Transportation Element

Omaha Master Plan Jim Suttle, Mayor Report #____

PLANNING OMAHA

DRAFT DRAFT Table of Contents TRANSPORTATIONTTRANSPORORTATATIONO ELEELEMENTEMENENTT

1 Introduction 1 1.1 Major Objectives of the Transportation Element 3 Establishing Broader Goals for Transportation Actions 3 Th e Reach beyond Transportation 3 Organization of the Transportation Element 6

2 Inventory and Needs Assessment 7 2.1 Roadway and Street Network 9 Functional Classiﬁ cation 9 Street Network Characteristics 11 NDOR, Federal-Aid and National Highway System Roads 17 Bridges 19

2.2 Traﬃ c Volumes and Travel Patterns 21 Vehicle Mobility 21 Managing East-West Travel Demand 22 Traﬃ c Volumes and Roadway Capacity 23 Congestion and Supporting Street Network 26

2.3 Traﬃ c Control 30 Traﬃ c Control and Arterials 30 Unsignalized Control Methods 30 Marked Pedestrian Crossings 31

2.4 Roadway Safety and Accidents 32 Roadway Segment Crash Rate 32 Types of Accidents 32 Corridors with High Crash Rates 33 Intersections with High Crash Rates 35 Accidents with Fatalities 35 Accidents Involving Pedestrians 36

2.5 Pedestrian and Bicycle Systems 41 Sidewalks 41 Pedestrian Bridges 41 Oﬀ -Street Trails 43 On-Street Bicycle Lanes and Shared Streets 43 East-West Bicycle Travel Demand and Options 44 Bicycle Reach and Land Use Patterns 44 End-of-Trip Facilities 45

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element DRAFT 2.6 Transit 46 Current Conditions 46

2.7 Truck Routes and Freight 49 Truck Routes and Traﬃ c Congestion 49

2.8 Railroads 50 Assessing Community Impacts of Railroads 50

2.9 Aviation 52 Ground Access to Eppley Field 52

3 Summary of Outreach and Involvement Activities 54 3.1 Structure of Public Engagement Activities 54 November 2010 Visioning Exercise 55 March 2011 Design Workshops 55 September 2011 Prioritization Meeting 55

3.2 Key Stakeholder Groups 55 Bicycle-Pedestrian Advisory Committee 55 Design and Engineering Advisory Committee 55 Development Advisory Committee 56 Other stakeholder representatives 56

3.3 Development of Community Goals to Guide the Plan 56

3.4 March 2011 Public Outreach Activities 57

3.5 Previous Planning Eﬀ orts 59

4 Developing New Project Ideas 60 4.1 Roadway Capacity Projects 61

4.2 Reorganizing the Cross-Section: Road Diets, Restriping Projects and Lane Reconﬁ gurations 62 Road Diets 62 Wide Outer Lanes 64 One-Way to Two-Way Conversions 65 Shared-Use Vehicle-Bicycle Streets 65

4.3 Expanding the Bicycle and Pedestrian Reach 67 On-Street and Oﬀ -Street Facilities Together 67 Harney Bikeway System 67

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element DRAFT Projects that Cross Barriers 70 Meaningful Connections from West Omaha 70 North Omaha 72 Rehabilitating the Omaha Boulevard System with a beneﬁ t for cyclists 72

4.4 Transit Guideway Projects 75

4.5 Streetscape Projects 78

4.6 Transportation and Land Development Projects 93 Crossroads Mall and the Nebraska Furniture Mart 94 Dodge and I-680 96 North Omaha Redevelopment 98

5 Evaluation Process 103 5.1 Project Pre-Screening 103 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects 103 Projects Closely Tied to Land Development 105

5.2 Project Evaluation Criteria 105 Goal 1: Provide balanced options for enhanced mobility 106 Goal 2: Attain a safe and healthy environment 108 Goal 3: Create livable and connected neighborhoods 111 Goal 4: Promote Economic Returns with Fiscal Sustainability 115

5.3 Use of Goal-Based Metrics 118 Patterns that emerged and how this aligns with political reality 118

5.4 Travel Demand Model Enhancement 120 Development of Scenarios 120

6 Recommendations 122 6.1 Project Recommendations 123 Project Opportunity Costs 123 Roadway Capacity Projects 123 Roadway Reconﬁ guration Projects 124 Bicycle Projects for the Capital Projects List 124

6.2 Transportation Policy Recommendations 126 Maintenance and a “Fix-It First” Approach 126 Bicycle Project Commitment and Plan Reﬁ nement 126 Pedestrian Improvement and Sidewalk Commitment 127 Traﬃ c Control Infrastructure 127

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element DRAFT Development and Local Street Network 127 Applicability of the Street Design Guidelines 127 Coordination with NDOR and the Securing of Design Exceptions 127 Coordination with State and Federal Initiatives 128 Enhancement of Project Selection Criteria 128

6.3 Land Use Policy Recommendations 129 New Ideas for Development Facilitation 129

6.4 Policy Action Items 131 Comprehensive Infrastructure Study 131 Staﬀ Working Group for Implementation 131 Complete Streets Policy 131 Metro Transit Development Plan 132 MAPA Regional Vision 132

6.5 Funding Options 134 Road Pricing and Tolls 134 Sales Taxes for Transportation 134 Use of Parking Districts and Business Improvement Districts 135 Demand-Responsive Parking Pricing 135 Project Right-Sizing 135

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element DRAFT Section 1

TRANSPORTATIONTRANSPORORTATIONTTION ELEMELEMENTENENTT

Omaha owes much of its existence to transportation: its distances and, in the case of urban areas, a greater founding in the 1850s as a settler’s outpost adjacent to geographic extent in which relatively fast and easy travel Council Bluff s, Iowa was undertaken in part because of was possible. the latter city’s role as a terminus of several continental railroads. Omaha was eventually selected as the eastern Today, however, Omaha is beginning to appreciate end of the First Transcontinental Railroad connecting the consequences of this pattern of growth. An the western United States to the more populated and ever-increasing demand for east-west travel has industrialized areas of the east. Railroads continued led to a confi guration of the city’s main street as a to be an important foundation of Omaha’s economy, high-capacity, high-speed roadway intended to off er a as the development of a cattle stockyards complex compromise between a local street and an expressway (which eventually surpassed Chicago’s as the largest (and truly achieving neither objective). Beyond this in the world) made Omaha a national leader in meat street, increasing amounts of public resources must be packing and processing. Omaha’s railroad hub was a used for maintenance of a growing roadway system, strategic reason for this. Its early growth and prosperity leaving fewer and fewer resources for investment in was closely aligned with the railroads, and the city’s other transportation priorities. Th e city has seen footprint was generally defi ned by the location of the overall levels of health decline among its citizens as railroads and the reach of available transportation an automobile-dependent lifestyle has reduced the technology. natural opportunities for basic physical activity that come from living in more organically connected As with all American cities and urban areas, however, neighborhoods. the rise of the automobile as a form of household transportation in the 20th century had dramatic eff ects Th e Transportation Element of the Omaha Compre- on urban form in that it allowed an expansion of the hensive Plan is off ered as a diff erent approach to city’s built footprint and residential travel shed well these long-standing trends, one that is intended to beyond what existed before. Omaha began orienting its defi ne and formalize new strategies for coordinat- vehicular streets to the automobile as early as the 1920s; ing transportation investment with growth patterns, by 1960, the vast majority of travel on all city streets for enhancing and maintaining the transportation was by private automobile. Th is mode of travel allowed system, and for leveraging the resources committed to Omaha to expand easily, as a preference for suburban transportation eff orts to improve other aspects of the living led to families leaving more densely developed community’s profi le. neighborhoods near the city center in search of the spacious subdivision patterns of new suburban areas. Th e development of the Interstate Highway System throughout the United States only furthered this growth and expansion, allowing faster travel over longer

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Introduction

DRAFT1 Th is Transportation Element should be an opportunity thriving city, only now it is much larger (both in terms for Omaha to consider not only its transportation of geography and population), features much more future but also a broader future for the community. dispersed employment, and has a transportation system Th e Element explores how the city will continue to almost entirely oriented to motorized vehicles. Th e grow and what policies and philosophical changes are illustrations below both show downtown Omaha, but required to make that happen. the modern view shows a street once traveled heavily by pedestrians and streetcars that is now tailored primarily To put this into perspective, consider the changes to automobiles—and even then only at the peak that have occurred over the last 100 years in Omaha. periods of travel. What was a prosperous city with an economy driven by rail transport, goods movement and agricultural Looking forward, Omaha should use this Transporta- distribution, all dependent on the vast intersection of tion Element as a means to reach a future that it wants railroads around the central city is still a prosperous and for the city, supported by the right kind of transportation system to make that future possible. Omaha in 1916

Omaha’s rapid growth from 1880 to 1920 led to the development of large office and civic buildings in its center. These were linked to the agriculture and transportation-related industries that defined the city’s economy, and they established a busy, vibrant urban center where streets carried a mix of vehicles, streetcars and pedestrians. Photo source: Library of Congress.

Omaha in 2010

Omaha retains much of its historic built environment, but its streets have been converted for an entirely different set of priorities. Automobile use and traffic began to grow shortly after the photograph above was taken. An even more rapid increase in the use of automobiles, brought about by societal prosperity after World War II, led planners and engineers to begin orienting streets to accommodate vehicle traffic above all else. This resulted in wide vehicle cartways and, especially in downtowns, one-way streets that could move large volumes of traffic more efficiently. However, by the early 21st century, these projections of growth have not entirely materialized, as shown in this photograph of Harney Street. Photo source: AECOM.

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Introduction

DRAFT2 1.1 Major Objectives of the Transportation Element

Th e Omaha Transportation Element is intended to recreational uses. However, not all neighborhoods will guide capital project selection and programming and have a variety of these services self-contained, which the adoption and implementation of transportation makes connectivity to other neighborhoods and parts policy over the next 25 years. As part of the City of of Omaha essential. Th e transportation system is what Omaha’s Comprehensive Plan, however, it is written allows these connections. to frame critical transportation issues and recommendations for how to address them in the context of a Promote economic returns with fiscal broader set of planning concerns. sustainability. Investment decisions made today aff ect Omaha’s future abilities to aff ord new investment, Establishing Broader Goals for both in terms of the obligations they establish and in Transportation Actions terms of the economic returns on these investments. For this reason it is highly important to consider the To this end, the plan is based on and driven by four long-term ramifi cations of these investments and to act fundamental community goals intended to keep the judiciously and with a mind for how well investments plan’s implementation from focusing too narrowly made in the present can be aff orded and cared for in the on transportation decisions without considering their future. larger community implications. Th ese are as follows:

Provide balanced options for enhanced The Reach beyond Transportation mobility. Automobiles are Omaha’s dominant Th is consideration of matters beyond those in the form of transport and as such a transportation plan conventional scope of a transportation plan is not must account for auto movement needs and make academic: it is critical to the successful implementa- recommendations for them. However, the mobility tion of this plan and of the fi scal health of Omaha as of a city and region involves much more than moving a community. Th e type of development that would vehicles on roadways—it also involves walking, support the four previously-mentioned community bicycling and public transit use, but more importantly goals—and that documents such as this Comprehen- it involves an organization of transportation facilities sive Plan’s Environment Element and the eff orts of that enable all of these uses and give users of the system initiatives such as Omaha by Design encourage—is more choice in matching a trip’s purpose and length to diff erent in nature from the development that has been a mode of travel. predominant in Omaha in the previous fi fty years. Fundamental diff erences in land costs, ease of land Attain a safe and healthy environment. assembly, and construction engineering concerns mean Omaha’s citizens and visitors should feel comfortable that infi ll and redevelopment eff orts to be undertaken and safe in their environment. Th is means that all users in more established parts of the city are diff erent—and of the transportation system perceive that it accommo- markedly less straightforward to achieve—from new dates them without danger or high levels of risk—from greenfi eld development. traffi c accidents or from air quality problems and other adverse environmental conditions. A legal mechanism is already in place to facilitate the latter: the Sanitary Improvement District (SID) in Create livable and connected neighbor- use in unincorporated Douglas County. SIDs have hoods. Neighborhoods are the lifeblood of a city, and they should accommodate basic civic and [Text continues on page 5.]

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Introduction

DRAFT3 Omaha’s Growth Since 1940 Th is diagram illustrates Omaha’s growth and development from the 1930s through the present, with major milestones in its transportation system and land development documented and compared to larger national trends. Th e maps of the city display its urbanized area, based on the recorded year of construction of buildings on land parcels. Th ey provide a telling comparison to the series of events occurring through the same period.

Late 1940s 1962 1972 Omaha Municipal First portion of I-480 Metro Area Transit Airport (now Eppley and its southern (MAT) assumes Field) opens. interchange with I-80 transit operations open. responsibility. 1934 Grade-separation of 1955 1968 Dodge Street and Streetcar service ends. Westroads Mall opens Saddle Creek Road First expressway plans at Interstate 680 and completed. developed for Omaha. Dodge Road. 1940 1950 1960 1970

Population: 223,800 Population: 251,100 Population: 301,600 Population: 346,900 Urbanized Area: 44 mi2 Urbanized Area: 48 mi2 Urbanized Area: 61 mi2 Urbanized Area: 82 mi2

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Introduction

DRAFT4 Omaha Today Today Omaha is a much larger city, both in terms of population and urbanized area. However, the rate of spatial expansion has been greater than the rate of population growth and the lower densities of development that have resulted have made the city more and more dependent on vehicle transport. Today the city’s transportation system is largely vehicle- oriented.

1974 Eisenhower Interstate Highway System 1999 routes in Nebraska are completed. Omaha Stockyards close. 1979 2008 Second span of Mormon Bridge opens, completing First phases I-680 beltway around Omaha. of Midtown Crossing 2006 development The 1980 Census shows West Dodge completed. Omaha’s fi rst population 1991 Expressway decline in 80 years, while Oak View Mall opens opens. suburban population at South 144th Street growth continues. and Center Road. 1980 1990 2000 2010

Population: 313,900 Population: 335,800 Population: 390,000 Population: 408,900 Urbanized Area: 96 mi2 Urbanized Area: 110 mi2 Urbanized Area: 126 mi2 Urbanized Area: 153 mi2

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Introduction

DRAFT5 proven to be a highly eff ective means of advancing new modes of personal and goods-based travel as themes, development and have accounted for a large portion although it touches on the intersection of transporta- of the street, water/sewer, power and park infrastruc- tion concerns with other areas of planning, especially ture now in place in the City of Omaha (as the result land use and development. of multiple annexations of formerly unincorporated land). SIDs by themselves do not govern the form and Th e next sections (Sections 3 and 4) describe the public intensity of development, but market preferences and outreach and engagement process used to expand the land development policy have led to the vast majority set of participants in the Transportation Element’s of SID applications being in development that is development and document the various project primarily single-use, single-family residential. ideas that the team considered. Th is latter section of the Element on Project Candidates is not a set of Th e other, older parts of the City of Omaha are diff erent, recommendations for what should be pursued under and they carry an entirely diff erent set of development- this plan; rather it is a discussion of the many ideas, oriented conditions, including established, older proposals and observations made for potential transpor- infrastructure and greater physical constraints. Yet tation projects during the Element’s formation. they do not have the same set of tools to help ensure that development can happen. One reason for the Th e following section (Section 5) documents the SIDs’ eff ectiveness is their ability to transfer the costs of process by which these candidate projects were infrastructure from developers to purchasers of property evaluated, detailing the numerically-based evaluation in new development in the form of special assessments metrics used to assign scores to projects and use a on tax bills. Th e older parts of the city where redevelop- ranking of these scores as the foundation for prioritized ment is the likely means of change do not currently have project recommendations. a means of doing this easily; consequently, added costs of development must be passed off to homebuyers in the Finally, the Recommendations section (Section 6) form of higher-priced housing, hampering the simple outlines project and policy recommendations, including market competitiveness of infi ll housing. Omaha needs transportation-based recommendations for land use a mechanism or series of mechanisms to level the playing and growth management policy. Th is section organizes fi eld and facilitate the diff erent forms of development the policy recommendations intended for the most more appropriate to the more mature parts of the City. immediate attention and execution into a list of “Action It may currently designate tax increment fi nancing Items” representing concrete steps that Omaha can districts, although these are not widely used and, as is begin taking to implement this plan. often the case, require a defi nition of blight for aff ected areas that may be controversial.

