At what point are upgrades needed?

[stormchaser]

I’m sure this topic has been discussed before, but I figured it might be worth starting a new topic since so much has changed in recent years. If a mod would rather combine this with another post, that’s fine too.

At what point does Omaha need to seriously start looking at adding another interstate loop (I-880?) around the north/western/south side of the metro?

As Papillion, Gretna, Valley, Elkhorn, etc continue growing, it will become increasingly difficult to find viable land options for the upgrade (without using deed in lieu which is obviously expensive/not ideal).

I realize what they did with Dodge from 680 on west was supposed to help fix things, but at some point all the development along west Dodge will plug up Dodge street more frequently, etc so this feels like more of a temporary fix as opposed to a long term solution.

Imo this is something that needs to be seriously considered soon…

[Dusty]

Beltways and outer loops are poor investments for the city. They cause more sprawl and are poor economic drivers.
We are better off investing in public transit and building developments around that. This would lead to some shifting to transit instead of cars. Less congestion of cars means an expensive beltway in unnecessary. Good transit infrastructure is still a fraction of the cost of a beltway.

[stormchaser]

Beltways and outer loops are poor investments for the city. They cause more sprawl and are poor economic drivers.
We are better off investing in public transit and building developments around that. This would lead to some shifting to transit instead of cars. Less congestion of cars means an expensive beltway in unnecessary. Good transit infrastructure is still a fraction of the cost of a beltway.

I agree, that would be ideal. However, it seems to be a battle getting public transit upgrades too (I.e. the silly people against the street car).

That said, I agree this would be more ideal. Either way, hopefully it’s something in the works for many more areas soon.

[BRoss]

Yes, there's been a lot of discussion about a beltway over the years.

Here's the official beltway discussion that dates back to the start of this forum:
viewtopic.php?t=1388

Another thread about the Platteview Road portion:
viewtopic.php?t=17927

There's a project page for Platteview Road on ConnectSarpy.com. Last updates were a couple years ago.
https://www.connectsarpy.com/updates/pl ... expressway

[stormchaser]

Yes, there's been a lot of discussion about a beltway over the years.

Here's the official beltway discussion that dates back to the start of this forum:
viewtopic.php?t=1388

Another thread about the Platteview Road portion:
viewtopic.php?t=17927

There's a project page for Platteview Road on ConnectSarpy.com. Last updates were a couple years ago.
https://www.connectsarpy.com/updates/pl ... expressway

Nice, kinda figured

[Dusty]

Beltways and outer loops are poor investments for the city. They cause more sprawl and are poor economic drivers.
We are better off investing in public transit and building developments around that. This would lead to some shifting to transit instead of cars. Less congestion of cars means an expensive beltway in unnecessary. Good transit infrastructure is still a fraction of the cost of a beltway.

I agree, that would be ideal. However, it seems to be a battle getting public transit upgrades too (I.e. the silly people against the street car).

That said, I agree this would be more ideal. Either way, hopefully it’s something in the works for many more areas soon.

This is why I have so vocal over changing the narrative on how to sell the streetcar. I have not been happy with the city as they sell it as a "fun ride." This treats it like an attraction like a ferris wheel. If you want people to take transit serious, you have to sell a long range plan for a transit network. The streetcar is just one of the main lines to build our foundation for that network.

[stormchaser]

Beltways and outer loops are poor investments for the city. They cause more sprawl and are poor economic drivers.
We are better off investing in public transit and building developments around that. This would lead to some shifting to transit instead of cars. Less congestion of cars means an expensive beltway in unnecessary. Good transit infrastructure is still a fraction of the cost of a beltway.

I agree, that would be ideal. However, it seems to be a battle getting public transit upgrades too (I.e. the silly people against the street car).

That said, I agree this would be more ideal. Either way, hopefully it’s something in the works for many more areas soon.

This is why I have so vocal over changing the narrative on how to sell the streetcar. I have not been happy with the city as they sell it as a "fun ride." This treats it like an attraction like a ferris wheel. If you want people to take transit serious, you have to sell a long range plan for a transit network. The streetcar is just one of the main lines to build our foundation for that network.

I also agree with this though I suspect the marketing is the way it currently is for now due to the relatively small route size (to prevent the naysayers from focusing on that). Then they’ll start using better messaging about using it as a viable travel option in and around Omaha once more destinations are added? (I’m just speculating as I agree, that messaging is a bit odd).

[nebport5]

Where is this exclusively "fun" marketing campaign for the streetcar? Ever since the Farnam/Harney became the preferred starter route vs the airport/zoo route it's been touted as an economic tool to be used by locals vs tourists.

From Omahastreetcar.org:

“It's the right time in Omaha to support a streetcar. A streetcar will lead to additional development of our core which benefits the entire city. The momentum we have to forever change our urban core is undeniable. The financial health of our city relies on continued growth and the streetcar is another tool to support our strong development pipeline.”
– Jean Stothert, Mayor of Omaha


And frankly, for a city with a lack of "fun" image problem by many of it's own residents and beyond what's wrong with playing up that aspect of the streetcar too?

[Renovator2559]

Beltways and outer loops are poor investments for the city. They cause more sprawl and are poor economic drivers.
We are better off investing in public transit and building developments around that. This would lead to some shifting to transit instead of cars. Less congestion of cars means an expensive beltway in unnecessary. Good transit infrastructure is still a fraction of the cost of a beltway.

Agree, everytime I have to go to sister city Tulsa of same population and age as Omaha. I cringe going through the elaborate loops and mazes of wide highways with parallel frontage roads running. Also, I have to pay Tolls in multiple parts of Tulsa, because yes roads are too expensive compared to transit. Oklahoma went crazy like Texas with the highway and beltway obsession.

The public transit in Tulsa is almost non-existent and the city looks like it's aging and a reflection of its prime in the 80s.

I'm glad Omaha was restrained and conservative in the 50-80s in not becoming yet another Kansas City/Tulsa clone, in terms of highway placement.

[Erik]

Beltways and outer loops are poor investments for the city. They cause more sprawl and are poor economic drivers.
We are better off investing in public transit and building developments around that. This would lead to some shifting to transit instead of cars. Less congestion of cars means an expensive beltway in unnecessary. Good transit infrastructure is still a fraction of the cost of a beltway.

Agree, everytime I have to go to sister city Tulsa of same population and age as Omaha. I cringe going through the elaborate loops and mazes of wide highways with parallel frontage roads running. Also, I have to pay Tolls in multiple parts of Tulsa, because yes roads are too expensive compared to transit. Oklahoma went crazy like Texas with the highway and beltway obsession.

The public transit in Tulsa is almost non-existent and the city looks like it's aging and a reflection of its prime in the 80s.

I'm glad Omaha was restrained and conservative in the 50-80s in not becoming yet another Kansas City/Tulsa clone regarding highway placement.

OMG gross.

Oklahoma is stand-your-ground, creates distance between everything, and is an anti-people state like Texas.

Dallas-Ft Worth had some beautiful highways and toll roads (gross). Unfortunately, concentrated urban areas are few and far apart. You would have to hunt for a store you like.

The design is non-existent, and I don't see how those states can afford to fix itself for any extended period of time, intellectual capital, and some deconstruction.

It's very concerning.

I came away appreciating the city of Omaha much more after that.

Though the attack on personal freedoms in this state has pushed me away.