Chamber's ConnectGo Initiative

[ita]

The Chamber has an official site for its ConnectGo initiative. Some very good information about how this programs fits in with all of the studies and plans that have previously been completed. This seems to be the real deal for the next step in mass transit for the Metro. Please fill out the survey and share it to anyone interested in letting the powers-that-be know their thoughts on what should be next and what the future of transit should look like in Omaha. One interesting detail in the official site is the timeline: they intend to have the strategy finalized in early 2020 and start identifying funding options for whatever comes next.

https://www.omahachamber.org/connectgo/

[Professor Woland]

Be sure to answer "drive alone", we need to nip this streetcar nonsense in the bud. (Dodges tomatoes)

[nativeomahan]

I took the survey. I hope this study does not end up sitting on a shelf somewhere,

[Louie]

Same.

[bigredmed1]

Be sure to answer "drive alone", we need to nip this streetcar nonsense in the bud. (Dodges tomatoes)

Did just that

[BRoss]

I took the survey too. Made sure to voice that even though I drive alone now, I'd like the option to take mass transit.

I really find it interesting that some people are so selfish that they only care about what affects them and tries everything they can do to sabotage things they feel they don't need. We as a city need to provide for all, which means provide more transportation options than just driving. If we wish to retain talent, then we can't be short-sighted. This is a need we need to start planning for.

I personally want to see the roads well maintained and better mass transit. It doesn't have to be one or the other. Not sure why some people make it out to be that way.

[Professor Woland]

Well, if the initiative's realistic focus was on improving transit, that would be one thing, but that's not what this is about. It's about a streetcar. Building a streetcar would inevitably come at the expense of bus service and road maintenance. In the overwhelming majority of cities that have gone this route the effect has been to transfer resources from poorer areas to gentrified areas. If Omaha were large enough, and had enough jobs concentrated in the central business district, I would be okay with building an elevated train or a subway.

As transit streetcars and light rail aren't great options, they are obscenely expensive relative to the benefit they provide. If the city wanted to fork over the funds to improve bus service, especially in service of lower income areas, I'd be all for it. At this point, there is no argument for an urban circulator that stands up under scrutiny. Keeping this scourge away from our city is far from selfish, it's a service to the overwhelming majority of Omahans at every socioeconomic strata.

[BRoss]

We are talking about all transit options. Not the streetcar specifically. The streetcar is one of many options which also includes improving bus service. Thinking about the subject from just one proposed solution is myopic.

[Professor Woland]

We can look at those transit options once the idea of a streetcar is dead, cremated, and its ashes scattered to the four winds.

[Busguy2010]

Well, if the initiative's realistic focus was on improving transit, that would be one thing, but that's not what this is about. It's about a streetcar. Building a streetcar would inevitably come at the expense of bus service and road maintenance. In the overwhelming majority of cities that have gone this route the effect has been to transfer resources from poorer areas to gentrified areas. If Omaha were large enough, and had enough jobs concentrated in the central business district, I would be okay with building an elevated train or a subway.

As transit streetcars and light rail aren't great options, they are obscenely expensive relative to the benefit they provide. If the city wanted to fork over the funds to improve bus service, especially in service of lower income areas, I'd be all for it. At this point, there is no argument for an urban circulator that stands up under scrutiny. Keeping this scourge away from our city is far from selfish, it's a service to the overwhelming majority of Omahans at every socioeconomic strata.

Just reading through. I don't have any chips in the discussion yet, but I wanted to point out that our low income areas already have the best bus service our metro has ever had. Depending on if you live within a 1 mile-or-so radius of North Omaha Transit Center, South Omaha Transit Center, and Downtown Omaha, the service is almost as good as it could get. That's pretty good.

I also don't disagree that there could be a transfer of resources from established poor areas to gentrified areas. But, I do believe there is a good chance a potential streetcar route would not cut into Metro's current bus service budget. I think there could be enough private and or federal money involved in a streetcar route, that it wouldn't negatively affect the level of bus service we currently have.

I'd like to drive home the fact that if you live in certain areas, you have access to outstanding bus service... So much that if we're complaining about our lack of service, we are obviously not the focus of our system. I don't think our system will ever be able to continue to provide good service to those who need it, as well as create new service to those who wish metro could make it work for them.