Organization of the Transportation Element Th e Transportation Element makes project and policy recommendations, but it also documents the case why those are recommendations being made at all. Th e ﬁ rst section is an inventory of existing conditions of the Omaha transportation system with an assessment of critical needs to address into the future. Th is inventory and assessment is generally presented around major

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Introduction

DRAFT6 Section 2

TRANSPORTATIONTRANSPORORTATIONTTION ELEMELEMENTENENTT

As Omaha matures as a city, it has sought to improve quality of life, increase opportunities for active living, and make infrastructure investments in a ﬁ scally and environmentally sustainable direction. As one of the largest and most complex systems of infrastructure, the city’s transportation system requires special attention to balance these varied objectives. Th e city’s economic well-being depends on transportation infrastructure that is able to move people and goods reliably, safely and in a timely manner. However, Omaha’s economic well-being is also directly impacted by how vibrant, attractive and desirable a community it is perceived to be, and transportation cannot be isolated from this perception. To this end, the Transportation Master Plan will need to strike a balance between serving mobility needs and neighborhood and quality-of-life needs. Finding balance between movement and quality of life is essential to Omaha’s progressing into the future with conﬁ dence that it will remain an attractive place to live, work and visit.

One useful way to begin understanding how needs are to be identiﬁ ed and addressed is to consider how Omaha’s transportation system has evolved. At the turn of the twentieth century, Omaha was an ascendant western city that had found prosperity through agriculture and freight distribution, combining these industries to serve the important historical role of supplying land settlers bound for the American West. Automobiles were still very much a novelty in this era and the city’s primary transportation was by rail: either for long-distances (for both freight and passengers) or locally within the city (through its streetcar network).

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Inventory and Needs Assessment

DRAFT7 This page intentionally left blank

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Inventory and Needs Assessment

DRAFT8 2.1 Roadway and Street Network

Omaha’s streets are the backbone of its local transporta- general (if non-binding) set of design and performance tion system. Typical of many American cities, especially associations. Arterial roadways and streets are intended those in Midwestern and western states, Omaha’s street to carry traffi c over longer distances and have a more system is based on a grid oriented to the compass regional mobility function; local streets are intended points and to the Federal Public Land Survey System. primarily to provide access to land uses. Collectors are Downtown Omaha and the city’s central neighborhoods the logistical step between the two classifi cations. are largely based on this grid of streets and blocks, As with many jurisdictions in the United States, even though block dimensions vary due to histori- Omaha employs a more complex system of functional cally diff erent subdivision patterns. Newer additions classifi cation that separates arterial roadways and streets to the city’s street network have not followed the grid into two subclasses and defi nes private streets and pattern as closely, often using curvilinear patterns and streets of a specialized function (such as circulation cul-de-sac streets. ways internal to parks and cemeteries) separately from local streets. It has 1,836 miles of streets not including Functional Classifi cation its expressway system; it has 43.3 centerline-miles of Functional classifi cation is a general concept based expressways within and around its current city limits on guidance from the United States government that (or within Douglas County; 29.8 miles of this length categorizes streets and roads into diff erent classes based are entirely within the Omaha city limits). Th e detailed on the kind of vehicular travel they are intended to distribution of these streets is described in the table accommodate. Th e three primary classes are arterial, below on the page. collector and local. Th e functional classifi cation concept is based on the assumption that travel relies on Expressways a combination multiple streets and roads instead of an Th e Omaha area is served by two principal routes in individual road at a time. Th e organization of streets the national Interstate Highway System: Interstate 29, and roads into diff erent classes was developed to guide connecting Kansas City to the Canadian border, and the movement of traffi c through a roadway network in a Interstate 80, a major transcontinental route extending logical and effi cient manner; as a result, the concept has from New York to San Francisco. Although Interstate evolved such that each of the three classifi cations has a 29 does not pass through Omaha proper but rather

Table 2.1.1 Omaha’s Functional Classiﬁ cation Street Classifi cation Length (in miles) Major Arterial Streets 110 Minor Arterial Streets 175 Collector Streets 134 Local Streets 1,240 Private Streets 95 Other Streets (includes park streets, cemetery streets, and 82 platted but unconstructed streets) Expressways 43.3 Data Source: Omaha-Douglas County GIS

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Inventory and Needs Assessment

DRAFT9 lies across the Missouri River in Iowa, it is nonetheless alignment did not come to pass, leaving Dodge Street a major north-south route for automobile and freight a surface street with Interstate 480 and the Dodge transport to and from Omaha and its metropolitan area. Road expressway at either end of the alignment. Th e diagrams on Page 14 and 15 of this report discuss the Within the city, US Highway 75 is a limited-access Dodge corridor in greater detail. In addition, plans to expressway for most of the city’s north-south length, extend the North Expressway to Interstate 680 were extending from Sorensen Parkway in the north to curtailed. In response to this, Sorensen Parkway, an the city of Bellevue and Off utt Air Force Base in the east-west arterial street with some portions functioning south. Interstate 680 forms a circumferential loop as a limited access highway. around Omaha; when it was constructed in the 1960s it eff ectively constituted the edge of the Omaha Th e West Omaha Arterial Network urbanized area, yet more recent westward expansion of As mentioned previously, the street grid of Omaha’s the city’s built footprint has extended signifi cantly past older neighborhoods east of 72nd Street is not the expressway. composed of uniform block lengths and street dimensions because of the city’s development and Original plans for the expressway system called for subdivision of land over time. Although street spacing today’s east-west Interstate 480 alignment north of is regular, it is not uniform. However, the areas west downtown to be continued to the west, either using of the traditional city that were previously agricultural or being aligned closely parallel to Dodge Street. Th is land were not signifi cantly developed at all prior to the

Map 2.1.1 Roadway Functional Classiﬁ cation

Expressway Major Arterial Minor Arterial Collector Local

City/County

60th 60th Water

Fort Military Ames

Maple t

Blondo AbbotAbbott

Dodge Dodge

Paciﬁ c

13th 13th

60th 60th

0 6th

72 72nd

90th90th

120th 120th

1 156th

168th 168th 144th 144th

18 180th

132 132nd

204th 204th

19 192nd

Center Center

42nd 42nd

L Street L Street

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Inventory and Needs Assessment

DRAFT10 late 20th century, and their primary roadway network streets so clearly based on this set of classifi cations, but was composed of section-line roads that provided a newer development, especially west of Interstate 680, basic farm-to-market function. has used the pre-existing grid of section-line roads as the framework for an arterial system with collector After the construction of the Interstate 680 circum- and local streets fi lling in the square-mile sections as ferential expressway, Omaha’s westward expansion development occurs. began moving into these areas. By the time this happened, the dominant pattern of street layout in Street Network Characteristics new development emphasized less connectivity, largely because of the economic advantages to land developers Omaha’s street network is based on a rectilinear grid in providing a maximum number of residential lots on oriented to the compass points, as is typical of many dead-end and cul-de-sac streets. Because of the lack American cities fi rst founded and platted after the of non-resident through traffi c on these streets, the Federal land survey. Th e street numbering system is cul-de-sac paradigm was widely promoted throughout based on a twelve block-per-mile spacing of numbered the mid- and late-20th century as a desirable residential streets. However, as mentioned previously, Omaha’s amenity and individual lots on these streets could be grid is not composed of uniform block lengths and sold at a premium. street dimensions because of the city’s development and subdivision of land over time. However, the areas west Th is led to a strict separation of local and regional trips, of the traditional city that were previously agricultural thus reinforcing the system of functional classifi ca- land were not signifi cantly developed at all prior to the tion that civil engineers had developed through the late 20th century, and their primary roadway network mid-20th century. Neighborhood cul-de-sac streets was composed of section-line roads that provided a carried exclusively local trips, where arterial roadways basic farm-to-market function. were intended to carry large collections of trips over long distances. Some parts of Omaha planned after After I-680 opened, Omaha’s westward expansion the rise of private automobile transport did not feature accelerated, using the network of section-line roads as

Map 2.1.2 Major East-West Thoroughfares

State Military Fort Ames Maple

Blondo Dodge Leavenworth Paciﬁ c Center

Although multiple thoroughfare corridors connect Omaha’s western neighborhoods to central Omaha and downtown, only Dodge Street is continuous. Other corridors are interrupted by the street grid, parks, or natural features such as water.

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Inventory and Needs Assessment

DRAFT11 the basis for new suburban development. As discussed One-Way Streets previously, these roads were eventually expanded to Many of the streets of downtown Omaha are multi-lane arterial sections to accommodate the traffi c confi gured for one-way traffi c fl ow and have been set from new development. this way since the mid-20th century. Overall, the city has 25 miles of street set for one-way movement. Per the principles of the roadway functional classifi ca- When considered with central Omaha’s typical section tion system, these arterials are intended to provide based on 100-foot rights-of-way, this aff ords a street long-distance travel for commuters traveling to cross-section with three or four moving travel lanes employment centers (mostly to the east). However, as in addition to on-street parking, greatly increasing illustrated in Map 2.1.2 on the previous page, most of car-carrying capacity of the streets beyond what they these corridors do not fully reach downtown Omaha, would accommodate with two-way traffi c fl ow. requiring a change of route to a north-south corridor and possibly to a second east-west corridor to continue Traffi c volumes downtown suggest that there is not a the trip. Th is lack of continuity is one reason that need for this amount of vehicle-moving capacity, at travel demand on Dodge Street has remained high: least not throughout the entire network. Th e one-way in spite of the advent of alternative routes, none of confi guration of some downtown streets is tied to larger these routes provide an equally direct or convenient infrastructure (such as the access ramps to Dodge and connection into downtown. Douglas Streets from the Interstate 480 expressway bridge over the Missouri River). Other one-way streets,

Diagram of directional traffic flow in Omaha in the mid-1950s, from the 1956 Plan for Trafficways for Omaha prepared by Howard, Needles, Tammen and Bergendoff (now HNTB). Many of Omaha’s downtown streets had begun being converted to one-way flow even before the 1950s. Most of these streets are still in one-way operation today, although in many places the street network has been disrupted by new development, thus compromising the initial intent of the larger system of one-way couplets.

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Inventory and Needs Assessment

DRAFT12 however, do not have as clear a functional basis, other Dodge Street/Dodge Road than to increase downtown vehicle carrying capacity. Within Omaha’s street network, Dodge Street and As shown in the graphic on the opposite page and Map Dodge Road play a unique (and highly important) 2.1.3 below, several extents of these one-way streets series of roles. In downtown Omaha, Dodge is part of have been removed over the course of the 20th century a one-way couplet and Douglas Streets form a one-way to create larger sites for development. Th is break in the couplet. Th is ends just west of the US 75 expressway network has interrupted the fl ow of several downtown and Dodge takes a fi ve-lane undivided cross-section one-way streets, reducing their eff ectiveness for carrying with a reversible middle lane, thus allowing three traffi c into and out of downtown. lanes of moving traffi c depending on the peak travel direction. Because of this confi guration, left turns

[Text continues on page 16.]

Map 2.1.3 Downtown One-Way Streets

Downtown one-way streets today. Certain streets are not continuous in and out of downtown (such as 14th Street, 15th Street 17th Street and 25th Street), suggesting that their effectiveness as traffic-moving streets may be limited.

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Inventory and Needs Assessment

DRAFT13 Dodge Street and Dodge Road: Understanding the Thoroughfare Dodge Street is Omaha’s spine and one of its major commercial thoroughfares, yet even this one corridor has many diﬀ erent roadway design patterns and, consequently, land use patterns. Th e diagrams here help to illustrate its diﬀ erent faces, pointing out how it transitions from a fully grade-separated expressway to a surface level downtown street from

Dodge Road: 120th Street to Interstate 680

120th Street 114th Street 108th Street I-680

Dodge is an at-grade, limited Elevated express freeway lanes between 120th Frontage streets parallel access expressway west Street and Interstate 680 facilitate high-speed travel to the Dodge Road mainline of 120th Street. This section through an active area of commercial and oﬃ ce land allow access to properties and continues west for over six miles uses. Below these elevated lanes, ‘local’ Dodge is a other local streets. (to 204th Street). surface arterial highway. Dodge Road: Interstate 680 to 78th Street

96th Street 90th Street 84th Street

Limited access to local cross Left turns are allowed at select Eight through lanes carry streets and private property locations, though these nearly all high traffi c volumes as Dodge driveways facilitates through- feature dual-lane turn storage to transitions from an expressway traffi c fl ow by reducing turning accommodate high volumes to an urban arterial street. movements and a need for traffi c

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Inventory and Needs Assessment

DRAFT14 west to east Omaha. Taken in a larger context, Dodge’s primary role is to move traﬃ c, yet the emphasis that has been placed on this role makes Dodge a challenging corridor through central Omaha.

Dodge Street: 78th Street to Memorial Park

72nd Street Happy Hollow Boulevard

Driveways are more common 5-lane section with reversible center lane begins, than west of 90th Street, facilitating through-traffi c fl ow according to the peak providing access to individual direction of travel. Because of this confi guration, left commercial properties. turns are prohibited throughout this extent of the Dodge corridor. Dodge Street: 42nd Street to Downtown Omaha

42nd Street 36th Street I-480/US 75 24th Street

5-lane section with reversible center lane Dodge and Douglas form a one-way couplet near continues, although at key intersections ‘jug-handle’ the crossing of Interstate 480 (the North Expressway). turn opportunities have been provided (thus expanding Dodge carries westbound traﬃ c only, but this one-way Dodge’s right-of-way footprint). section begins its corridor orientation to move traﬃ c through the city (serving as a compromise between and expressway and a local street).

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Inventory and Needs Assessment

DRAFT15 are disallowed almost entirely along the Dodge Street Dodge’s evolution over the 20th and early 21st corridor between 30th Street and 72nd Street. West of centuries has been driven primarily by the westward 72nd Street, Dodge features a cross-section more typical expansion of Omaha’s built footprint. As suburban of suburban arterial roadways, with three moving lanes growth moved to the west in the last decades of of traffi c in each direction and dedicated left turn lanes the 20th century, Dodge was expanded beyond a on approaches. traditional rural road into a high-capacity suburban arterial roadway to accommodate regional movement West of Interstate 680, Dodge Road is both a surface demand. However, within the Interstate 680 loop arterial highway and a limited-access expressway. It it is the primary east-west corridor through the city, features a multi-lane surface roadway with limited largely because of interruptions to the street network access (typically only at signalized intersections) from that occur throughout Omaha’s central neighborhoods the mainline itself, paralleled by frontage roads allowing and that preclude other streets from serving continuous direct access to properties. Between Interstate 680 east-west movement over long distances. Th is led to the and 120th Street, Dodge also includes an elevated current fi ve-lane, reversible cross-section that is in use expressway over the surface arterial road, off ering today. ‘express’ travel to the Dodge/680 Interchange. Along this extent, Dodge has been planned as a major vehicle Th e diagrams on the previous pages illustrate the mobility corridor and its volumes refl ect its intended diff erent designs and roles that Dodge plays and point purpose: the roadway carries over 80,000 vehicles per out the primary transportation needs for each part of day in some sections. the corridor.

Dodge Street, looking west from 67th Street. Dodge’s fi ve-lane section throughout most of Central Omaha becomes a wider arterial on the approach to 72nd Street. This transition in the roadway is part of a larger change in community character, from the traditional neighborhoods of Central Omaha to newer suburban development around and west of Interstate 680. While the two patterns diff er in many ways, one of the most notable is the increased concentration of trips on arterial roadways. Where these roadways intersect, as at Dodge and 72nd Street above, traffi c congestion is at its highest.

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Inventory and Needs Assessment

DRAFT16 NDOR, Federal-Aid and National Table 2.1.2 and Map 2.1.4 on the opposite page defi ne Highway System Roads which Omaha streets and roads make up parts of these two systems. Th ese are important additions to an inventory of Omaha transportation facilities because Omaha and Nebraska are governed by highway design they require coordination with NDOR and the Federal and maintenance policies related to the various agencies Highway Administration in developing project or in control of the city’s and state’s roadway systems. Th e policy ideas to address transportation needs that involve Nebraska Department of Roads (NDOR) maintains them. jurisdiction over a system of highways throughout the state. Although this system is not highly extensive In spite of the extent of these networks being relatively within Omaha, it does include all of Omaha’s Interstate limited in the City of Omaha’s jurisdiction, the City Highways, the non-Interstate portions of the North and is nonetheless required by state statute to follow the South Expressways, and several major thoroughfares design parameters of the Nebraska State Highway in the city, such as Maple Road, L Street and, most Design Manual. Th is sets basic roadway and street notably, Dodge Street. design requirements that every public road in the state must follow, limiting the City’s ability to use diff erent Independent of the NDOR system is the National designs and requiring that designs that would not meet Highway System (NHS), a 160,000-mile highway minimum parameters to seek design exceptions from network designated by the US Department of Transpor- the Nebraska Department of Roads. tation’s Federal Highway Administration. In Omaha, the NHS includes both NDOR and non-NDOR routes. Non-NDOR routes that constitute part of the NHS use the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Offi cials’s Policy on the Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (known informally as the AASHTO Green Book) as governing standards.

