road corridors...

Oh, and get with the program:

[quote="Esquire Magazine, "Janette Sadik-Khan: Urban Reengineer" By Lisa Taddeo http://www.esquire.com/features/brighte ... -khan-1210"]The boldest and most passionate change [Janette Sadik-Khan has] made is closing down Times Square to traffic and painting a plaza there. The plazas at Madison, Herald, and Union Squares have since followed, and now a whole long stretch of Broadway — two hundred thousand square feet, the size of three and a half football fields — is a pedestrian parkland, tables and flowers and sweating tourists resting their eighty-pound Toys 'R' Us bags while billboards glint commercially above them. In the most elementary terms, Sadik-Khan has plucked the city from under the chassis of the automobile and distributed it, Robin Hood — like, to runners and cyclists and mothers with strollers and large men with small dogs.

What I have proposed for Dodge Street is not nearly this radical. And yes, this is exactly the kind of reform of urban space that is happening right now and reshaping American cities for the better.[/quote]

Shutting down a small portion of a superfluous, diagonally-running street that conflicted with New York's grid is not even remotely similar to eliminating a major road corridor. Closing Broadway wasn't just to give pedestrians an oasis, but to also improve traffic flow along the avenues and eliminate nasty three-way intersections between three different streets. Dodge can definitely afford to get the Champs Elysees or Paseo del Prado treatment all the way from Westroads east into Downtown: wide pedestrian pathways, underground metro, the works. Eliminating the auto component would be a terrible mistake, however.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

Closing Broadway wasn't just to give pedestrians an oasis, but to also improve traffic flow along the avenues and eliminate nasty three-way intersections between three different streets.

Actually, as that article goes on to state, the closing of Broadway has increased north/south travel times for cars.

And Broadway a superfluous, non-major road corridor??? Hi, this is Earth. Have we met?

Anyway, my point was definitely not that this is what should happen on Dodge Street. That would be laughable. The point was simply to counter OmahaBen's unfounded comments about cities not doing this kind of thing - case in point being the elimination of half of 34th Street's automobile lanes to accommodate BRT.

[Bosco55David]

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

[Uffda]

If you aren't willing to "sell" the plan/project to "everybody everywhere" who is "somehow an expert on cities by virtue of the fact that they live" in one, that will be a problem. The "I am an expert by virtue of my education" answer isn't the best sales tool.

Words of wisdom for anyone who proclaims to be an 'expert' on any subject.

[omaja]

Closing Broadway wasn't just to give pedestrians an oasis, but to also improve traffic flow along the avenues and eliminate nasty three-way intersections between three different streets.

Actually, as that article goes on to state, the closing of Broadway has increased north/south travel times for cars.

And Broadway a superfluous, non-major road corridor??? Hi, this is Earth. Have we met?

Anyway, my point was definitely not that this is what should happen on Dodge Street. That would be laughable. The point was simply to counter OmahaBen's unfounded comments about cities not doing this kind of thing - case in point being the elimination of half of 34th Street's automobile lanes to accommodate BRT.

I didn't say it decreased travel times. It streamlined traffic flow, making remaining intersections safer and more pedestrian-friendly. And, yes, Broadway is incredibly superfluous in Midtown Manhattan; to note that fact it even appears as a normal side street between Columbus Circle and Union Square on Google Maps. Is it an important street for historical reasons? Yes. A critical route among New York's major road corridors? No.

I'd still say that what New York is doing isn't really comparable. 34th Street is complimented by 33rd and 32nd two blocks to the south, and 35th and 36th two blocks to the north. Dodge has no parallel to act as the east-west spine of the city.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

Oh, I see... so by "improve or streamline traffic" flow you really meant "make intersections more safe for pedestrians."

Got it.

And just because Broadway isn't the "majorist" road corridor in Manhattan's grid doesn't mean it is not a major corridor.

I'll admit I misread this stat on first glance.

From the same Esquire article quoted previously:

They found that northbound taxi trips in west midtown were 17 percent faster in the fall of 2009 (after the Broadway shutdown) than in the fall of 2008.

Anyway, this is not the focus of this topic. The focus is merely that, beginning in America's largest cities (naturally) we are starting to see the rethinking of roadways and the retaking of parts of our roads to accommodate different modes.