People who "wish" they could ride the bus are a relatively new thing in our city. For a bit of history: In around 1980, ridership was about twice as much as it is today, in a much smaller service area than we have today. To me, this clearly says that people, jobs, services, and entertainment have moved away from the bus system, not that the bus system has been inadequate. Especially since many of Metro's routes have been essentially unchanged since its conception.

To me, something went the other direction in our culture, not our bus service. And it would require a unique solution to sway ridership in the other direction that a bus system alone cant pull off. To me, the city has simply outgrown the scope of our best possible bus system. Honestly, the bus service is not bad. It is currently the best its been since at least the late 90's. Your perspective just depends on where you live. Again, I say people moved away from the logical scope of our bus system and that is not the responsibility of our bus system.

I'm saying if more people move to and work closer to our system, our system would look better, and I think this effect is currently in action. And I think it has been a pleasingly organic action thus far.

[BRoss]

We can look at those transit options once the idea of a streetcar is dead, cremated, and its ashes scattered to the four winds.

So we can't even think about mass transit until the idea of the streetcar is dead?

That's just absolutely ridiculous and makes no sense. There's always going to be things we don't like. But we can't hold other ideas hostage in order to force our way. Just because you don't like one aspect of an idea doesn't mean we have to entirely abandon everything.

I'm sorry, but this lack of even trying to compromise is just pure selfishness. Maybe if you work to find alternative solutions instead of just stomping your feet and refusing to even consider anything, you'd make a case for why a streetcar is not needed. Until then, I'll I'm hearing is pouting.

[Professor Woland]

Considering that building a streetcar would do real harm to the city, yes, stopping it from getting built should be priority number one. Also, who's pouting? I expressed a minority opinion and explained my reasoning. In retrospect, this was a mistake, because there is no more demeaning waste of time than arguing with people online.

[Professor Woland]

Well, if the initiative's realistic focus was on improving transit, that would be one thing, but that's not what this is about. It's about a streetcar. Building a streetcar would inevitably come at the expense of bus service and road maintenance. In the overwhelming majority of cities that have gone this route the effect has been to transfer resources from poorer areas to gentrified areas. If Omaha were large enough, and had enough jobs concentrated in the central business district, I would be okay with building an elevated train or a subway.

As transit streetcars and light rail aren't great options, they are obscenely expensive relative to the benefit they provide. If the city wanted to fork over the funds to improve bus service, especially in service of lower income areas, I'd be all for it. At this point, there is no argument for an urban circulator that stands up under scrutiny. Keeping this scourge away from our city is far from selfish, it's a service to the overwhelming majority of Omahans at every socioeconomic strata.

Just reading through. I don't have any chips in the discussion yet, but I wanted to point out that our low income areas already have the best bus service our metro has ever had. Depending on if you live within a 1 mile-or-so radius of North Omaha Transit Center, South Omaha Transit Center, and Downtown Omaha, the service is almost as good as it could get. That's pretty good.

I also don't disagree that there could be a transfer of resources from established poor areas to gentrified areas. But, I do believe there is a good chance a potential streetcar route would not cut into Metro's current bus service budget. I think there could be enough private and or federal money involved in a streetcar route, that it wouldn't negatively affect the level of bus service we currently have.

I'd like to drive home the fact that if you live in certain areas, you have access to outstanding bus service... So much that if we're complaining about our lack of service, we are obviously not the focus of our system. I don't think our system will ever be able to continue to provide good service to those who need it, as well as create new service to those who wish metro could make it work for them.

People who "wish" they could ride the bus are a relatively new thing in our city. For a bit of history: In around 1980, ridership was about twice as much as it is today, in a much smaller service area than we have today. To me, this clearly says that people, jobs, services, and entertainment have moved away from the bus system, not that the bus system has been inadequate. Especially since many of Metro's routes have been essentially unchanged since its conception.

To me, something went the other direction in our culture, not our bus service. And it would require a unique solution to sway ridership in the other direction that a bus system alone cant pull off. To me, the city has simply outgrown the scope of our best possible bus system. Honestly, the bus service is not bad. It is currently the best its been since at least the late 90's. Your perspective just depends on where you live. Again, I say people moved away from the logical scope of our bus system and that is not the responsibility of our bus system.

I'm saying if more people move to and work closer to our system, our system would look better, and I think this effect is currently in action. And I think it has been a pleasingly organic action thus far.