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Inventory and Needs Assessment

DRAFT17 Table 2.1.2 NDOR, Federal-Aid and NHS Roads Road System and Ownership Length (centerline miles) NHS Roadways Controlled by NDOR Eisenhower Interstate System 29.3 Non-Interstate Strategic Highway Network (STRAHNET) Route 0 Major STRAHNET Connector 2.7 Intermodal Connector 0 Other NHS Routes 55.2 NHS Roadways Controlled by the City of Omaha Non-Interstate STRAHNET Route 0 Major STRAHNET Connector 0 Intermodal Connector 4.4 Other NHS Routes 21.1 Non-NHS Roadways Controlled by NDOR Non-NHS Routes 28.9 Data Sources: FHWA National Highway Planning Network Database; Nebraska Department of Roads GIS; City of Omaha GIS

Map 2.1.4 NDOR, Federal-Aid and NHS Roads

Eisenhower Interstate System/NDOR

Other NHS Routes/NDOR

60th 60th Non-Interstate STRAHNET Route Major STRAHNET Connector Fort Intermodal Connector Military Ames Unbuilt NHS Routes Other Roads (Not on NHS) Maple City/County Blondo Abbott Water

Dodge Dodge

Paciﬁ c

13th 13th

60th 60th

72nd 72nd

90t 90th

44th

120th 120th

92nd

156th 156th

1 144th 168th 168th d 180th 180th

132nd 132nd 204th 204th

1 192nd

Center Center

42n 42nd

L Street L Street

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Inventory and Needs Assessment

DRAFT18 Bridges Th e condition and performance of bridges are assessed by three principal indicators: whether or not a bridge is ‘structurally defi cient,’ whether or not it is ‘function- Omaha has 88 roadway bridges on local streets, most ally obsolete,’ and a suffi ciency rating expressed on providing crossings over rivers and other water features. a percentage basis. Th e fi rst two terms are defi ned Th is does not include bridges for roadway grade by the Federal Highway Administration and refer separation on NDOR roads, which are often addressed generally to the bridge’s conformity to standards of the separately in terms of maintenance and repair.

Table 2.1.3 Inventory and Status of Omaha’s Bridges State ID Location Suffi ciency Rating Other Special Status Bridges with Suffi ciency Ratings below 55 N3115 Boozer Road south of Pacifi c Street 49.4 functionally obsolete 22835 Q Street over BNSF railroad at 42nd 48.1 00522 West Center Road at 92nd St. 46.6 14305 96th Street north of Rainwood Road 41.0 functionally obsolete 12025 Cass Street at 78th Street 39.9 D1825 Lions Head Bridge #2 39.2 functionally obsolete 22840 Q Street at 26th Street 38.9 functionally obsolete Other Bridges with Potential Repair or Replacement Needs K4510 Burt Street west of 77th Street 66.2 structurally defi cient R1805 California Street at 111th Street 90.0 structurally defi cient 22220 Pacifi c Street east of I-680 69.4 structurally defi cient 04710 72nd Street over UP railroad (at D Street) 88.1 structurally defi cient B5505 John J. Pershing Dr. north of Read St. 80.1 structurally defi cient 03703 132nd Street north of Harrison Street 74.6 functionally obsolete 03110 168th Street north of F Street 57.5 functionally obsolete E4305 Paddock Road south of Center Road 58.1 functionally obsolete 13910 120th Street south of Maple Street 74.5 functionally obsolete H2405 Grover Street at 64th Street 82.2 functionally obsolete H1805 Western Avenue at 83rd Street 79.5 functionally obsolete 21425 Fort Street at 89th Street 77.7 functionally obsolete D2205 Woolworth Avenue at 39th Street 79.8 functionally obsolete E5105 F Street at 45th Street 59.7 functionally obsolete M5535 13th Street btw. Farnam and Douglas 75.5 functionally obsolete Q5510 10th Street btw. Farnam and Douglas 73.5 functionally obsolete E5105 F Street at 45th Street 59.7 functionally obsolete 03705L 132nd Street over UP railroad (North) 72.5 functionally obsolete 03705R 132nd Street over UP railroad (South) 78.1 functionally obsolete B5105 46th Street at W Street 55.6 functionally obsolete A1005 Northridge Drive at State Street 94.7 functionally obsolete Data Sources: City of Omaha GIS; National Bridge Inventory

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Inventory and Needs Assessment

DRAFT19 highway transportation system. Structural defi cien- Some water crossings are also made through culverts cies are characterized by deteriorated conditions of into which streams or drainage ditches are diverted. certain bridge components and reduced load-carrying Th e city has 40 culverts on its streets, with none in a capacity. Functional obsolescence is a condition of the structurally defi cient condition. geometrics of the bridge (such as vertical clearance for under-passing vehicles or curve radii) not meeting Refer to Map 2.1.5 below for locations of the bridges current design standards. FHWA uses these terms in Omaha, including those bridges that are structurally in conjunction with suffi ciency ratings and defi nes defi cient and/or functionally obsolete. a formula for calculating the 0-to-100 value, and it uses all of these indicators to determine the amount of Pedestrian Bridges federal bridge replacement and rehabilitation funding Omaha has 31 pedestrian bridges in addition to that will be allocated to each of the states. its roadway bridges. Some of these are in private ownership and connect buildings across streets or Th e city’s bridges are generally in a good state of repair, provide direct access from buildings to elevated parking with only seven having suffi ciency ratings below 55 structures. Th ese are discussed in more detail in Section percent, the FHWA-defi ned threshold for structural 2.5 and are illustrated in Map 2.1.5 below. adequacy and safety. Bridges below this level signal a need for maintenance and repair, with possible replacement if the bridge is also functionally obsolete.

Map 2.1.5 Bridge Locations

Bridge in State of Good Repair Structurally Deﬁ cient Bridge Functionally Obsolete Bridge Pedestrian Bridge

Railroad Overpass

60th 60th City/County Water Fort Military Ames

Maple

Blondo Abbott

Dodge Dodge

Paciﬁ c

13th 13th

60th 60th

72nd 72nd

90t 90th

44th

120th 120th

92nd

156th 156th

1 144th 168th 168th d 180th 180th

132nd 132nd 204th 204th 192nd

1 Center Center

42n 42nd

L Street L Street

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Inventory and Needs Assessment

DRAFT20 2.2 Traﬃ c Volumes and Travel Patterns

Omaha’s growth since World War II has primarily of Omaha has consistently accounted for over half of occurred to the west of the central city, where a relative this metropolitan area population (and in the case of lack of physical barriers has allowed expansion to occur the year 2009, accounts for nearly two-thirds). In without signifi cant diffi culty. As a result, the major addition, the Urban Mobility Report indicators address travel patterns in the city are in east-west directions, travel on both the freeway and arterial systems, both of even if this requires some north-south movement in which involve travel through the City of Omaha, the coming from or traveling to downtown Omaha, the location of the region’s major employment centers. city’s and region’s primary employment center. As the table shows, while the urban area’s population As discussed in Section 2.1, Omaha’s roadway system has increased over the 25-year period, both freeway follows a typical functional classifi cation closely, with and vehicle miles traveled have increased at much arterial roadways designated for long-range movement greater rates: freeway miles traveled have more than having the most vehicle-carrying capacity. Partly for doubled, with only the two-mile Dodge Expressway this reason, they carry the greatest volumes of traffi c. being constructed during this time period, and arterial miles traveled have increased by 50 percent. Th is is not Vehicle Mobility surprising given the growth patterns of Omaha, where Table 2.2.1 below details data from the Texas Transpor- population has doubled since 1940 but urbanized land tation Institute’s Urban Mobility Report, published for area has increased by a factor of 3.5. Th e diff erence in major US metropolitan areas annually since 1982. Th e the travel data since the mid-1980s is that this increase table shows the trend in vehicle mobility in Omaha has been borne primarily by the expressway system: over the last 25 years, comparing the amount of vehicle although arterial roadways have also seen signifi cant travel to metropolitan Omaha’s population. Although increases in use (as measured by miles traveled), these indicators refer to the entire Omaha metropoli- they have not kept up with expressways. Part of the tan area, thus including portions in Iowa, the City explanation for this is the lack of east-west connectivity

Table 2.2.1 Omaha Regional Travel Patterns Mobility Indicators 2009 2006 2003 2000 1997 1994 1991 1988 1985 Metro Omaha 630,000 625,000 615,000 605,000 575,000 545,000 535,000 520,000 510,000 Population Ratio of Peak Com- muters (Vehicles) to 55.6% 55.0% 53.7% 51.7% 49.7% 48.1% 46.2% 44.8% 43.9% Population Freeway Vehicle-Miles of 3,999 4,130 3,600 3,300 2,955 2,690 2,095 1,965 1,895 Travel (in thousands) Arterial Vehicle-Miles of 7,225 7,110 6,740 6,625 6,005 5,810 5,155 4,875 4,790 Travel (in thousands) Annual Passenger-Miles of Transit Travel 17.1 16.8 16.5 16.0 20.3 20.5 22.9 28.1 31.8 (in millions) Unlinked Transit Passen- 4.0 4.9 4.2 4.3 5.4 5.2 6.1 7.0 9.0 ger Trips (in millions) Data Source: Texas Transportation Institute, Urban Mobility Report (2010). The metropolitan population refers to the urban area, or the contiguous area with a population density of more than 1,000 persons per square mile.

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Inventory and Needs Assessment

DRAFT21 between newer residential areas of West Omaha and Managing East-West Travel Demand the historic employment concentration in downtown, As Omaha has expanded to the west with urbanization, Midtown and the industrial areas along the Burlington the dominant patterns of travel demand have shifted Northern-Santa Fe railroad corridor. Th e freeway from north-south (parallel to the Missouri River) to system may not provide a direct route to downtown, east-west. As Omaha grew, however, it added parks but it allows commuters to avoid the interruptions of and recreation areas and avoided new development in traffi c control and slower speeds of surface arterials. fl oodplains, and thus it created breaks in the street grid It is also important to note the steady increase in that caused some east-west travel routes to be divided peak-hour commute vehicles as a portion of total among diff erent streets. Th e only exception to this population of the urban area. Th is suggests that an pattern among major east-west thoroughfares is Dodge increasing number of peak-hour trips is being taken in Street (and Dodge Road in western Omaha). Th is is single-occupant vehicles. Th is is also not surprising, a primary reason for the relatively high traffi c volumes given the growth of suburban and exurban employment on Dodge and the various approaches to maximizing centers away from the metropolitan core of downtown capacity along it. Omaha. and the resulting logistical complication of using transit and carpooling to reach employment. Th e Interstates 80 and 680 also play an important part in corresponding decline in transit use as measured in the this travel demand. Major east-west arterials such as TTI data supports this explanation. Center Road and Maple Road eventually end prior to

7 4 6

2 8 1 2 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 5 2 1 1 1 2 3 6 2 2 1 15

6 24 3 16

1 1 2 1 5 1 5

72ND ST. 78TH ST. 78TH

96TH ST. 96TH ST. 84TH

138TH ST. 108TH ST.

132ND ST.

BLAIR HIGH RD. 3 191 5 6 39 20 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 29 7 4 1 12 13 22 4

4 PONCA RD. 1 3 1 73

215

6 1 95 Map 2.2.1 Traﬃ c Volume Flow Patterns (2008) 2

55 25 13 2 1 1 3 9

6 6 37 28 37 PERSHING DR. 9 10 12 40 1 7 3 BENNINGTON RD. 2 14 5

14 119 5 4 1 44 BRIDGE RD. CALHOUN RD.

12 37 MILITARY RD. MORMAN 6

1 BADGER AVE.

988 4 Crescent 1 7

3 55 23 3

2 36 5 17 7 125 31

276TH ST. 276TH 252ND ST. 252ND

1 4

2 37 JEFFERSON AVE. 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 3 2 3 11 10 1 1 3 2 3 6 1 1 3 39 5 4

9 RAINWOOD RD. 10 RAINWOOD RD. 22 3 2 3 3 2 RAINWOOD RD. 3

45 1 7 2 4 2 6 281 165 680

47 2 8 248 1 52 JUNIPER RD. 147 OLD LINCOLN HWY. 10 72 81 1 15 21 6

2 680 6 81 69 5 2 MCKINLEY RD. 76 3 34 82 178 48

187 2

39 27 3

14 2 REICHMUTH RD. 1 117TH ST. 275 169

29 1 2 1 1

3 1 1 6 6 6 7

12 10 190 196 17 26 30 39 38 35 44 44 14 14 15 STATE ST. 17 151 29 IDLEWOOD RD. STATE ST. 14 9 20 26 JOSLIN AVE. 36 13 11 22

15 7 34 336 146 MORMON BRIDGE RD. YOUNG ST. LIME KILN RD. 171 IRVINGTON RD. 36TH ST. 76 186 23 3 33 20 29 104

3 3

170 2 2

10 21

20 28 ST. 78TH 39 1 38 60 TH ST 45 186 168TH ST. ST. 156TH 89

161 186TH ST. 186TH 216TH ST. 204TH ST. 198 GIRARD ST. 252 11 1

120TH ST.

55 L-34 ROAD

21 6 19 5 McCLELLAND AVE. 26

22 39 13 45 94 41 8 41 111 35

3 5 1 1 2 2 5 6 16 18 35 IDA ST. 78 46 160 88 33 IDA ST. 82 154 55 159 25 2 IDA ST. 30 19 IDA ST. 38 69 58 112183 67

6 42 123 HONEYSUCKLE RD. 40 29

27 195 1

248 12

44 151 2 32 89 185TH ST.

172 MILITARY RD. 5 34 10 257 243 50

11 80 52 24 11 240 12 5

7 24

5 76 61 124 160 230 50 31

29 481 210 Valley 123 227 80 CURTIS AVE. 26 23 92 65 SORENSEN PKWY. 82 57

21 1 82 240 95 139 11 120 85 18 74 21 5 35 84 49

15 133 166

2 4

122 1 19 1 230TH ST. 230TH 169 238 113 113 10 75 75 64 STORZ EXPRY. 119 82 50 205TH ST. 7

156 4

85 72 30 51 HARTMAN AVE. 53

56 178 112 137 MUD HOLLOW RD. 24TH ST. RAILROAD HWY. 41

9 73 38 75 33 47 244 160 72 MONUMENT RD. 1

58 69

6 7 97 6 94 1

2 57 67 137 FORT ST. 34 65 90

1 2 3 4 70 124 194 FORT ST. 254 284 82 305 161 123 49 232 56 31 FORT ST. 7 40 173 7 FORT ST. 94 174 218 222 347 322 189 129 98 48 100 65 14 4 198

5 1 28 293 129 1 1

24 82 98 92

72ND ST.

173 100 201 128 PENNY RD.

158 212 48 177 HICKORY RD. PARKVIEW DR. 290 9 94

42ND ST

7 23 37 136

16TH ST. 194 70 165 63 7 AMES AVE. 100 38

210 175 52 680 232 33 205

60 33 13 389 285 108TH ST. 190 24 203 12 163 50 100 235 91 181 110 AVE Q

16 21 222 74 82

25 15TH ST.

207 132ND ST. 314 MYNSTER SPRING RD. 36 180TH ST. BOYD ST. 16

1 1 7 138 25 5 69 15 46 39 HUNT AVE. 93 280 48 4

225TH ST.

125 91 37 40 SPRAGUE ST. 8 BIRDSLEY RD. 245TH ST.