The fact of the matter is that, from I-680 to Downtown, Dodge Street is a roadway, not an expressway, and it runs through mixed use areas and neighborhoods. Furthermore, automobiles have a clear diverted route if they want to travel from far West Dodge to Downtown on uninterrupted expressway.

It makes sense that Dodge in this area be completely rethought to accommodate transit, cyclists, and pedestrians safely with minimized automobile access (not complete elimination of cars).

[the1wags]

Denver and Las Vegas are roughly the same size as Omaha, too, making Omaha much more centralized and compact by comparison.

I guess "roughly" is a relative term. By what measure do you think they are "roughly the same size"? Land use? City proper or metro, Denver is obviously much larger than Omaha.

Also, city proper population in city proper area, Denver is denser than Omaha. Yeah, there is sprawl in the suburbs, but the Denver metro also has 1.7 million more people.what would Omaha look like with that many more people?

[omaja]

Oh, I see... so by "improve or streamline traffic" flow you really meant "make intersections more safe for pedestrians."

Got it.

And just because Broadway isn't the "majorist" road corridor in Manhattan's grid doesn't mean it is not a major corridor.

I'll admit I misread this stat on first glance.

From the same Esquire article quoted previously:

They found that northbound taxi trips in west midtown were 17 percent faster in the fall of 2009 (after the Broadway shutdown) than in the fall of 2008.

Anyway, this is not the focus of this topic. The focus is merely that, beginning in America's largest cities (naturally) we are starting to see the rethinking of roadways and the retaking of parts of our roads to accommodate different modes.

The fact of the matter is that, from I-680 to Downtown, Dodge Street is a roadway, not an expressway, and it runs through mixed use areas and neighborhoods. Furthermore, automobiles have a clear diverted route if they want to travel from far West Dodge to Downtown on uninterrupted expressway.

It makes sense that Dodge in this area be completely rethought to accommodate transit, cyclists, and pedestrians safely with minimized automobile access (not complete elimination of cars).

No, I meant exactly what I said. Instead of having Broadway intersect 40th, 41st, and 42nd Streets at an angle between 6th and 7th Avenues, for example, necessitating competing intersections when New York's grid is already compact enough, they force people to use 6th or 7th (depending on where they are headed). At the same time it made things safer and better for pedestrians.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around further minimizing auto access along Dodge when east of 72nd it is a constricted five-lane artery on a very limited right-of-way. Certainly things need to be done to beautify and make the corridor more accessible to other modes of transportation, but shifting a bunch of traffic off of Dodge there and onto more residential streets like Farnam wouldn't be very productive. Anything less than a four-lane boulevard-style configuration along Dodge would not work well.

Denver and Las Vegas are roughly the same size as Omaha, too, making Omaha much more centralized and compact by comparison.

I guess "roughly" is a relative term. By what measure do you think they are "roughly the same size"? Land use? City proper or metro, Denver is obviously much larger than Omaha.

Also, city proper population in city proper area, Denver is denser than Omaha. Yeah, there is sprawl in the suburbs, but the Denver metro also has 1.7 million more people.what would Omaha look like with that many more people?

The City of Omaha covers a land area of 115.7 square miles with a population of 427,872 for a population density of 3698/sq mi. The City and County of Denver covers a land area of 153.3 square miles with a population of 610,345 for a population density of 3981/sq mi. Las Vegas is 131.2 square miles, 567,641 people, 4326/sq mi. What isn't comparable about those numbers? Perhaps saying that they are roughly the same size is a bit of a stretch, but Denver proper has a land area that is only 30 percent larger than Omaha. Not incredibly significant, considering the lax annexation laws Omaha enjoys. At any rate, Denver is only marginally denser.

Metropolitan Denver covers an area of over 8000 square miles; Omaha is half that. I'd wager that a greater percentage of any additional population would be located in Douglas County and within the city limits of Omaha than Denver currently has of its metropolitan population. Why? There is a lot of space in Douglas County to work with, Omaha can annex easily, and growth is very much Omaha and Nebraska centered. Douglas is the second-fastest growing county in the metropolitan area; compare that with Denver where it has been eclipsed by several suburban counties for some time now.

[S33]

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

Not on this forum.

[Brad]

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

Build a Subway!