Bus ridership (and transit ridership in general) has been declining for decades, though there was a brief bump in the aftermath of the 2008 crisis. The reason for this is that we have become wealthier, so more people can afford to drive. In 1980 it was not uncommon for a multiple adult household to have one car. This is much less the case now. I think that's okay, after all, a transit system is like any other good or service, it exists for the public, if the public has access to it and chooses not to use it, that's fine. I think we should provide a quality bus service to have it available to people if they want to use it. While it isn't free, it's a far better value than light rail or a street car. If there's a quality product and people are aware of it, that's good enough. What isn't okay is trying to drive up ridership by making driving less appealing, so any official who proposes a "road diet" or anything similar should be tarred and feathered.

[BRoss]

Considering that building a streetcar would do real harm to the city, yes, stopping it from getting built should be priority number one. Also, who's pouting? I expressed a minority opinion and explained my reasoning. In retrospect, this was a mistake, because there is no more demeaning waste of time than arguing with people online.

I call it pouting because it seems you are unwilling to even consider any mass transit options until the streetcar is dead:

We can look at those transit options once the idea of a streetcar is dead, cremated, and its ashes scattered to the four winds.

And that just doesn't make any sense. You don't stop everything just because you don't like one idea.

[bigredmed1]

Considering that building a streetcar would do real harm to the city, yes, stopping it from getting built should be priority number one. Also, who's pouting? I expressed a minority opinion and explained my reasoning. In retrospect, this was a mistake, because there is no more demeaning waste of time than arguing with people online.

I call it pouting because it seems you are unwilling to even consider any mass transit options until the streetcar is dead:

We can look at those transit options once the idea of a streetcar is dead, cremated, and its ashes scattered to the four winds.

And that just doesn't make any sense. You don't stop everything just because you don't like one idea.

Yeah, going to be on Prof Woland’s side. The street car issues of our recent past had proponents pushing a system that was increasingly restricted in service area, but still cost as much as a whole metro bus system.

The final proposal went for MTC to UNMC and connected to nothing in particular. It was going to have all kinds of wonderful features, but not go anywhere. The cost was going to be spread over the entire city, but the benefit was a short span in one area.

Honestly, we need a full service system that can move people around the whole metro, not just the MTC/Blackstone area. We can’t get there if as soon as we start talking about pie in the sky elements or features for one special group at the expense of the whole. The outcome of that is that the pols listening to the screamers and the silent majority feels the fingers sliding into their pockets to pay for what amounts to an amusement park ride (those from Millard would have to drive all the way to Blackstone just to ride it down and back. Might as well paint mouse ears on it.)

The only way to get a comprehensive plan is to look at a system that is intended to be able to take someone from Creighton to Blackstone just as well as taking someone from Millard to Sterling Ridge. You don’t do that by blowing the budget on one route.

[Busguy2010]

The only way to get a comprehensive plan is to look at a system that is intended to be able to take someone from Creighton to Blackstone just as well as taking someone from Millard to Sterling Ridge. You don’t do that by blowing the budget on one route.

We as a forum have been over this many times over. It is a simple fact that distance traveled per potential customer is way higher in urban Omaha than it is in Suburban Omaha. There are thousands of prospective riders along the route of the proposed streetcar route, whereas, in your example, there would be maybe a few hundred prospects, and over a longer distance.

Again, we've been over this many times. I don't think our current mayor would approve of a streetcar route that would be paid for by the whole city, divided equally, without considering how a streetcar route would benefit the whole city. And If you ask me, so far there has been no indication that the public would be paying for most, or not even half of the cost the proposed streetcar route would be

The suburbs inherently are a backseat focus of public transportation... Just as the urban areas have been backseat to street repairs. We, as a taxbase, have been paying for road construction and repairs in the suburbs. Since I used 1980 as the peak year for bus ridership, I would bet that since 1980, new suburban roads, widening, and repair projects have probably taken up 90% of allocated money vs public transportation and road repairs in the urban area. Only recently has the focus slightly turned to our urban area and public transportation projects.

I'm having a hard time understanding how, after all these years of the whole taxbase investing in the suburbs, there is so much friction involved in investing in a streetcar in the urban area. And basically all who have posted in opposition of the streetcar act like you have relied on, and are concerned about how it will affect the state of the current bus system.