8 11 GRAND AVE. 324 15 13 10

139

6 46

52 30 111 121 10 6 7 22 146 170 147 174 187 18 228 302 342 329 137 9 271 CATHY LN. 409 639 23 54 80

64 295 12

481

45 W. MAPLE RD. 131 174 W. MAPLE RD. 250 327 310 338 422 380 69 Carter 40 270 175

101 32

38 HACKBERRY RD. 45 123 51 EPPLEY AIRFIELD 1 46 168 160 139 175 21

39 210 99 31

9TH ST. 9TH 239 121 39 55 Lake ST. 13TH 18

39 12 36 51 217 8 7 11

520 41 26 5 48

KEYSTONE DR. KEYSTONE 17 99 243

385 350 103 111 60 14 3 40

408 8 6 McKENZIE AVE. 45 74 DELONG AVE. SPENCER AVE. 30

55 40TH ST. 45

112

2 300 3 Waterloo 296 307 294 244 217 172 222 378 54 55 49 28 1

114

118 27

5 301 182 64 313 11 13 54 91 296 MAPLE ST. 305 294 290 172 154 133 240TH ST. 240TH 146 LOCUST ST. 90 13 55 203 60

79 4

270TH ST. 274 15 35 180

32 367 201 269 62 17 113 1 74

LAKE ST. 115 11

152 23 29 79 15 51 56 20 65 10 46 24 6 8 6 33 102 69 38 155 ELLIOTT ST. 83 17 19 93 14 70 92 46 99 102

4 45 BLONDO 27

8TH ST.

275

1 299 29 28 177

311 52

181 239

197 222 149 264 170 N. BROADWAY 18 135 91 270 272 164 143 73

43 98 123 190 300 244 235 130 54 96 61 ST. 292 19 190 AVE. SIMMS 11 6 96 6 26 80 134 303 274 250 34 120 226 6 86 297 259 542 80 11 3 BLONDO ST. 211 150 133 105 322 37 65 100

24 THREE BRIDGE RD. 1 46 11 3

133 4

116 153 223 181 182 273 21 54 17 OLD LINCOLN HWY. 21

57 267 313 16 120

320

33 ABBOTT DR. HARRISON ST. 5 ELMTREE RD. 27 28 19TH ST. 11TH ST. 57 23 85 91 156 24

801

2 88 44 9 77 51 4 WESTERN 113 84 93 HAMILTON ST. 108 97 186 100 123

97 381 19 66TH ST. 178

24 50 65 35 27 65 65 61 32 31 13 291 101 113

45 AVE. 14 145 7 71

108 12 24 41 202 102 151 88 19 106

340

86 46

69 1 435 13 45 60 61 62 48 SUNNYDALE RD. 37 COLLEGE RD. 1 100 81 290 65 65

124 117 8 50

47 9 17 13 43 289 40 46 89 58 49 270 232 273223213 235 133125 104 104 9 55 50 76 63 60 334 85 52 68 63

SKYLINE RD. 58 207 75 18 194

46 20 312

544 38 21 20 195 100 72 38 104

220 22 93 327 29 25 13 27 2 172 64 10

6 58 248 51 108 215

262 11

92 42 28 727 251 67 31 95 268 71 281 196 140 118104

14 99 359

169

38 202 18

118 41 10 52 31 76TH ST.

18 12 93 10 19

216 61 36 50

380 Inset 1 3 233 25

36 33 (Elevated) 136 105 74 20 25 20 5 37 71 171 35 42 37 20 31 113 77 307 246 1 146 1 50 62

(Under) 70 31 153 94 18

15 50 143 76 20 44 1619 22 291 AVE. 40 42 26 15 34 W. DODGE RD. 168 180 333 1008 96 251 91 36 30 21 23 36 113 33 25 416 210 182 621 102 345 923 46 774 815 341 46 232 42 118 90 859 29 109 38

621 28 214 93 19 55 147 252 369 51 45 49 38 36 73 22 343 267 6 119151 253222 63 DOGWOOD RD.

70 42

68 Inset 3 85

36 47 30 22 17 12 239 266 6 32 225 229 240 310 227239

883 42 53 70 596 18

224 22 291 17 225 185 10 235 172 159 10 248 796 218 74 14 55 506 931 820 56 18 W. DODGE RD. 120 132 33 16 118 86

390 91 310 82 95 183 588 49 3310 49 70 41 1 1 296 62 103

210 44 32

40 48 44 48 McPHERSON 123 14

53 552 44 EASTERN HILS DR.

200 202

70 4 126 165 121 101 34 41 47 450 342 114183191 119 827677707350 24 42 81 31 499 417 101 84 38 35 41 25 25 37 32 88 65428 385 50 73

615 57 524 74 19 20

173 107

81 8 30 95 55 569 72 40 48 410 106 36 32 22

78 46 15

63 43

79 11 207 35 33 37 137 21 114 165 118 117 10311282998390 143115 31 44 5 495 59 24 31 76 104

62 54 33 36

35 DODGE RD. 87 24 81 79 91 16 54 101 523 48 34 116 345 158132 260 59 563 384 99 445104 415 165445 455 415 149 121 427 Inset 1 2 36 13 173 105 133 562 130 119 13194 50 109

48 117 56 724 111 98107 7959505942 32 INDIAN 89

16 128 90 18 32 18

36 26

219 31 63 447 141 82 53 32

62 39

33 84 181 61 38 73 25 20 30 43 23

150 67 39 522637 29 328 87 180 124 12277116 116 142 53

67 74 94 7170 74 97 24 59 26 89 10493 6048 44 132 47 79 81 86 54 145 35

51 253 36

HILLS DR. 101 22 64 66 94 115 110 124 23 39 58

130 20 16 98 71

118 20 50 62 96 102 140 100 104 77 31 58 64 23 1121191719 119 267

142 32 24 57

144TH ST.

41 150

122 11

74 53

62 20

85 25 14 14 94 46 92 1 169 8493 84 29 15 28 3072 4831

319 724 10

87 45 43373338 8 40 14

23 94

9164 45 16 23 22 65 15 35

113 10 114 9 27 35 100 116 32 15 77

11 19

17 16 82 34 81 120 60 15 71 68 53 2 235TH ST. 1 41 65 15 11 343 42 63 70 93105

27 41

9 33 56 724

96TH ST. 34 18 472923 1030 120 39 29 54

210 253 101 160 192 290 252 178 172180 83 103 128 114 77 63 42

65 36

19 14 36

84TH ST. 101 12 45

169 34 57 13936 82 63 17 93 9TH AVE. 18

106 BENNETT AVE. 156

450 1

77 24 24

77 1003 181 198 205 220 234 174 192 101 87 94 99 77 11 5669 FRANKLIN AVE.

1003 133 76

40 151 26

158

60 VALLEY VIEW DR.

222 204 10 112 3 5 47 87 99 160 ELMWOOD PARK RD. 58 47 46

250

262 312

556 282 261 80 PACIFIC ST. 256 266 216 313 285 315 29 PACIFIC ST. 385 149

328 51

291

171 81

134 270 236 25 386 322 44

148

143

135 65 30 COTTONWOOD RD. 391 6 44 93 123 230 85 282 287 287 329 347 271 306 295 334 143 58 Council Bluffs 104 82

78 266 290 51 83 281 8

81 255 10 126TH ST. 12 35 36 113 1

263 SOUTH EXP. SOUTH 74

135 1116 80 26 368

274

226 172 29 114

530 120 281 63 39 52 34

56 93 90

16TH ST. 33 53

BOB BOOZER RD. 210 102 16TH AVE. 77 143

52ND ST. STATE ORCHARD RD. ORCHARD STATE 16 43 16 30 26 43 21 HARRY LANGDON BLVD. 138 46 110 195 106 175 99

79 PINE ST. 6 1

248 14 45 179 156

44 40 230 43

103

22 227

255 51 226 145

336 415

Omaha 6TH ST. 164 39 1130 10TH ST

112 20TH ST. 143

16 TH ST. 137 8 1

142 106 GREENVIEW RD. 507 63RD ST. 242 226 236 143 122 30 14 1 1 105TH ST. 105TH 172 18

137

114TH ST 301 295 90TH ST. 88 73 78 RIVER RD.

BEL DR. 51 99 148 23RD AVE.

91 105 105 63 48 8 27 69 76 241 314 35 57 40 130 115 77

67 145 89

14 108 27

5 121 274 77 31 33 98 221 26 113 255 34

105 212 160 139 103 135

24 1 265

2 1

70 82 72 258 84 123 152 64 220 88 105 212 297 365 W. CENTER RD. 447 581 327 299 257 241 210 63 58

239 484 200 136

373 401 70 319

298

314 34 334 103 292 480 349 53 92 47 225 35 82 23 91 W. CENTER RD. 167 218 316 275 504 260 247 410 449 339 328 327 288 197 150 63 58 46 46 46 46

376 63 29

79 46 74 768

142 648

129 318

174 161 219

42ND ST.

272 DR. LONGVIEW 250

352 186 207 767 61 109 275 73 92

28 853 29

23 585 768 80 390 76 1107 114 237 44 55 76 80

138

31 103 4

103 52 1402 57 242 361 273 34 88 49 46 106 309 87

69 481 119 GROVER ST. 94 59 56 127 12 171

55 219 126 131 860 76

82 114TH ST.

20 105 363 27 41 14 24 2 45

1652 36 30 1 76 3 2

120 151 94 242 395 92 819 333 180 ST. 298

296 172 290

127

173 542 1619 1653 413 5 33 30 CONCORD LOOP 151

1451 ST. 230TH

114

1594 24TH ST. 61

11TH ST.

350 120TH ST. 136 80 338 29

5 876 INDUSTRIAL RD. 134

32 4 179 4 9 12 36 130 29 115 61 75 6 F ST. 85 F ST. F ST. 107 37 176 316

53 48 56 91 66 18

46 645

439 94 324 116 52

132ND ST. 152 32 117

168 1345 20 27 F ST. 42 82 158 56 144 234 73 64 74 68 82 TWIN CITY DR. 88 275 106 94 3 7 3 1 1 45 89

17 51 45

256

158 146

449

139 387 273 895

290 3

182 132 133 69 125 29 189 107 59 CHESTNUT RD. 27

OVERLAND TR. 67TH ST. 67TH 24

378 67 I ST. 115 29 45

147 184

102ND ST. 566 155

329

280 71 L ST. 273 386 DR. MANAWA E. 137 290 206 258 259 98

297 30 41 221 279 L ST. 295 41 292 239

26 368 21 382 99

180 305

745 189 303 224 164 156 24 236 203 145 90 19

2 22 79 92 40 NAVAJO ST. 160 27 OLD L ST. 322 92 275 101 56 1 678 571 264 300 305 282 37 1 1 1 272 49 64 228 232 233 7 87 62

36 295 89 97

372

270 WABASH AVE.

249 364 110 136 139

52 149 823 149 38 100 32 262 315

14 413 363 46 63 15 69 BURGAN AVE.

222ND ST. 216TH ST. 38 32 8 242 Ralston 240 W. SHORE DR. PIONEER TRL. 51

138 1212 67 34 S. OMAHA BRIDGE RD. 21 206 312 141 298 130 91 228 50 206 136 54 73 320 234 47 167 97 126

338 87 122 271 242 19

187 Q ST. 117 188 103 77 270 270 354 82 58 163 8 Q ST. 67 121 287 321 370 296 246 Q ST. 220 180 195 8 155 122 174 5

289 32 91 23 28 188 263 296 322 59 98 112 119

236 148

188 131

26 229

21 32 323 340

107 57

181

31 124 60 108 26 37 69 20TH ST. 82 40 PARK DR. 69 28 2

179

ANDERSEN AVE. 275 75 1 13TH ST. 13TH HARRY 7 ST. 250TH MILLARD AVE. 293 65 3 5 142 37 31 18 250 15

4 1 99TH ST.

152 78 108 ST. 108 17 29 5

138TH ST.

300 90TH ST. 27TH ST. 27TH 40 64 S. SHORE DR. 34 3 12 3

17 78TH ST. 78TH 894 97 1 275 36

3 110 349 19 128 115 57 175 221 123 190 136 197 713 97 19 42 149 116 2 35 29 185 300 37 78 44 208 256 287 152 106

317 142 105 4 190 231 215 228 323 196 176 214 211 193 221 198 149 149 73 68 7 10 1 3 96 HARRISON ST.

HARRISON ST. 165 90

28 74 44

1 54 87

269 53

161 185 352

105 121

125 273 169 46 218 6 210 55 43 1 39 41 325

30 111 CHANDLER RD. 11

243 17

6 8 222 161 23 229 8 294 217 MAPLE ST. 112 CHANDLER RD. 350 172 378

60 114 301 85 1

96TH ST. 42ND ST.

290 202 172 154 313 192ND ST. 220 146 156TH ST.

133 15 LaVista

367 79

15 39 35 205

46 222 70 17 10 97 64 164 20 1 1 84 231 24

3 10 67 205 127 164 1 12 LAKE ST. 254 169 201 32 203 90 56 GILES RD. 116 W. GILES RD. 195 108 165 24

22 GILES RD. 71 CHILDS RD.

83 21 95 136 240TH ST. 253RD ST.

102 238

316 263

204TH ST.

72ND ST. 269

10 33 BELLEVUE BLVD. N. 204

292

2 534 84 84

4 37 61

235 299 164

177 143 BLONDO ST. 130 73 40TH ST. 33RD ST. CEDAR ISLAND RD. ISLAND CEDAR 4 5 170 265 37 52

105 579 ST. 48TH 259 144TH ST.

211 150 133 105 81

322 24 65

12 6 64 CENTENNIAL RD.

1 313 Bellevue 275

228

91 96 54 49 120TH ST. 107 75 11 105 13 23 75

16 320 WOODLAND TRL. 271

266 22 56TH ST. 2 2 13 1 2 3 3 3 217 77 81 250 225 24 85 3 210 233 161 935

84 33 93 HAMILTON ST. 108 175 113 27 CORNHUSKER RD. 47 57 28 BELLEVUE BLVD. S. 381 CORNHUSKER RD. 105 1 338 73 CORNHUSKER RD. 281 WESTERN ST. 101 113 204 216 14

62 27 19 35 65 65 31 45 41 61 259 GREGG RD. 1 1

83 210

5 32 4

340 19

108

1ST ST. 20 65 65 561 49 46

22 47 435

40 334 102 50 7 10 9 3 59

6 29

270 2 5 312 68 251 12 BUNGE AVE. 46 49 232 34 327 50 30 Papillion LINCOLN ST. 95 2 95 268 53

38 50 14 CUMING ST. 200 141 89 180TH ST. 5 27 76TH ST. 52 20

1 CALIFORNIA ST. 74 30

105 148 HARVELL DR. 36 58 45 CALIFORNIA ST. 37 GALVIN RD. 43 246 15

70 38

LINCOLN RD. 425 251 118 136 152 170 25TH ST. 90 30 129 155 121 112 150 101 104 157

68 49 40

42 41

42 182 51

252 210 369

FT. CROOK RD. CROOK FT. 48TH ST. 48TH 370 26 86 26 MAIN ST. 117 125 157 81 53 370 13 218 235 172 FREEMAN DR.

149 16 240 265

82 9

56 390 FREEWAY KENNEDY

85 10 70 33 53 53 36TH ST. 65 45 160 50TH ST. 128

10 85

118 19 84 13 204

216TH ST. 4 CEDARDALE RD.

410

615 57 499 74 417 72 190 524 DODGE ST. 427 428 385 445 455 37 55 569 450 2 5 18 240 287 31 159 53 96 495 114 6 181 523 562 563 445 415 5 324 91 345 34 59 92 30 281

128 ANGUS RD. 370

328

3 4 3 319 17

447 99 104 165 HARLAN DR.

48 56 105 115 62 124 130 192 28 110 364 36 156TH ST. 73

64 64 299 183 62

94 101 FARNAM ST. 173 129

22 74 50

23 1 19 36

58 61 18

14 34 319 3 MISSION AVE.

142 47

67 84

40 14 80

90TH ST.

81 47 96 2 90 89 87 23 1 9 2 1 1 1 1 4 2 13 17

41 34

72ND ST. 65 8 SCHRAM RD. SCHRAM RD. 23 11

SADDLECREEK 8 290 1

91 4 99 210 36 160 169 252 178 172 181 192 28

56 253

78TH ST. 101 10 7 304

450 Gretna N. BROADWAY N. 198 205 174 192 100

44 234 51 LEAVENWORTH ST. 180

158 204 9 1 1 3 484 MAASS RD 24

222

3 HARRISON ST.

1 8 4

556

39 54

108 25

96TH ST.

315 84TH ST.

143 PACIFIC ST. 72ND ST.

322 ST. 114TH 236 132ND ST. 51 123 TURKEY RD. 334 290 143 31 124 76

36TH ST. 3

42ND ST. 50TH ST.

530 80 135 OFFUTT AFB

52ND ST. 60TH ST. 16 145

106 81 106

295 1 45th ST. 120 5 2 1 1 2 3 2 52 3 3 2 3 3 6 5 7 7

100 210 63 40 16 30 26 CAPEHART RD.