Let's be real here... Are you really concerned about how the streetcar project would affect the bus system's ability to serve its current customers and potentially expand its service area to a point you would use it? I wonder how much money would have to be invested in our pubic transportation system in order for it to be a viable option to all you people way out there. Billions maybe? I think we're talking about light rail now.

For you (not singling you out bigredmed, but singling out the general sentiment of the thread so far) Its not about spending the money to raise the potential of spreading public transportation to the suburbs, its about not wanting to pay for something you would rarely use and fail to see how it benefits the whole city. I've been paying for roads for years, as well as my parents and grandparents. So much of this is about urban vs suburban, where you live vs where I live. The city is too spread out as it is, and the only way to "redensify" it is through public transportation infrastructure. The only logical place to start is in downtown and midtown. We as a city need to accept this fact.

Its time to choke down the big pill and invest in our public transit infrastructure.

[bigredmed1]

The point I was making before you jumped it for your own pity party was that a system that falls apart west of 90th street cant possibly begin to fix the mass transit needs we have. The bus system works in east Omaha and therefore its is used more. When a guy lives by Burke (pretty much center of the current city) can't get a bus stop within a mile of his house is bitched at for not using mass transit, he reads that as being bitched at for not believing in space aliens and the salutory effects of wearing a tin foil hat. The bus system simply doesn't work for West half of the city. Add in the evolving work life patterns of Omaha and the bus system we have falls farther from usefulness. I go to church on 132nd and Blondo. I can't tell you how many fellow parishioners tell me that that is as far east as they go in a normal week. They live in Elkhorn, work at 156th and Dodge, shop at the HyVee at 156th and Maple, and that is their orbit. How does a mass transit system that fails to grasp the reality that there are a lot of fellow taxpayers who simply don't go downtown as it never occurs to them to do so?

A second problem with the system is the employers in east Omaha. Do you really expect an OR nurse to take an unreliable bus to UNMC when his/her late arrival delays the start of the OR day? UNMC had a series of discussion sessions on mass transit options. They were blasted pretty hard by former easterners who did park and rides in their past locations. They had to drive 20 min to get to their parking, then get on a mass transit bus, then transfer to the circulating bus, and if everything worked according to schedule, it would only take 90 min to make the trip they could have made in 60 by car. Their cars were left in unprotected parking lots where thefts were very common. UNMC was confronted with three questions: 1. if I am on time, can I clock in from the park and ride and you eat the delays? (UNMC: No) 2. Are you going to provide emergency transit so if I have a sick kid and need to go get them, I can do so? (UNMC: We'll look into that) 3. Cops (actual real cops) protecting our vehicles? (UNMC: No) No one at the meeting was all stoked up about the plan. When the streetcar was added, it was seen as a joke or some political pay off for the urban hipsters and not as a real option for the transit needs of the staff.

[ita]

There is not one magic potion that can solve all of our City's issues when it comes to implementing mass transit. We have growing congestion, particularly on our highways. We have people in both sides of town who do not have reliable personal transportation to get to work, hospitals, etc. We have roads in poor condition. Not only are we facing issues directly related to transit, but we continue to struggle with brain drain and inability to recruit and retain people not from here. There is not a singular transit option, including the streetcar, that will solve all those problems, for all people living within the metro. If we focus on how a transit option will serve a particular subdivision, employer, or business park, we will never make any progress in improving our mass transit system because no option will meet all of those people's needs.

However, I am still a proponent of the streetcar. The potential benefits for urban Omaha are undeniable, in terms of potential investment, jobs, and redensification. Would I prefer investment in other modes of mass transit? YES. Please, build a light rail system connecting suburban and urban Omaha. Am I going to use the streetcar? Probably not very often; I live near 144th and Center and work in North Business Park. That doesn't change the fact that I would at least enjoy the benefits of our City having one. I want to see our downtown thrive. I want to see that companies continue to expand in and relocate to our City. The streetcar is not just a hipster movement. Younger people, particularly those in fields of industry that the City is trying to recruit, want mass transit options. Between the bus, ORBT (I am imagining it with expanded routes, North to South along several corridors), and the streetcar (again imagining beyond what the initial route would be), we would have mass transit system for urban Omaha that would help concentrate future development, investment, and population growth to our urban core.

We are over $1 billion dollars behind in road maintenance. I would say that we are in the same predicament with mass transit. We have invested too little and are late to the mass transit game. That's why there is push to do something more, right now.