36 50 37 34 63 60 AVE. G 63 18 195

43 CENTER ST.

242 44 45 179 40

103

226 248 1 1 2 1 1

145

507 112

137 47 230 199 64

8 9 2 5 236 172 1 227 48 40 301 295 27 172 121

274 148

99 143 11 233 61

29 18 1 7 106 3 2 3 1 3 3 3 2 4 3 4 3 3 1 64 3 62 94 FAIRVIEW RD. 71

102 LINCOLN AVE. 30 21 23 36 291 147

2 AVE. B KANESVILLE BLVD. 113 36TH ST. 38 PIERCE ST. 55

72 3 2 51 14 33

136 41 52 120

1 53 343 1 1 1 1

1 10 10 2 6 1 2 2

99 266 240 291 W. BROADWAY 310 227 239 63 103 1

108TH ST. HARLANLEWIS RD. 6 18 6 120TH ST. 44 33 40 44 62 132

1 389 38 55 94 62

69 12 17 17 11 10 13 30 39 25 22 36 36 81 39 33 81 38 30 2ND AVE. 25 S. 1ST ST. 101

8 NICHOLAS ST. 10 48 10 40

41 12 PLATTEVIEW RD.

19 36 57TH ST. 22 36 76 9 8 11 17 13 31 43

2 4 2

178 7 38 10 31 36

63 544

1 2 31 200

2 Springfield

1 1 1 104 21

1 7TH ST. 38 6TH ST. CUMING ST. 75 235 133 104 43 5TH AVE. 39 20 84 213 72 273 207 38 20 89 223 21 85 MAIN ST. 2

281 202 140 125 104 2

118 104 31 52 26

28 37

36 67 92 1 18 6 1 6

169

6 29 25 22 13 27 5 9 20 75

25 2 4

93 36 25

33 77 BURT ST. 1 1 2 1 1 LA PLATTE RD. 15 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 12 MADISON AVE. 146 GRAHAM AVE. 65

13TH ST. 13TH 14TH ST. 14TH 3 4TH ST. PFLUG RD. ST. 8TH

1 ST. 16TH 41 RIVERFRONT DR. 37 6 53 42 9TH AVE. 63 93

30TH ST. 30TH 105

42 19 36 1 1

14 70 77

1 2 1 1 2

15 72

151 22 20 44 17 16 19 36 26 28 621 ST. 10TH

MAIN ST. 204TH ST. 180TH ST.

3RD ST. 156TH ST. 192ND ST.

168TH ST.

144TH ST.

119 60 159 70 1

32 22 10 25 91 40 32 CHICAGO ST. 175 14 16

1 113 210 1 1 480 104

76 1 49 33 44 49 48 70 106

82 8 33

35 37 43 46 15

DODGE ST. 79 149 114 158 126 165 119 76 77 70 73 50 50 115 521 342 63 101 19

191 32 2

183 1

121 79

81 33

44 59 24 24 87 50 48

109 207 165 5 118 122 117 116 103 112 99 83 42 116 82 90 143 137

54 33 70 124 30

53 73 36 62

67 24

DOUGLAS ST. 23 59

724

140 118 94 111 98 107 79 59 50 59 42 132 32

82 119 98 77 4 3 3 4 4 4 3 100 39 104 102 77 66

FARNAM ST. 58

20 35 20 31 51 71 100 32 160K & Above

16 36 94 71 97 84 89 104 93 72 86 60 48 54 44 119 150K - 160K 85 140K - 150K 28 93 84 25

17 48 31

HARNEY ST. 20 14 46

94 11 14

150 130K - 140K 122 120K - 130K 23 15 11 21 204 62 19 19

53 17 92 23 15 110K - 120K 1

9 15

16 10 22 15 35 100K - 110K

1 1 15 2 29 77 90K - 100K

11 43 17 30 37 33 38 45 35 80K - 90K

31ST ST. 31ST 113 91 60 47 45 39 70K - 80K

34 29 64 9

116 18 14

101 JACKSON ST. 60K - 70K

81 120 12 27 32

65 11

36 83 50K - 60K

34 63 23 120 57 40K - 50K 36 ST. MARYS AVE. 1 1 1 30K - 40K 19 103 1003 128 77 63 20K - 30K 93 114 18 94

34 42 106 101 99 77 17 119 10K - 20K 54 133 56 76 69 82 LEAVENWORTH ST.

24 10K & Below 11 10

112 77

26 13TH ST. 13TH

10TH ST. 10TH 5

135 20TH ST. 20TH

58 47 46 24TH ST. 24TH 2008 Average Daily Traffic Flow 480 10

16TH ST. 16TH 58 69

143 10

12 1116 33

28 102

This map, prepared by the Metropolitan Area Planning Agency (MAPA), illustrates traffic volumes and flow patterns based on 2008 traffic volumes. The other major east-west corridors that do not fully connect to downtown or West Omaha also distribute traffic from the west onto the expressway system, adding to this confluence.

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Inventory and Needs Assessment

DRAFT22 reaching a north-south connection that could carry their traffi c directly to and from downtown Omaha. LOS A - B: Volume-to-capacity ratio is less As a result, traffi c volumes are higher on the extent than 0.5 of Interstate 680 between Maple and Interstate 80. LOS C: Volume-to-capacity ratio at least 0.5 Much of this traffi c continues on Interstate 80 to access but less than 0.7 downtown. LOS D: Volume-to-capacity ratio at least 0.7 but less than 0.85 Traffi c Volumes and Roadway LOS E: Volume-to-capacity ratio at least Capacity 0.85 but less than 1.0 Th e MAPA travel demand forecasting model is used LOS F: Volume-to-capacity ratio is 1.0 or to understand travel patterns throughout the Omaha greater region and relate these to roadway capacity for vehicular traffi c. Th is computer-based model is similar to other Map 2.2.2 on the following page shows the level models used throughout the United States, using of service of major roadways as measured by the current population and employment data as a basis for MAPA travel demand model for present conditions. simulating travel patterns throughout the region and Roadway segments at levels of service E and F represent comparing them to the actual capacity on the region’s conditions where traffi c congestion is likely to be worst, roadways to understand where capacity is defi cient. as overall daily traffi c is approaching and even exceeding Th e model is refi ned and its precision is improved by roadway capacity. using traffi c counts observed from actual conditions to validate the traffi c distributions that it computes onto Segments at these levels of service point to needs for the regional roadway network. additional transportation system capacity, although this does not need to mean costly improvements Table 2.2.2 on Page 25 shows the 25 roadway corridors such as roadway widening or capacity improvements carrying the highest levels of volume relative to their tied specifi cally to the roadways showing low levels capacity. In general, these were major arterial and of service. It is important to note that these levels of expressway corridors in relatively newly developed service are based on a broad understanding of roadway sections of Omaha. Th is is not surprising, given the capacity as defi ned in the MAPA travel demand generally higher levels of traffi c volumes carried on model. Capacity varies from one roadway to the next, many of these streets—due in part to their designated dependent on a road’s functional classifi cation, the function as the primary transportation corridors of number of lanes, and other environmental factors such their area, with surrounding streets serving a mainly as the frequency of traffi c signals. local function. However, the travel demand model is also used for One engineering-based measure used to evaluate forecasting conditions of a future year, which helps the performance of roadway infrastructure is level of MAPA, the City of Omaha and other partner agencies service (LOS), a system of assigning ratings to diff erent to understand likely need for travel based on a projected components of transportation infrastructure. Ratings distribution of population and employment in the are expressed as letters, from A to F, with A representing future. MAPA’s current model forecast year is 2035, in the highest level of performance and F representing the concert with the planning year for MAPA’s long-range lowest. When applied to roadway segments and their transportation plan which is used to identify potential overall performance, LOS can be related to the ratio of and desired transportation projects that are feasible traffi c volume to roadway capacity, expressed as follows: within projected levels of transportation funding. Th e travel demand model scenario for this future year

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Inventory and Needs Assessment

DRAFT23 Map 2.2.2 Roadway Level of Service in 2010

LOS A or B (V/C below 0.5)

LOS C (V/C of 0.5 to 0.69) 60th LOS D (V/C of 0.7 to 0.84) 60th LOS E (V/C of 0.85 to 0.99) LOS F (V/C of 1.0 and greater) Fort Military City/County Ames Water

Maple tt o

Blondo AbbAbbott

Dodge Dodge

Paciﬁ c

13th 13th

60th 60th

72nd 72nd

2nd

90 90th

120th 120th

92nd

156th 156th

144th 144th 168th 168th 180th 180th

13 132nd 204th 204th

1 192nd

Center Center 2nd

4 42nd

L Street L Street

Map 2.2.3 Roadway Level of Service in 2035

LOS A or B (V/C below 0.5)

LOS C (V/C of 0.5 to 0.69) 60th LOS D (V/C of 0.7 to 0.84) 60th LOS E (V/C of 0.85 to 0.99)

LOS F (V/C of 1.0 and greater) Fort MMilitary ilitary City/County Ames Water

Maple

bott Blondo AbAbbott

Dodge Dodge

Paciﬁ c

3th

1 13th

60th 60th

72 72nd

90th 90th

44th

120 120th

156th 156th

1 144th 168th 168th 180th 180th

132 132nd 204th 204th

192nd 192nd

Center Center nd

42 42nd

L Street L Street

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Inventory and Needs Assessment

DRAFT24 includes consideration of planned and envisioned Table 2.2.2 below lists the 25 generally most congested changes to the roadway network that modify capacity. roadway links in 2035 according to the forecast of the When these changes are taken into account with the model; these are compared to the same model links traﬃ c volumes forecast for 2035, roadway levels of from 2010 to illustrate the change in performance. In service may change from 2010. In some cases, the some cases, streets and roads experiencing congestion projected capacity increase accommodates projected in 2010 are also forecast to experience congestion in volume, but in other cases it does not: even with a 2035. It is noteworthy to consider the links that are planned increase in roadway capacity, the roadway aﬀ ected by a capacity-increasing project assumed in level of service for some extents remains relatively low, the 2035 model network; this implies that even with pointing to congestion on these roadways. added capacity these roadways continue to experience congestion.

Table 2.2.2 Roadway Extents with the Highest V/C Ratios 2035 V/C Roadway Name and Extent 2035 2010 V/C 2010 Ratio LOS Ratio LOS 96th Street from Center to Mockingbird 1.05-1.35 F 0.73-1.16 D-F 60th Street from Leavenworth to Woolworth 1.04-1.73 F 0.89-1.58 E-F 144th Street from Pacifi c St to F St 1.01-1.27 F 0.74-1.20 D-F Center Road from 108th St to 140th St 1.08-1.33 F 0.72-1.29 D-F W Center Rd from 175th St to Industrial Rd 1.03-1.55 F 0.90-1.25 E-F Bob Boozer Dr from Pacifi c to Center 1.04-1.07 F 0.88-0.96 E Pacifi c St from 168th St to Bob Boozer Dr 1.10-1.17 F 0.67-0.82 F 168th St from W Center Rd to Frances St 1.05 F 0.99 E 90th St from F St to L St 1.14-1.61 F 1.10-1.57 F F St from 90th St to 84th St 1.36 F 1.21 F 84th St from Frederick St to Harrison St 0.93-1.51 F 0.72-1.44 D-F Dodge St from 69th St to 74th St 1.08-1.14 F 1.01 F 132nd St from Frances St to Pacifi c St 1.06-1.13 F 0.90-0.98 E Pacifi c St from 120th St to 126th St 1.03 F 0.88 E 132nd St/Millard Ave from 135th St to I St 1.04-1.53 F 0.74-1.27 D-F L St from 132nd St to W of I-80 1.08-1.27 F 0.88-1.05 E-F 132nd St from Blondo St to Maple st 1.00-1.18 F 0.48-1.07 A Maple St from 132nd St to Maplewood Blvd 1.04-1.49 F 0.85-1.34 E-F Maple St from 72nd St to 61st St 1.07-1.41 F 1.01-1.22 F Pacifi c St from 60th St to 67th St 1.33-1.40 F 1.21-1.27 F F St from 144th St to 148th St 1.09 F 0.88 E 108th St from O St to Hascall St 1.07-1.31 F 0.77-1.16 D-F 72nd St from Mercy St to J St 1.01-1.49 F 0.91-1.36 E-F Q St from John Galt Blvd to 120th St 1.16-1.34 F 0.92-0.97 F 72nd St from Maple St to Ames St 1.01-1.20 F 0.86-1.03 E-F Data Sources: MAPA Regional Travel Demand Model

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Inventory and Needs Assessment

DRAFT25 Congestion and Supporting Street Omaha, by contrast, have a broader mix of land uses Network and short trips by walking, bicycling or transit are more feasible and convenient. Th e conventional response to traffi c congestion on a particular street or road is to seek ways to increase In terms of transportation need, analysis zones with a vehicle-carrying capacity on that road. Perhaps the low area-wide levels of service do not necessarily mean most common and easily understood form of capacity that major roadways must be widened to add vehicle addition is a roadway widening, converting, for capacity. In some areas there may be opportunities example, a two-lane road to a four-lane road. to add system capacity by identifying parallel street network to help separate local from regional trips Th e maps on the following pages illustrate a diff erent along major arterials, to create connections between way of expressing the transportation system’s level of major arterials (which can often be achieved as land is service: by normalizing it over the entire geographic developed and supporting infrastructure is provided). area of a component traffi c analysis zone. Th is is done by aggregating volume and roadway segment length for Th e implications of this link between available all of the travel demand model links (or segments) that thoroughfares and development become even more serve a particular traffi c analysis zone. Th e aggregated pronounced when the 2035 travel demand model value is weighted by volume and length, so that longer conditions are considered. Th e 2035 travel demand roadway segments carrying more traffi c have greater model network does not feature a signifi cantly greater weight in determining a composite score than shorter amount of street network in newer areas of Omaha than segments carrying less. it does in 2010; major arterials defi ning the square-mile grid of west Omaha continue to be the primary Th e benefi t of this type of depiction is that it allows a thoroughfares for traffi c distribution. However, land link in understanding to be made between a particular use and growth projections for 2035 refl ect an area that area of Omaha and the traffi c conditions it is likely is considerably more developed and populated, leading to face in its vehicular travel needs. Analysis zones to growth in traffi c volume. As stated previously, in with a low level of service appear as such because the spite of numerous capacity expansion projects in these majority of their street mileage as recognized in the areas assumed by 2035, many roadways continue to travel demand model is performing at this low level of experience congestion and low levels of service. Th e service. Th is implies that the majority of connecting relatively sparse network (which refl ects the reality roadways that are evaluated as signifi cant thorough- of newer residential development patterns that have fares experience traffi c congestion. Th ere are several become typical in west Omaha) means that all new reasons why analysis zones in newer areas of Omaha development must use these roadways, and they are the show a generally lower level of service than newer areas: basis for calculation of the area-wide volume-to-capacity for one, there are fewer streets providing meaningful calculations as displayed in the map on the opposite connection through and between neighborhoods. As page. such, the travel demand model has fewer possible outlets for assigning traffi c movement based on land use Th is latter point is highly important: nearly all of patterns, refl ecting a real-world necessity to use major the traffi c analysis zones experiencing increases in arterials and thoroughfares for some portion of any trip. congestion feature a more disparate network, as Th ese areas also have less propensity for non-vehicular measured by block sizes. Th e average block size in each travel. Land uses are separated and feature commercial of these areas is in most cases larger than the citywide and employment uses along major arterials, often average, indicating a lack of ways to distribute traffi c. only at arterial intersections. Certain areas of central Even in the cases where block sizes are commensurate

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Inventory and Needs Assessment

DRAFT26 Table 2.2.3 Analysis Zones with High Average Congestion Levels in 2010

Number Analysis Zone (by boundary Areawide Average Other Major Characteristics on Map streets) V/C block size* Blondo south to Cuming, 132nd west to 1 1.02 16.6 ac 144th Shirley St south to Center, 144th west to Connectivity limited to 3 intersections 2 1.11 44.8 ac Boozer with main arterial streets 3 Center south to Industrial, west of 139th 0.98 28.9 ac 4 Shirley south to Center, 132nd west to 144th 0.99 12.1 ac 5 Shirley south to Center, 120th west to 132nd 0.99 10.6 ac 6 C St south to L St, 132nd west to Industrial 1.02 47.3 ac Center south to Lake Zorinsky, 168th west Connectivity constrained by Lake Zo- 7 0.90 25.5 ac to 180th rinsky Center south to Nina, Paddock west to Fred- 8 1.04 23.9 ac erick 9 F St south to L St, 84th west to 96th 0.92 26.9 ac Includes UNO Campus; connectivity exists but through campus streets. 10 Dodge south to Howard, 60th west to 72nd 0.93 8.0 ac Area congestion is largely related to 72nd and Dodge intersection approaches. Data Sources: City of Omaha GIS, MAPA Regional Travel Demand Model. *Citywide average block size is 10.7 acres.

Map 2.2.4 Areawide Volume-to-Capacity in 2010

Area V/C below 0.2 Area V/C of 0.2 to 0.39

Area V/C of 0.4 to 0.59

60th 60th Area V/C of 0.6 to 0.74 Area V/C of 0.75 to 0.89 Area V/C of 0.9 to 0.99 Fort MiliMilitary tary Area V/C of 1.0 and greater Ames

City/County Water Maple

Abbott Blondo

nd 1

168th 168th 180th 180th

192 192nd

204th 204th Dodge Dodge 10

4 Paciﬁ c

Center Center

d d

h h h

3th

2nd

1 13th

60th 60th 72nd

3 7

90t 9 90t 9 90th

56t 44

120120

7 120th 8

1 156th

144th144t144t144144

2 132nd 5

2nd 42nd 6 9 4 L Street L Street

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Inventory and Needs Assessment

DRAFT27 with or less than the city average, streets are confi gured connections between the section-line arterials typical in a way that major arterials and other connecting in West Omaha, but developments often skirt the thoroughfares become a major part of travel. Th is general intent of this requirement by providing these informs the model’s projections of traffi c and connections indirectly. Instead of a continuous street congestion on these roadway segments. connecting between two parallel arterials, there are often applications of this requirement that feature Th ere is another signifi cant implication of current indirect routes using multiple streets. Th is suggests a subdivision design patterns that aff ects the analysis need to strengthen this policy if it is to be eff ective and zone-wide levels of service shown in Maps 2.2.4 and help to distribute traffi c more evenly and lessen reliance 2.2.5: that collector and other sub-arterial streets not on suburban arterial roadways. measured and included in the travel demand model may not be helping with effi cient distribution of traffi c. Th e City of Omaha currently requires three

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Inventory and Needs Assessment

DRAFT28 Table 2.2.4 Analysis Zones with High Average Congestion Levels in 2035

Areawide Number Analysis Zone (by boundary Average V/C in 2035 Other Major Characteristics on Map streets) block size* (and 2010) 1 Maple south to Blondo, 132nd to 144th 0.90 (0.89) 14.6 ac Pacifi c south to Center, 168th west to 2 0.93 (0.87) 12.9 ac 180th Pacifi c south to Center, Boozer west to 3 1.06 (0.86) 15.9 ac 168th Shirley St south to Center, 144th west Connectivity limited to 3 intersections 4 1.03 (1.11) 44.8 ac to Boozer with main arterial streets Pacifi c south to Shirley, 132nd west to 5 0.95 (0.80) 13.7 ac 144th Shirley south to Center, 132nd west to 6 1.09 (0.99) 11.8 ac 144th Shirley south to Center, 120th west to 7 1.07 (0.99) 10.8 ac 132nd Center south to Nina, Paddock west to 8 1.21 (1.04) 23.9 ac Frederick 9 F St south to L St, 84th west to 96th 1.04 (0.92) 26.9 ac 10 Q St south to X St, 108th west to I-80 0.91 (0.73) 7.6 ac Data Sources: City of Omaha GIS, MAPA Regional Travel Demand Model. *Citywide average block size is 10.7 acres.

Map 2.2.5 Areawide Volume-to-Capacity in 2035

Area V/C below 0.2

Area V/C of 0.2 to 0.39 h

Area V/C of 0.4 to 0.59

60t 60th Area V/C of 0.6 to 0.74 Area V/C of 0.75 to 0.89 Area V/C of 0.9 to 0.99 Fort MilitarMilitary Area V/C of 1.0 and greater y Ames

City/County Water 1 Maple

Abbott

d h

h Blondo

68t

1 168th 18 180th

192n 192nd

204th 204th Dodge Dodge

Paciﬁ c

nd d

5 d

13 13th

60t 60th 72nd

2 72

90th

3 90th

32 32

120th

156th 144144

144th 7 132 132 4 6 132nd

CenterCent Center nd 42nd 8 42

9 L Street L Street

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Inventory and Needs Assessment

DRAFT29 2.3 Traffi c Control Standard 01) but that, depending on recorded speeds, a confi guration may be used where overhead signals may be ‘shared’ between travel lanes such that each lane Traffi c signals and standard signage are the primary does not have its own controlling signal face (see Table means of traffi c control in Omaha, typical for a city 4D-1). Th ese same rules apply to any lanes shared with an extensive roadway network and a moderately- between turn and through movements. sized freeway system. Th e City of Omaha has 941 traffi c signals, controlling approximately 8 percent of Unsignalized Control Methods the city’s 10,000 intersections. Omaha has begun using roundabout intersections as a Traffi c Control and Arterials way to manage traffi c control at geometrically complex intersections. Examples of these intersections include Of the 941 traffi c signals in the Omaha and its Happy Hollow Boulevard at Elmwood Park Road, surrounding unincorporated areas, 843 of these are south of the University of Nebraska at Omaha campus, controlling arterial streets. While true that these at 171st Street and Frances Street in the Lakeside Hills arterials carry higher traffi c volumes than other streets, offi ce park in West Omaha, and at Boyd Street and the balance of signal distribution suggests that the 87th Avenue in Midtown Omaha. Perhaps the most degree to which local and regional traffi c is concen- remarkable and innovative instance of roundabouts in trated on arterials is possibly not utilizing the full street Omaha is the ‘fi gure eight’ roundabout at the intersec- network’s capacity to its fullest.

Th e distribution of signals also suggests that some arterials may see improved traﬃ c performance with fewer signals. While this requires a more detailed analysis of speciﬁ c intersections and whether or not they continue to warrant signals, it does question the need for such an extensive distribution strictly along the arterial network and points to a need to increase legibility of the collector street system so that arterials are not compromised by frequent signal spacing with local streets.

Current Signal Placement at Intersections Many of Omaha’s current signalized intersections feature at least one signal head per traﬃ c lane being controlled and may also feature post-mounted signal heads on supporting masts at the intersection corners. Th e result is often intersections with wide mast arms and a high number of signal heads. As signals need replacement, the City may consider using fewer signals per intersection. Th is would be in compliance with the requirements of the 2009 Manual on Uniform Traﬃ c Control Devices (MUTCD), which states that a The ‘ figure-8’ double roundabout at Saddle Creek, Happy Hollow, minimum of two primary signal faces shall be provided Seward and 50th. Although typically consisting of simple circle designs, roundabouts are increasingly used in Omaha and throughout for the signalized through movement (Section 4D.11, the United States as an efficient, effective form of unsignalized inter-

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Inventory and Needs Assessment

DRAFT30 tion of Saddle Creek Road, Happy Hollow Boulevard, Seward Street and 50th Street, which handles traﬃ c from eight diﬀ erent entering roadways.

Roundabout intersections have grown in popularity across the United States in recent years due largely to their relative effi ciency in traffi c operations and higher rates of safety when compared to conventional signalized intersections. Although they require a greater right-of-way footprint than signalized intersections, they are useful both as an effi cient traffi c control device Neither marked pedestrian crossings nor vehicle stop bars are used at the intersection of 42nd and Center. This creates uncertainty for and also as a traffi c calming instrument, requiring pedestrians and increases potential for pedestrian-vehicle conflict. vehicles to slow on an intersection approach.

Marked Pedestrian Crossings Many intersections in Omaha do not utilize pedestrian crosswalk markings per MUTCD guidance, and some do not even utilize a vehicle stop bar. Th is is a potentially dangerous intersection design for pedestrians: at best, it creates uncertainty for pedestrians wishing to cross the intersection; at worst, it increases potential for conﬂ icts with vehicles that do not have a clear indication of where to stop (especially right-turning vehicles). Th e image to the right At the same intersection, compliance with the Americans with illustrates an example of where the crosswalk would Disabilities Act has been met through provision of the curb ramp, although the location of this path guides pedestrians into a path where help to clarify the proper pedestrian path as established vehicles are likely to queue and approach in the absence of a controlling by the location of the curb ramp. stop bar.

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Inventory and Needs Assessment

DRAFT31 2.4 Roadway Safety and Accidents

Th e two most recent years of available accident data similar method of calculating accident rates at intersec- (2008-2009) were analyzed to determine roadway tions, adding measured and/or estimated daily traffi c locations with potential safety defi ciencies for the study volumes at the four component intersection approaches area. During the two-year analysis period, Omaha and dividing this sum total in half. Th e corresponding and its immediate surroundings in Douglas County value represents the intersection’s overall volume so that experienced a total of 25,092 accidents, with 5,126 a composite intersection volume can be estimated. accidents involving non-fatal injuries and 39 accidents involving fatalities. Th e methodology of crash analysis is Th e City of Omaha analyzes intersections for documented in the following sections. accidents on a yearly basis, using the overall crash rate methodology described here to identify the 100 Roadway Segment Crash Rate highest-rate intersections in the city and to investigate One measure of potential safety defi ciencies is the these intersections in more detail to determine the roadway segment crash rate. Crash rates, expressed primary causes of accidents. Th is city-developed list for as the number of crashes per million vehicle miles crashes occurring in 2007 is discussed in Section 5.2. traveled, for a roadway segment were calculated based on the following equation: Types of Accidents It is instructive to identify the general patterns between Crash Density x the types of accidents and the transportation facilities 1,000,000 Crash Rate = on which they occur. In terms of particular accident segment length x types, rear-end collisions are one of the major types of AADT x 365 crashes in the city. 30 percent of the crashes from the two-year period involve this type of collision (7,640 out where the Crash Density refers to the number of 25,092 total). Th e percentage of rear-end crashes is of accidents in a given segment and the Average even higher on major arterials: nearly 44 percent (3,722 Annualized Daily Traffi c (AADT) is calculated as an out of 8,533 total crashes occurring on major arterials). average of estimated average daily traffi c counts taken Th e vast majority of rear-end collisions occurred on the throughout the city. arterial network when both major and minor arterials are considered (6,073 out of 7,640 total). Th ese Although the highest numbers of accidents occur on fi ndings suggest that the arterial roadways of the city, major arterial roadways such as Dodge Street, 72nd in carrying a combination of local and regional traffi c, Street and 90th Street, these are also the streets with the may experience speed diff erences between motorists, highest volumes. Correcting the number of crashes for especially in the outer travel lanes in each direction, exposure identifi es downtown and central Omaha as as turning vehicles slow to maneuver their turns and the general area of the city with the highest crash rates. create confl ict with through-moving vehicles traveling at higher speeds. Locations of High Accident Rates Even when corrected for exposure to traffi c volume, Another commonly-occurring type of accident is the highest rates of vehicle accident occurrence occur accidents not involving more than one moving vehicle. along major roadways and at high-volume intersections Th is broad defi nition includes fi xed objects, animals of major thoroughfares. Th e planning team used a and parked vehicles. Th is accounts for 22 percent

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Inventory and Needs Assessment

DRAFT32 (5,568 out of 25,092) of total crashes. Nearly half of 72nd Street, largely because traﬃ c is distributed more those crashes (2,293 out of 5,568) involved parked evenly throughout these streets, keeping volumes lower vehicles. on individual streets.

Corridors with High Crash Rates Th e highest crash rates of major streets are identifi ed Th is methodology helped to identify an accident in the table on the following page. Notably high rates rate for each roadway segment, although depending occurred throughout downtown, due to the high levels on the estimated daily volume for each street extent of pedestrian activity, the greater density of posts, this calculated rate often changes notably from one parked cars and other fi xed objects, and the rapidly roadway segment to the next. Streets and roads changing traffi c speeds due to a complex environment may have ‘spot’ locations where safety problems and (and the resulting occurrence of rear-end collisions). accident occurrences tend to be concentrated, but Accidents are particularly highly concentrated along the when accidents are distributed generally evenly along collector-distributor ramp system immediately south a roadway extent, it is more likely that the safety of the I-480 interchange with the North Expressway. challenges exist throughout the corridor. Volumes are higher on these ramps and feeder streets than on most streets downtown, but these roadway Maps 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 below and on the following segments also represent signifi cant transitions in speed page, respectively, show these corridor accident rates and motorist behavior. Rear-end collisions along these throughout Omaha. Rates are generally higher east of streets are notably frequent.

Map 2.4.1 Corridors with High Crash Rates

10 or fewer accidents per million vehicles 10-25 accidents 25-50 accidents 50-100 accidents

More than 100 accidents

60th 60th City/County Water Fort MilitMilitary ary Ames

Maple

Blondo Abbott

Dodge Dodge

Paciﬁ c

13th 13th

60th 60th

72nd 72nd

90t 90th

44th

120th 120th

156th 156th

1 144th 168th 168th 180th 180th

204th 204th 132nd 132nd

192nd 192nd

Center Center

42nd 42nd

L Street L Street

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Inventory and Needs Assessment

DRAFT33 Map 2.4.2 Corridors with High Crash Rates (Downtown Detail)

10 or fewer accidents per million vehicles 10-25 accidents 25-50 accidents 50-100 accidents More than 100 accidents

City/County Water

In addition to these major concentrations of accidents, left-turn and rear-end collisions at the intersections of the following lower-volume street corridors and extents Ames Avenue and Sorensen Parkway. experienced a notably high rate of accidents. 40TH STREET FROM CUMING TO HARNEY. Th is 60TH STREET FROM NORTHWEST RADIAL corridor features accidents involving U-turning vehicles HIGHWAY TO WESTERN. A high number of rear-end in the proximity of the St. Cecilia Cathedral as well as a collisions and fi xed object collisions has occurred relatively high number of fi xed object crashes. through this section of roadway, especially as 60th Street passes through the Benson business district. 20TH STREET FROM CENTER TO VINTON. Th is also includes the eastbound approach to the Martha Street/ 50TH STREET FROM NORTHWEST RADIAL TO Vinton Street intersection. Th is corridor inclues a DODGE. Most of the accidents occurring along this notably high number of left turn collisions, suggesting corridor are collisions with fi xed objects, especially that higher-speed oncoming traffi c is not slowing parked cars. suffi ciently for the left turns in the opposite direction.

42ND STREET FROM PAXTON BOULEVARD TO MARTHA STREET FROM 10TH TO 24TH. Most SORENSEN PARKWAY , including the intersection with accidents occurring here are on intersection approaches, Ames Avenue and its approaches. Th is corridor features especially at the intersections of 13th and 20th Streets, a regular distribution of ﬁ xed-object collisions, with but they involve a combination of rear-end accidents,

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Inventory and Needs Assessment

DRAFT34 left turn accidents, fi xed object collisions and collisions leg of 33rd Street, which is off set from the north leg, with vehicles attempting to back out of driveways. increasing potential confl ict points.