[BRoss]

Yeah, going to be on Prof Woland’s side.

Of course you are. But I'm not arguing I'm favor (although I am) of the streetcar. I'm calling out the childish stance of not being able to consider any mass transit plan until the streetcar idea is dead. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean you can hold all other ideas hostage.

Voice your dislike of the streetcar. That's fine and a reasonable stance. But don't throw tantrums when you don't get your way. This lack of compromise by some is just pathetic. You don't refuse to work on a problem just because you don't like one solution. And that is what Woland was saying.

[ScrattyB]

Agreed.

I'm having a hard time understanding how, after all these years of the whole taxbase investing in the suburbs, there is so much friction involved in investing in a streetcar in the urban area.

I agree with this also, but I think, in general, people don't seem to realize this. Fixing potholes isn't terribly expensive, but converting 168th from Q to Center into 4 lanes over Zorinski is going to be crazy expensive. Maybe the city needs to publish the road construction costs more prominently.

I can already imagine it though..."We spent XY dollars to convert 156th to 4 lanes" and people will say "It should have been 4 lanes in the first place". Which is true in some situations (132nd comes to mind).

[bigredmed1]

The west Omaha street problems are seen in places like Orlando. You get this when developers don't have to pay for the true cost of development. Notice the lack of parks, swimming pools, tennis courts, etc (to say nothing about farm roads). Our city government over the years has to take a big share of the blame. We had the awful tunnel on 84th and an equally dangerous one on 120th and we had a number of crappy roads that were over congested starting in the 1970s. They were left in place too long because the UP didn't want to fix the tunnels and because we were afraid to not be "progrowth". Got to stop that.

The suburbs should have a cost factor built in that covers X amount of park for Y amount of houses and East West roads that can handle the full load of the expected development connecting to the nearest 4 lane intersection going East-west and North South. Going to add a lot of cost to new developments, but is going to result in roads that get built on the users dime.

[Busguy2010]

There's only so much money to go around. Metro is tasked with making the best use of that money, and thus, they serve the areas where a bus routes can be most efficient. The most efficient parts of the system happen to be in the urban area. Even further, the most efficient parts of the bus system are east of 42nd street. it makes sense to me to invest in that core system to make it stronger and more efficient. A stronger core system would better allow more buses to branch out from there and we could potentially have better suburb service. At the very least, it would encourage more people to live closer together and closer to the system.

[Busguy2010]

There is a bus stop at 114th and Davenport, and you could ride that to Westroads and transfer to the 2 (and the future ORBT).

Get on the 14 at 114th and Davenport at 6:10a
Get to Westroads TC at 6:17a
Get on the 2 at 6:22a
Get to 42nd and Dodge at 6:44a

I never realized that myself, but that is not a bad deal at all.

[Professor Woland]

Yeah, going to be on Prof Woland’s side.

Of course you are. But I'm not arguing I'm favor (although I am) of the streetcar. I'm calling out the childish stance of not being able to consider any mass transit plan until the streetcar idea is dead. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean you can hold all other ideas hostage.

Voice your dislike of the streetcar. That's fine and a reasonable stance. But don't throw tantrums when you don't get your way. This lack of compromise by some is just pathetic. You don't refuse to work on a problem just because you don't like one solution. And that is what Woland was saying.

Pouting, tantrums, and pathetic? You sure knocked me down a peg or two! I don't see anyone having a tantrum. I do see someone completely missing the point. To begin, I'm just some guy sharing an opinion on the internet and answering a survey, I don't have the power to hold anything hostage. Referring to the streetcar as "one solution" is begging the question. The reason I don't think it's a good idea to seriously discuss anything until the streetcar idea is dead is precisely because the streetcar isn't a solution to anything and will make real solutions difficult or impossible. Building a streetcar is worse than doing nothing. It is also clear that a number of influential people and organizations are pushing a streetcar. Any discussion at this point about fixing transit will be heavily weighted toward a counterproductive idea. When the discussion is oriented around things that might actually be good ideas, then I'll be onboard (not that me being onboard or not onboard matters, once again, I'm just some guy.)

If there were a feasible way to do heavy rail, I'd be all for it. If we could build viaducts, or if we really want to go pie in the sky, a whole system of underground streets built for future state self driving vehicles, that would be worth looking into. Improving bike and pedestrian infrastructure seems like a good short term idea. I wouldn't object to building better bus shelters and bringing articulated buses to town. I don't mind spending a lot of money if the cost per passenger mile traveled is acceptable. But before we can make things better we have to make sure we don't make them worse. So, once again, the prudent course is stopping any form of rail transit that runs on city streets. Stopping a bad idea should be priority number one. Feel free to disagree, but stop with the incivility, it's unbecoming an adult.

[Omahacritic]

Streetcar vs light rail. Either way, it gets built at grade level except for major choke points.

The real problem I see .. too much land. It’s just too easy to build west, north or Sarpy.

Permanent transportation (like rail/streetcar) gets you better development along those lines. Better development is higher density. Higher density is more ridership. Bus service does not always suffer.

Funny thing about West Omahans not going east. Meant are just afraid they will get lost. The funniest part ... I don’t go west of 72nd if I can help it. Too much traffic.

[daveoma]

This is merely a matter of allocating funds based on what kind of city we want. Economic development is triggered by infrastructure investment. If we want a large sprawling metropolis such as Houston or Dallas (or Kansas City for that matter), then we should use our money to pave over all of the Green Ring (the beautiful green fertile land that lines the rivers that surround Douglas and Sarpy counties). If we want a dense city such as DC, Portland, or Vancouver, then we should invest in mass transit including permanent options such as a streetcar, light rail, monorail, etc.

[ScrattyB]

So, once again, the prudent course is stopping any form of rail transit that runs on city streets. Stopping a bad idea should be priority number one. Feel free to disagree, but stop with the incivility, it's unbecoming an adult.

Depends on the headway. You know it's going to be horrible So it won't affect traffic at all.

You guys ever ride the MTR in Hong Kong? Sometimes it's like 30 second headway and the trains are sooooo long.

[ita]

Pouting, tantrums, and pathetic? You sure knocked me down a peg or two! I don't see anyone having a tantrum. I do see someone completely missing the point. To begin, I'm just some guy sharing an opinion on the internet and answering a survey, I don't have the power to hold anything hostage. Referring to the streetcar as "one solution" is begging the question. The reason I don't think it's a good idea to seriously discuss anything until the streetcar idea is dead is precisely because the streetcar isn't a solution to anything and will make real solutions difficult or impossible. Building a streetcar is worse than doing nothing. It is also clear that a number of influential people and organizations are pushing a streetcar. Any discussion at this point about fixing transit will be heavily weighted toward a counterproductive idea. When the discussion is oriented around things that might actually be good ideas, then I'll be onboard (not that me being onboard or not onboard matters, once again, I'm just some guy.)

If there were a feasible way to do heavy rail, I'd be all for it. If we could build viaducts, or if we really want to go pie in the sky, a whole system of underground streets built for future state self driving vehicles, that would be worth looking into. Improving bike and pedestrian infrastructure seems like a good short term idea. I wouldn't object to building better bus shelters and bringing articulated buses to town. I don't mind spending a lot of money if the cost per passenger mile traveled is acceptable. But before we can make things better we have to make sure we don't make them worse. So, once again, the prudent course is stopping any form of rail transit that runs on city streets. Stopping a bad idea should be priority number one. Feel free to disagree, but stop with the incivility, it's unbecoming an adult.

Could you clarify why you think the streetcar is going backwards and how it gets in the way of real solutions?

[ita]

Since some discussion has been around rail, here's a good article that provides an informative infographic about how start-ups, tech and otherwise are concentrated around areas of rail stops. The sample is small, but provides an interesting comparison. Commuter rail has the greatest economic effects, but light and heavy rail also pull in economic development.

https://www.citylab.com/transportation/ ... edit-promo

Additionally, UP's CEO was interviewed by KETV giving his thoughts about how a more comprehensive transit system can help the City's economic development, and how it's current state is suppressing growth. Additionally, he comments on the mayor's recent comments of "streets first, then transit" in connection to the bond she wants for street improvements. Not taking his word for gospel, of course, but he reiterates what business leaders are concerned about in Omaha and how they see transit helping.

https://www.citylab.com/transportation/ ... edit-promo

[BRoss]

Stopping a bad idea should be priority number one. Feel free to disagree, but stop with the incivility, it's unbecoming an adult.