Intersections with High Crash Rates 72ND AND L STREETS (rate of 1.07; 18 crashes All roadway intersection crashes in the year of 2008 and in total). Collisions involved mostly northbound 2009 were examined to identify intersections with high and southbound vehicles turning to access L Street’s crash rates. 219 intersections had 20 or more crashes on-ramps. Due to short signal spacing on either side of during this period. Th irteen of these intersections 50 or the intersection, there is likely to be pressure to allow more crashes, which suggest a need for further investi- permitted left turns outside of a protected phase. gation and future improvements. 40TH AND MAPLE STREETS (rate of 1.06; 3 crashes Th e intersections with the highest collision rates for in total). All crashes involved injuries. Although the angle collisions are: number of accidents is not high, this intersection is near an elementary school and is the intersection of two Q AND 42ND STREETS (collision rate of 2.16 per otherwise low-volume streets. million vehicles entering; 11 crashes in total). All 20TH AND NICHOLAS STREETS collisions are “left-turn leaving,” meaning a left-turning (rate of 0.98; 2 vehicle is causing the crash against oncoming traffi c. crashes in total). Th ese are both relatively low volume More than half of the crashes have injuries. 10 of the streets, but 20th Street has one-way traffi c fl ow and 11 total crashes happened under the same circum- several wide driveway entrances around the intersection. stance: an east-bound vehicle attempting to turn left L STREET AND KENNEDY EXPRESSWAY onto South 42nd St was impacted by a west-bound SOUTHBOUND ENTRY RAMP (rate of 0.96; 12 crashes vehicle. Possible causes of accidents are limited sight total). Accidents appear to be occurring at this location distance due to road curvature and insuffi cient gaps for left-turning movements, implying a potential need for 108TH AND M STREETS (rate of 0.94; 27 crashes protected signal phasing for left turns. total). Th is intersection has the highest number of angle collisions involving left-turning vehicles in the city. 20TH AND MARTHA STREETS (collision rate of 1.64; Th e majority of the collisions happened between south 10 crashes in total). Westbound left-turning vehicles bound left-turning vehicles and northbound vehicles. collide with east bound vehicles. A possible cause is Possible causes are the high travel speeds on 108th limited sight distance due to vertical road curvature. Street and insuffi cient gaps for unprotected left turns to Park Avenue and Martha Street (collision rate of 1.18; occur. 15 crashes in total). Th e most frequent occurrence here was southbound left-turning vehicles colliding with west-bound vehicles. Possible causes include limited Accidents with Fatalities sight distance due to slope and high speeds, especially Generally the most severe accidents are those involving from vehicles exiting the nearby I-480 expressway and fatalities, either among drivers or passengers of motor not yet adjusted to a neighborhood context. A traffi c vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians. It is often the case signal may be warranted at this intersection to address that accidents involving facilities occur among vehicles these issues. moving at relatively high speeds, where the impact of vehicles may be strong enough to supersede the regular 33RD AND Q STREETS (rate of 1.13; 11 collisions life-preserving safety features built into the vehicle total). Nine of the 11 collisions happened on the south or to kill pedestrians or cyclists on impact. In many

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Inventory and Needs Assessment

DRAFT35 cases these are due to errant driver behavior, especially 2 pedestrian crashes in total). Th is is a commercial driving while intoxicated or failing to properly obey district in an area of Omaha with a lower-than-average traffi c control. At times, however, fatal collisions may rate of households with access to vehicles. Many of the be due in part to roadway and intersection design businesses along the street have a neighborhood-serving features. function. Th irty-nine collisions with fatalities occurred in Omaha in 2008 and 2009, mostly on major arterial corridors. th Street from Deer Park Boulevard Of these 39, 23 occurred at mid-block locations. 16 to Bert Murphy Avenue. Th is extent of 13th of the crashes involved only one vehicle, implying that Street passes by Rosenblatt Stadium, suggesting a high motorists collided with fi xed objects. demand for mid-block crossings at special events. Another major circumstance in which mid-block Accidents Involving Pedestrians pedestrian crashes occurred is pedestrians walking in the roadway instead of in separated walkways such Confl icts between vehicles and pedestrians may occur as sidewalks. Th ese crashes have usually occurred in in exceptional circumstances, such as a pedestrian lower-light conditions, at dusk or at night. Th is points crossing the street away from and intersection or other to a potential need in these areas for improvements to designated crossing and a motorist lacking suffi cient sidewalks and other pedestrian ways or enhancements time to respond safely. In the cases of confl icts to roadway lighting. Some locations where this type of occurring at places where pedestrians are designated accident has occurred include the following: with a right to cross the street, such as at an intersection, the confl ict suggests that street and intersection S rd Street near L Street. Th is location design characteristics may have contributed to the is near a series of medical clinics and Metropolitan accident. Community College. Th e city of Omaha experienced 250 pedestrian Hamilton Street near NW Radial Highway. crashes during 2008 and 2009, including both crashes occurring at intersections and at mid-block locations. th St near Martha Street. Mid-block pedestrian crashes Intersection-Based Pedestrian Crashes In most cases, pedestrians involved in mid-block Intersections are the most common places for collisions were crossing streets without a designated pedestrians to cross vehicle paths, and as such a greater crosswalk. Th is is likely occurring because of a number of pedestrian crashes occurs at intersections pedestrian demand for the crossing, although it also than at mid-block crossings. Th e intersections with suggests that vehicle speeds are such that motorists highest incidence of crashes are as follows: cannot easily stop when pedestrians make these

crossings. Several locations with this type of crash are Dodge Street and th Street (3 pedestrian identiﬁ ed here. crashes): Th is intersection has crosswalks in all four directions, although accidents occurred either in early Fontenelle Boulevard from Belvedere morning or evening conditions, suggesting that a Street to Laurel Street (one fatal crash, possible issue at the intersection may be a lack of street 3 pedestrian crashes in total). Th is location near lighting. Belvedere Elementary School is prone to many mid-block crossings involving children. Dodge Street and nd Street (3 pedestrian 24th Street from H Street to J Street (one fatal crash, crashes): all three crashes happened when pedestrians

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Inventory and Needs Assessment

DRAFT36 were crossing at crosswalk with signal. Possible causes High-Crash Rate Intersections. Table 2.4.1 may include careless driving, speeding and limited sight below lists the 100 intersections with the highest crash distance due to grade change on 42nd Street. rates. At the time of the Transportation Element’s development the most recent available years were for th Street and Q Street (2 pedestrian 2006 and 2007, although the City of Omaha Public crashes): Although accident data do not provide Works Department updates this table periodically. specifi c information on accident causes, this is the location of location of a signifi cant concentration of It is worth noting that many of the highest-ranked employment. Th ere is likely demand for pedestrian intersections listed here are within central Omaha, movement to make short trips, especially to visit nearby indicating both lower traffi c volumes using these streets dining or community-serving retail. and a greater complexity of turning movements and travel patterns, often without traffi c signal protection. Farnam St and th St (2 pedestrian crashes) and Farnam St and nd St (2 pedestrian crashes). Th ese occurred at intersections between a major hospital and medical offi ce complex and residential neighborhoods.

Table 2.4.1 Intersections with the Highest Accident Rates (2006-2007)

Total 2007 2006 2006 Acc. Rank Intersection 2007 Acc. per Rank per MVeh Acc. M.Veh. 1 50th Street and Pratt Street 5 6.04 - - 2 Florence Boulevard and Cass Street 10 5.41 3 5.41 3 31st Avenue and Turner Boulevard 4 3.81 - - 4 120th Street and West Maple Road 34 3.73 - - 5 23rd Street and I Street 3 3.65 - - 6 17th Street and Cuming Street 5 3.64 - - 7 20th Street and Cass Street 8 3.56 30 2.23 8 72nd Street and Sorensen Parkway 19 3.52 40 2.10 9 40th Street and Frances Street 4 3.40 - - 10 51st Street and Walnut Street 5 3.17 8 3.81 11 24th Street and Harney Street 16 3.15 18 2.56 12 29th Street and Farnam Street 19 2.96 26 2.34 13 24th Avenue and Saint Marys Avenue 15 2.88 - - 14 24th Street and Saint Marys Avenue 18 2.87 - - 15 16th Street and Cuming Street 11 2.78 - - 16 11th Street and Farnam Street 4 2.72 - - 17 40th Street and Harney Street 10 2.67 - - 18 13th Street and Martha Street 19 2.63 30 2.23

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Inventory and Needs Assessment

DRAFT37 Table 2.4.1 Intersections with the Highest Accident Rates (2006-2007) (continued)

Total 2007 2006 2006 Acc. Rank Intersection 2007 Acc. per Rank per MVeh Acc. M.Veh. 19 20th Street and Grace Street 4 2.62 10 3.28 20 20th Street and Q Street 5 2.56 47 2.05 21 143rd Plaza and Oak View Drive 8 2.54 32 2.22 22 Park Avenue and Pacifi c Street 6 2.50 - - 23 19th Street and Howard Street 5 2.45 13 2.94 24 14th Street and Dodge Street 9 2.41 90 1.61 25 38th Street and Harney Street 9 2.36 64 1.84 26 38th Street and Farnam Street 11 2.35 - - 27 40th Street and California Street 9 2.34 57 1.90 28 40th Street and Grant Street 4 2.33 - - 29 24th Street and L Street 22 2.28 86 1.66 29 23rd Street and F Street 3 2.28 - - 31 24th Street and Lake Street 11 2.26 65 1.83 32 85th Street and Burt Street 9 2.25 16 2.75 33 Westridge Drive and Cornhusker Drive 3 2.20 - - 33 52nd Street and Howard Street 5 2.20 - - 35 50th Street and Farnam Street 12 2.18 - - 35 28th Street and Douglas Street 14 2.18 48 2.02 37 20th Street and Martha Street 12 2.16 19 2.52 38 108th Street and M Street 20 2.13 26 2.34 39 20th Street and U Street 3 2.12 - - 39 I-580 North/Cuming Exit Ramp and Cuming Street 10 2.12 - - 39 Q Street and Millard Avenue 38 2.12 15 2.85 42 North Happy Hollow Boulevard and Underwood Ave. 7 2.11 24 2.40 43 27th Street and R Street 4 2.08 - - 44 North Happy Hollow Boulevard and Hamilton Street 4 2.07 44 2.07 44 108th Street and Old Maple Road 11 2.07 21 2.45 46 30th Street and Ames Avenue 24 2.04 - - 46 28th Street and Farnam Street 13 2.04 73 1.73 48 32nd Street and California Street 3 1.99 - - 48 90th Street and Military Road 16 1.99 25 2.36 50 28th Street and Harney Street 14 1.97 96 1.55 50 33rd Street and Q Street 10 1.97 53 1.97 52 13th Street and Farnam Street 8 1.96 79 1.72

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Inventory and Needs Assessment

DRAFT38 Table 2.4.1 Intersections with the Highest Accident Rates (2006-2007) (continued)

Total 2007 2006 2006 Acc. Rank Intersection 2007 Acc. per Rank per MVeh Acc. M.Veh. 52 90th Street and Maple Street 42 1.96 - - 52 14th Street and Jackson Street 4 1.96 21 2.45 55 120th Street and West Center Road 47 1.94 - - 56 Park Avenue and Leavenworth Street 10 1.93 - - 57 Woolworth Avenue and Park Avenue 6 1.92 - - 57 24th Avenue and Farnam Street 9 1.92 - - 59 30th Street and Bristol Street 7 1.90 - - 59 20th Street and O Street 3 1.90 - - 59 33rd Street and Parker Street 3 1.90 - - 62 14th Street and Leavenworth Street 5 1.88 59 1.89 63 40th Street and Dewey Avenue 4 1.85 - - 64 42nd Street and Farnam Street 12 1.84 - - 65 52nd Street and Chicago Street 3 1.83 - - 65 Lake Street and Florence Boulevard 3 1.83 65 1.83 67 20th Street and Cuming Street 8 1.80 - - 68 24th Street and Q Street 11 1.77 28 2.25 69 Spring Lake Drive and F Street 4 1.75 71 1.75 70 10th Street and Abbott Drive 12 1.74 - - 70 42nd Street and L Street 26 1.74 - - 72 20th Street and Farnam Street 10 1.73 - - 72 24th Street and Vinton Street 13 1.73 73 1.73 74 27th Street and Woolworth Avenue 3 1.71 - - 74 147th Street and Stony Brook Boulevard 8 1.71 - - 76 14th Street and Howard Street 7 1.70 - - 77 42nd Street and Frederick Street 13 1.69 - - 78 16th Street and Vinton Street 4 1.67 84 1.67 79 78th Street and Cass Street 13 1.64 - - 79 16th Street and Locust Street 6 1.64 - - 79 60th Street and Northwest Radial Highway 17 1.64 - - 79 Turner Boulevard and Farnam Street 11 1.64 55 1.93 83 31st Avenue and Ames Avenue 14 1.63 62 1.87 83 40th Street and Hamilton Street 8 1.63 - - 83 136th Street and Q Street 12 1.63 - - 83 60th Street and Ames Avenue 20 1.63 - -

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Inventory and Needs Assessment

DRAFT39 Table 2.4.1 Intersections with the Highest Accident Rates (2006-2007) (continued)

Total 2007 2006 2006 Acc. Rank Intersection 2007 Acc. per Rank per MVeh Acc. M.Veh. 87 72nd Street and Blondo Street 34 1.62 - - 88 84th Street and West Center Road 26 1.61 - - 89 90th Street and Ohio Street 10 1.60 - - 89 52nd Street and Fort Street 5 1.60 - - 91 33rd Street and California Street 4 1.59 92 1.58 91 36th Street and Y Street 5 1.59 - - 93 98th Street and Nicholas Street 5 1.57 - - 93 90th Street and Fort Street 20 1.57 79 1.72 93 30th Street and Sprague Street 10 1.57 73 1.73 96 16th Street and Jackson Street 6 1.56 - - 97 30th Street and Dodge Street 11 1.55 - - 97 South Happy Hollow Boulevard and Farnam Street 9 1.55 - - 99 Turner Boulevard and Dodge Street 12 1.54 45 2.06 99 30th Street and Lake Street 11 1.54 69 1.81

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Inventory and Needs Assessment

DRAFT40 2.5 Pedestrian and Bicycle Systems

Th e sidewalk is the primary means of pedestrian address these concerns, and as a result much of West conveyance in cities, and it has long been a vital part Omaha has complete sidewalk coverage. Th is raises the of public space as the transition from the moving way citywide average and suggests that midtown Omaha of the street to private property. As is common in (especially between 60th and 90th Streets) has the American cities that grew largely in the 20th century, greatest defi ciencies of coverage. sidewalks in Omaha are more thorough in older parts of the city. Omaha is notable, however, in that Sidewalks and Revitalization pedestrian connectivity also has an extensive network National trends since the 1990s point to quality of life of off -street trails to complement the city’s traditional as an increasingly important factor in individuals’ and street sidewalks. households’ decisions on where to locate, and central cities in particular have enjoyed a renaissance due to Sidewalks the collection of amenities they off er, especially in As Omaha does not maintain a comprehensive close proximity to residential neighborhoods. A key inventory of sidewalk locations, the planning team component of this quality of life, however, is having developed a method for estimating coverage based options for travel, especially for day-to-day activities on prototypical development patterns, based on and needs such as groceries, household conveniences assumptions of sidewalk coverage in development and basic outdoor recreation. It is no coincidence that patterns typical of diff erent periods of the 20th century. the areas of central cities that have enjoyed the greatest Th is methodology is detailed in Table 2.5.1 to the right appreciation in land values are those that combine and is based on general trends of street and subdivision amenities but allow walking between them through a design throughout the century. Most of Omaha’s safe and comfortable pedestrian environment. traditional neighborhoods feature sidewalks on both sides of the street. Areas of the city developed more Th e areas of Omaha most lacking in sidewalk recently, especially since World War II, are likely not infrastructure are likely to be the areas that stand to feature the same degree of coverage, often including to benefi t most from focused revitalization eff orts, sidewalks on only portions of a street’s extent, on one especially eff orts to bring shopping, restaurants, side of the street, or including no sidewalks at all. Th is employment and recreational uses in closer proximity refl ects larger national trends throughout the 20th to neighborhoods. Th us it is important for Omaha to century that moved away from sidewalks as vital public invest in the pedestrian environment of these areas. space and discouraged their addition in the name of reducing the likelihood of vehicle-pedestrian collisions. Pedestrian Bridges Omaha contains a notable number of pedestrian Th is trend is actually reversed in newer patterns of bridges across roadways, even outside of its central residential development such as those found in West business district (where such structures connecting Omaha. Sidewalks became standard again in late buildings to structured parking or to other buildings 20th century subdivision design, prompted largely by have become a common feature in North American concerns over accommodation of persons with disabili- cities). Th e city has 31 of these bridges, only a few ties (and especially the requirements of the Americans of which are in its downtown and seven of which with Disabilities Act) as well as recreational safety. (throughout the city) are in private ownership and thus Subdivision regulations began to include require- not maintained by the City of Omaha. ments for sidewalks on both sides of streets in order to

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Inventory and Needs Assessment

DRAFT41 Table 2.5.1 Estimated Sidewalk Coverage in Omaha

Period of Assumed Level Street Centerline Development/ of Sidewalk Miles Associated with Streets with Construction Coverage Development Sidewalk Coverage

Pre-1940 100% 460.7 460.7 1940s 75% 82.3 61.7 1950s 50% 152.1 76.1 1960s 25% 243.1 60.8 1970s 25% 396.2 99.1 1980s 60% 109.5 65.7 1990s 80% 212.7 170.2 2000s 100% 320.0 320.0 ALL OMAHA 66.5% 1976.6 1314.3 Data Source: City of Omaha/Douglas County GIS, US Census (2000). Sidewalk coverage information is taken from a variety of sources, including ‘Sidewalks in the Suburbs,’ a 1957 Planning Advi- sory Service report that chronicles 1950s subdivision regulations around the United States and the then-emerging trend in local governments not requiring sidewalks.