Incivility? I'm not the one saying we should stop all discussions because I don't like something. That is just plain childish. I find it really odd that you consider someone calling out your ridiculousness unbecoming. It is unbecoming not being an adult and simply arguing against the streetcar. You have valid points and I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong about it being a bad idea. But when you refuse to work on the issue at all, you are just plain wrong. I'm sorry I'm being tough on you, but it is completely unacceptable pouting when you don't get your way. This happens way too much in politics these days and needs to stop.

We need to stop being such a car-centric city. All options need to be evaluated.

[Omahacritic]

All options should be considered. Before anything is built most of you will likely change jobs and or place of residence at least once. What you are for/against today may bite you in 2030.

At what point will urban infill finally take hold? There is tons of buildable land east of 72nd street. When it finally becomes economically logical to build out, density will demand better transit options.

[ita]

The recent owh article about transportation of millennials in the city referenced the connectgo survey. I whopping 383 people took the survey. I would have expected more respondents considering they had surveyed people in person at a few festivals and had an online component. I don't know if they are done surveying, but the response has been, unsurprisingly, that though people primarily drive alone in their commute a nearly half of respondents would rather take public transit and only a quarter prefer driving alone. I imagine others indicated that they preferred walking or biking among the other options provided in the survey. In any case, with a relatively small sample, I wonder how this initiative moves forward? It was a targeted survey; they were wanting input from millennials. So maybe the chamber got the response they wanted.

[ita]

It looks like they updated their timeline with more concrete goals for introducing plans. This is taken from their website:

1. Our first step was to gather input from people like you and to link conversations with stakeholders across the region about what equitable, accessible, and modern transportation means to their communities. This information will be used to create ConnectGO’s goals and guiding principals.

2. Armed with ConnectGO’s foundational goals and principles, an initial draft of emerging implementation strategies and funding options will be completed in Spring 2020.

3. The proposed, strategic draft will be share throughout the community — collecting feedback — and resulting in a formal action plan by the end of 2020.

4. The action plan will then be thoroughly vetted by key community leaders and our partners, before being finalized into the ConnectGO Strategy in early 2021.

[ita]

I just checked the ConnectGo site, as they have updated it periodically and they actually competed the investigatory phase of the initiative and released a report of their findings and overarching goals and principals (hopefully, OWH and other news outlets have stories on this soon). These will guide the Chamber, MAPA, Smart Cities, and the community build a regional transport strategy. The Chambers expects to have a strategy finished by late 2020. They were on time for this initial report, so I expect that they are strictly sticking to the timelines they have set for themselves.

Here is the link to the PDF download of the Report: https://www.omahachamber.org/download/40390/

[ita]

In light of how Covid-19 is affecting are moving around, ie. more WFH, less driving, more bicycling/walking, start of ORBT, the ConnectGO group has a new public survey. Here is the link if you want to share your input.

ConnectGO Emerging Strategy Survey

[ita]

Chamber of Commerce calls for big transportation steps in Omaha area

Jeffrey Robb
Along Dodge Street in downtown Omaha, a new orange and black ORBT bus started its westward leg as motorized scooters stood aligned on a nearby street corner awaiting riders.

A few feet away, a Heartland B-cycle station sat loaded with bikes to share.

On the edge of downtown, a construction crew worked to install Omaha’s first protected, on-street bike lane.

A change is showing up in how people get around Omaha.

Now a proposal from the Greater Omaha Chamber of Commerce and its ConnectGO initiative is urging metropolitan Omaha to kick those changes into gear.

The imbedding video/slide show also shows that other priorities include building an additional bridge over the Missouri for all users, improving 5 historic districts (unspecified), and 100 miles of sidewalk gaps. There are additional quotes from leaders including the CEO from Union Pacific. He is apparently involved in the ConnectGo initiative. I don't know if the City has had this many high players involved in plans calling for better multi-modal transit, but it's a good trend.

[ita]

There's another article on ConnectGo's strategy outlining the 11 focus points for transportation in the region:

The Chamber of Commerce's 11-part strategy to improve Omaha transportation

Jeffery Robb
The Greater Omaha Chamber of Commerce, through its ConnectGO initiative, is proposing a new regional transportation strategy for metropolitan Omaha.

Central to the strategy is the idea that Omaha needs a more broad-based transportation system — a system that looks beyond cars to move people around the city.

The plan urges a new midtown streetcar, more rapid transit bus lines, dozens of new miles of bike lanes and trails, and more walkable neighborhoods and business districts, along with street improvements.

Here is the chamber’s 11-part strategy, or what it calls the “10+M Strategy”: a 10-part strategy of transportation improvements, plus further focus on Omaha’s newly implemented street maintenance plan.

[Athomsfere]

There's another article on ConnectGo's strategy outlining the 11 focus points for transportation in the region:

The Chamber of Commerce's 11-part strategy to improve Omaha transportation

Jeffery Robb
The Greater Omaha Chamber of Commerce, through its ConnectGO initiative, is proposing a new regional transportation strategy for metropolitan Omaha.

Central to the strategy is the idea that Omaha needs a more broad-based transportation system — a system that looks beyond cars to move people around the city.

The plan urges a new midtown streetcar, more rapid transit bus lines, dozens of new miles of bike lanes and trails, and more walkable neighborhoods and business districts, along with street improvements.

Here is the chamber’s 11-part strategy, or what it calls the “10+M Strategy”: a 10-part strategy of transportation improvements, plus further focus on Omaha’s newly implemented street maintenance plan.

I read this too.

I'm excited that the street car is called out (I'd prefer light rail still, but ya know).

I just wonder how much bite this has. Is it finally becoming real?

[ita]

There's another article on ConnectGo's strategy outlining the 11 focus points for transportation in the region:

The Chamber of Commerce's 11-part strategy to improve Omaha transportation

Jeffery Robb
The Greater Omaha Chamber of Commerce, through its ConnectGO initiative, is proposing a new regional transportation strategy for metropolitan Omaha.

Central to the strategy is the idea that Omaha needs a more broad-based transportation system — a system that looks beyond cars to move people around the city.

The plan urges a new midtown streetcar, more rapid transit bus lines, dozens of new miles of bike lanes and trails, and more walkable neighborhoods and business districts, along with street improvements.

Here is the chamber’s 11-part strategy, or what it calls the “10+M Strategy”: a 10-part strategy of transportation improvements, plus further focus on Omaha’s newly implemented street maintenance plan.

I read this too.

I'm excited that the street car is called out (I'd prefer light rail still, but ya know).

I just wonder how much bite this has. Is it finally becoming real?

I think it is more real than ever before. There are so many stakeholders who want it to happen, including the Chamber, Noddle, Dr. Gold and UNMC with projects that will absolutely push demand for a fixed route urban circulator. This past weekend's Grow Omaha show had Jay Noddle. He mentioned that an urban circulator could be something on wheels. I immediately thought about trackless trams that have some momentum internationally. These are autonomous trams that run on a fixed route. It would save on infrastructure costs not needing rails, so I think it's a decent alternative to a traditional streetcar.

[Athomsfere]

There's another article on ConnectGo's strategy outlining the 11 focus points for transportation in the region:

The Chamber of Commerce's 11-part strategy to improve Omaha transportation

Jeffery Robb
The Greater Omaha Chamber of Commerce, through its ConnectGO initiative, is proposing a new regional transportation strategy for metropolitan Omaha.

Central to the strategy is the idea that Omaha needs a more broad-based transportation system — a system that looks beyond cars to move people around the city.

The plan urges a new midtown streetcar, more rapid transit bus lines, dozens of new miles of bike lanes and trails, and more walkable neighborhoods and business districts, along with street improvements.

Here is the chamber’s 11-part strategy, or what it calls the “10+M Strategy”: a 10-part strategy of transportation improvements, plus further focus on Omaha’s newly implemented street maintenance plan.

I read this too.

I'm excited that the street car is called out (I'd prefer light rail still, but ya know).

I just wonder how much bite this has. Is it finally becoming real?

I think it is more real than ever before. There are so many stakeholders who want it to happen, including the Chamber, Noddle, Dr. Gold and UNMC with projects that will absolutely push demand for a fixed route urban circulator. This past weekend's Grow Omaha show had Jay Noddle. He mentioned that an urban circulator could be something on wheels. I immediately thought about trackless trams that have some momentum internationally. These are autonomous trams that run on a fixed route. It would save on infrastructure costs not needing rails, so I think it's a decent alternative to a traditional streetcar.

That would be a huge miss to me. The "trams" are nice as a compromise between folks who know what is required, and bean counters in the short term. But tires have much higher friction, and much shorter lives before replacement, a light rail can add cars... I think we all know trams aren't a great answer.