Map 2.5.1 Estimated Sidewalk Coverage Areas by Time of Development

1940s - 75% coverage 1950s - 50% coverage 1960s - 25% coverage 1970s - 25% coverage 1980s - 60% coverage 1990s - 80% coverage 2000s 2000s - 100% coverage 1960s City/County Water

1960s Pre-1940 1990s 1950s 2000s 1970s

1980s Pre-1940

1960s

1970s Pre-1940 1990s 1970s 1950s 1960s 2000s 1940s

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Inventory and Needs Assessment

DRAFT42 Some of these bridges are near schools, implying that system. Some are short but provide key off -street links they were constructed for safety reasons. In several through older Omaha neighborhoods with a complex cases, such as the pedestrian bridge over Blondo street pattern; others are longer, regional trails that Street at 68th Street, the safety concerns are clear: this connect many diff erent parts of the city. Bicyclists in particular bridge crosses a relatively busy three-lane Omaha who use bicycling as a form of commuting use road near the crest of a hill, where driver visibility is the trail system but have noted that it lacks continuous limited by the vertical curvature of the road. east-west opportunities. Although the standard arterial street design in areas of newer development features a Because they are not designed to carry the same weight shared-use trail on one side of the street, few of these load as vehicular bridges and as a rule do not experience trails cross Interstate 680. the same levels of usage, these pedestrian bridges are typically less expensive to maintain and can last longer On-Street Bicycle Lanes and Shared without major maintenance. Streets Bicycle lanes are the most common form of marking a Nonetheless, these bridges are more expensive than street surface for designated bicycle use, although recent basic grade-level intersection crossing enhancements innovation in traffi c control and signage has introduced and imply that the intersections they cross face highly a more formal, comprehensive manner of designating unsafe conditions and have possibly even been locations streets as bicycle routes even if they do not have striped of severe pedestrian accidents in the past. lanes. Typically, bicycle lanes are marked to the right of the travel lanes against the curb; where on-street Off -Street Trails parking is present, the bicycle lane is marked between Omaha’s off -street trail system complements sidewalks parked cars and the travel lane. and on-street bicycle lanes as a highly important means of multi-modal transportation. Omaha’s major trail Omaha has a relatively small inventory of on-street corridors generally follow rivers, streams and other bicycle lanes. Th is is due in part to the long-established natural drainage systems where they can take advantage use of many of the city’s older streets for vehicle traffi c of natural buff ers and moderate topography. Omaha and the construction of newer streets to a basic highway has 199 miles of completed trails, including both major standard that did not include space for on-street corridors such as the Big Papio and West Papio Trails, bicycle lanes in the typical cross-section. Many street the Keystone Trail and the Riverfront Trail system. Th is extents where bicycle lanes have been provided are amount also includes multi-use trails added into the due to the reduction of unnecessary vehicle capacity street design of newer arterial thoroughfares such as (usually through the elimination of a travel lane) or the Blondo Street, 144th Street and 180th Street in West restriping of lanes to balance wider-than-needed travel Omaha. lanes with bicycle lanes and on-street parking.

Beyond this inventory, 84 miles of additional off -street However, as noted in the fi rst paragraph, striped trail have been proposed for Omaha but not yet bicycle lanes are no longer the only legitimate option constructed, much of it continuing existing trail for an on-street bicycle route designation. Omaha has corridors. begun to use the shared lane arrow marking (popularly referred to as a ‘sharrow’) more extensively in the recent Trails as Transportation past, following a nationwide trend to designate shared Table 6.3 and Figure 6.3 show major trail corridors that streets with pavement marking even when they do not off er potential to contribute to Omaha’s transportation have suffi cient space for a bicycle lane. Th e use of this

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Inventory and Needs Assessment

DRAFT43 symbol has been supported in the most recent edition district and Old Market areas, presents a diff erent set of the Manual on Uniform Traffi c Control Devices of signifi cant safety risks for cyclists, mostly due to (MUTCD), the national guidance and standards crossing vehicles coming from driveways that do not publication maintained by the FHWA for traffi c always have unrestricted visibility of the sidewalk. In control and signage. addition, signifi cant barriers to east-west movement, such as Interstate 680, complicate movement from west East-West Bicycle Travel Demand and Omaha to midtown and downtown. Options Just as the primary orientation of work-based vehicle Bicycle Reach and Land Use Patterns travel is east-west, there is high bicycle travel demand One of the great areas of potential for promoting for east-west options and relatively few on-street bicycle use is in relatively short trips, especially between connections on which cyclists feel safe and comfortable. one and three miles, where the relative proximity Many of the city’s east-west thoroughfares are between origin and destination implies that driving confi gured primarily for vehicular travel and facilitate is not needed but where the distance is long enough high-speed movement. Cyclists wishing to use these that walking would present a signifi cantly long travel roads must choose between sharing a travel lane with time. Bicycle travel becomes all the more attractive vehicles or riding on the sidewalk, which, although when the origin and/or destination has limited allowed in Omaha outside of the central business automobile parking: although bicycle parking may not

Map 2.5.2 Oﬀ -Street Trails Inventory

7 Completed Trail Proposed Trail Park/Open Space

City/County

Water

h 60th 60t 7 8 6

Fort Military 4 Ames 3

Maple

2 Blondo Abbott 1 Dodge Dodge 9 4

Paciﬁ c 7

d h h

13 13th

60t 60th

72nd

90th 90th

68t

120th 120th

156th 156th

144th 144th 1 168th 18 180th

204th 204th 132 132nd

192n 192nd

Center Center nd

42 42nd

5 1 9 L Street L Street

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Inventory and Needs Assessment

DRAFT44 exist in ample supply, it is considerably less expensive percent of the required vehicle parking amount with and space-intensive to add than vehicular parking. bicycle parking, either in the form of secured bicycle Examples of such a location include college campuses, lockers or anchored racks (Omaha Code Sec. 55-739). hospitals and parks, especially in urban environments. does not quantify appropriate amounts to be provided per a given intensity of land development. End-of-Trip Facilities Bicyclists need safe and convenient facilities for bicycle To this end, a signifi cant amount of available bicycle parking and storage as much as vehicles do. Perhaps parking in Omaha has been provided with public in recognition of relatively low demand for cycling, resources, often as a part of streetscape improvement however, the same zoning and land development projects. Private property owners and managers who regulations that typically establish vehicle parking have provided bicycle parking have done so typically on requirements as a function of the land uses being a case-by-case basis, either through individual negotia- developed seldom consider a need for bicycle parking. tions with the City of Omaha related to development Omaha’s zoning ordinance calls for adequate provisions approval or in response to customer or employee for bicycle circulation and parking in the City’s Mixed demand. Use (MU) district (Omaha Code Sec. 55-564) and the zoning ordinance’s regulations for off -site parking and loading allow a developer to substitute up to fi ve

Table 2.5.2 Major Oﬀ -Street Trail and Path Facilities in Omaha

Number Length Trail Name Major Destinations the Trail Serves (within one-half mile of trail) on Map (miles)

Westside Middle School and multiple elementary schools; Regency Park; 1 Big Papio Trail 10.4 Tranquility Park 2 Blondo Street 2.3 Joslyn Elementary School; Willow Wood Park, Lee Valley Park. Hanscom Park; Field Club and Jefferson Elementary Schools; University of 3Field Club 1.6Nebraska Medical Center, DC Health Center, VA Medical Center, Clarkson Hospital. Fontenelle Park/Creigh- Fontenelle Park; Omaha North Magnet High School; multiple elementary 4 2.4 ton Boulevard and middle schools; historic Omaha boulevard system. Keystone Trail (includes Methodist and Children’s Hospitals; Crossroads Mall; Elmwood Park, Ak- 5 25.3 length not in city) Sar-Ben Village; multiple public and private schools. Tranquility Park, Masters and Prairie Wind Elementary schools. Crosses 6 Military Road 2.4 I-680. Includes 3.2-mile proposed extension. Eppley Airfi eld, downtown Omaha, Heartland of America Park, downtown 7Riverfront 16.0 Florence. Trail is discontinuous through Carter Lake. Glenbrook Park; Omaha Northwest High School and multiple elementary 8Sorensen Parkway 3.0 and middle schools; Alegent Immanuel Medical Center. Skutt High School, Kiewit Middle School; Northwest Park, Zorinsky Lake 9 West Papio Trail 8.2 Park. Extension of nearly 10 miles proposed to the south. 144th Street (includes Millard North High School, Millard South High School, multiple elementary 10 12.9 length not in city) and middle schools; Standing Bear Lake Park; Oak View Mall Data Sources: City of Omaha GIS; Papio-Missouri Natural Resources District.

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Inventory and Needs Assessment

DRAFT45 2.6 Transit

Th e Transit Authority of Omaha, also known as Omaha on means of travel to work, is between one and two Metro Transit (and formerly Metropolitan Area Transit percent. Th e regional travel demand forecasting model or MAT), provides scheduled, fi xed-route bus and maintained by MAPA does not include a mode choice paratransit services within and immediately around the model that would synthesize transit ridership data, Omaha city limits, including routes across the Missouri rider surveys and transit service data to estimate how River to Council Bluff s, Iowa and contracted service many trips overall are made on transit. However, to Bellevue and Papillion in Sarpy County. Like many demographic data also taken from the Census suggests transit systems in mid-sized cities, it evolved from a that the rate of automobile ownership and use in legacy of private companies operating streetcar transit Omaha may be a constraint on household fi nances and in the fi rst half of the twentieth century and then bus that there may be demand for transit service beyond transit in later years. Metro itself was created as a what current ridership levels suggest. At a minimum, public agency in the 1970s. this distribution of income and automobile access throughout Omaha point to a greater need for transit Current Conditions as an alternative to vehicle ownership in more concen- In all, Metro’s system covers a total of 806 revenue trated areas of the city. miles of routes, of which approximately 500 miles of this service are unique (in other words, discounting Choice Ridership overlapped service of multiple routes on the same Choice ridership refers to transit riders who have an street). In general, overlapping of multiple routes option of another form of commuting, namely private on the same street is limited to major corridors such vehicle use, who opt to use transit over their available as Dodge Street, Maple Road and 72nd Street. Th is alternative. Typically, choice ridership is higher in accounts for nearly 30 percent of Omaha’s public streets communities where traffi c congestion, high parking having some form of transit service. costs and high vehicle ownership costs make driving for all trips undesirable or inconvenient. Time is an Service Characteristics important trade-off in many potential transit riders’ Th e Metro route system is similar in its function and decisions to use or not to use transit service, and this is confi guration to systems in other medium-sized urban indeed one of the contributing factors to the emphasis areas: it provides service primarily to and from the transit operators place on constantly striving to reduce Omaha city center, with higher frequencies along major travel times. corridors such as Dodge Street and the Northwest Radial Highway. Routes apart from these major Omaha’s high rates of vehicle use for travel, especially corridors tend to feature frequent turns and indirect travel to work, point to a low level of choice ridership. paths in order to expand the area within a short walking Th is can be explained in part by the trends toward distance of transit service and thus serve a larger decentralization and dispersal of employment population. Table 7.1 to the right highlights service throughout the Omaha metropolitan area in the last characteristics in the year 2009. decades of the 20th century. However, a key factor in the current levels of choice ridership is the frequency and perceived reliability of transit service. Th e maps Transit Dependency in Figures 8.2 through 8.5 show the diff erent levels As referenced in the fi rst table, the mode share for of transit service based on the time period service is transit in Omaha, as estimated from Census data provided. As expected, weekday peak hours are when

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Inventory and Needs Assessment

DRAFT46 Weekday Peak Service Weekday Oﬀ -Peak Service

Saturday Service Sunday/Holiday Service

both the highest frequencies of service on major routes number of choice transit riders but, without choice and the greatest geographic reach of the transit system riders, farebox collections cannot increase. Table 2.6.1 on the following page illustrates the overall trends in Funding Metro’s ridership and service performance over the Metro is funded primarily by local property taxes, past nearly forty years. Smoothing out these trends, with some assistance from Federal Transit Administra- while Metro’s budget has generally increased (or at least tion formula fund operating assistance. As in similar held steady when adjusted for inﬂ ation), it is serving transit systems, a small portion of operational costs are fewer riders on fewer revenue miles of service. Both of recovered by user fares, although in Metro’s case this these trends indicate an imperative to control costs by is approximately 16 percent, lower than the national reducing transit service, although the apparent result average for bus transit operations (which is 29 percent). of declining levels of ridership also has implications for system revenue—and thus overall budgets. Th is presents a circular, self-reinforcing challenge for Metro, as the current levels of funding do not allow Perhaps Metro’s greatest need is to identify an the system to oﬀ er levels of service to attract a greater independent and dedicated funding source to help it

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Inventory and Needs Assessment

DRAFT47 establish greater ﬂ exibility in planning its operations and capital expansions, but also to allow it to provide increased levels of service in order to appeal more broadly to the Omaha community.

Table 2.6.1 Historical Omaha Transit Performance Data

Passen- Annual % Annual % Annual % Revenue Year Passengers gers Per Change In Change In Budget Change In Miles Mile Passengers Miles Budget 1972 3,764,362 3,749,000 1.004 $1,647,538 1973 7,624,888 3,995,000 1.909 $3,909,708 1974 8,013,271 4,373,000 1.832 5.09% 9.46% $4,588,800 17.37% 1975 7,833,000 4,598,000 1.704 -2.25% 5.15% $5,459,700 18.98% 1976 7,432,852 4,793,000 1.551 -5.11% 4.24% $6,918,600 26.72% 1977 7,626,624 5,004,000 1.524 2.61% 4.40% $7,421,135 7.26% 1978 7,780,048 5,130,000 1.517 2.01% 2.52% $8,567,000 15.44% 1979 9,224,543 5,580,000 1.653 18.57% 8.77% $11,395,920 33.02% 1980 9,732,113 5,719,000 1.702 5.50% 2.49% $13,045,159 14.47% 1981 9,390,817 5,831,000 1.61 -3.51% 1.96% $14,669,000 12.45% 1982 8,612,922 5,597,000 1.539 -8.28% -4.01% $15,467,426 5.44% 1983 8,615,267 5,307,000 1.623 0.03% -5.18% $15,809,659 2.21% 1984 8,764,201 5,042,000 1.738 1.73% -4.99% $14,016,725 -11.34% 1985 7,285,000 4,483,000 1.625 -16.88% -11.09% $14,117,103 0.72% 1986 5,770,741 4,598,000 1.255 -20.79% 2.57% $13,266,151 -6.03% 1987 5,209,000 4,563,000 1.142 -9.73% -0.76% $13,315,911 0.38% 1988 5,111,997 4,475,000 1.142 -1.86% -1.93% $13,260,245 -0.42% 1989 4,787,946 4,466,000 1.072 -6.34% -0.20% $12,842,542 -3.15% 1990 4,826,784 4,536,000 1.064 0.81% 1.57% $13,318,923 3.71% 1991 4,098,497 4,412,000 0.929 -15.09% -2.73% $13,903,139 4.39% 1992 3,790,094 4,323,000 0.877 -7.52% -2.02% $14,445,800 3.90% 1993 3,663,770 4,327,000 0.847 -3.33% 0.09% $13,872,514 -3.97% 1994 3,553,489 4,331,000 0.82 -3.01% 0.09% $14,131,409 1.87% 1995 3,438,854 4,202,009 0.818 -3.23% -2.98% $14,014,426 -0.83% 1996 3,412,150 4,078,398 0.837 -0.78% -2.94% $13,927,800 -0.62% 1997 3,422,732 4,000,000 0.856 0.31% -1.92% $14,313,217 2.77% 1998 3,378,434 3,906,168 0.865 -1.29% -2.35% $14,990,481 4.73% 1999 3,178,281 3,848,566 0.826 -5.92% -1.47% $14,227,629 -5.09% 2000 3,238,501 4,022,617 0.805 1.89% 4.52% $14,909,614 4.79% 2001 3,271,825 3,960,218 0.826 1.03% -1.55% $15,422,435 3.44% 2002 3,456,841 3,972,072 0.87 5.65% 0.30% $17,528,107 13.65% 2003 3,253,923 3,972,072 0.819 -5.87% 0.00% $17,792,010 1.51% 2004 3,209,260 3,955,819 0.811 -1.37% -0.41% $17,691,052 -0.57% 2005 3,307,577 3,803,660 0.87 3.06% -3.85% $18,989,489 7.34% Data Source: Omaha Metro Transit.

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Inventory and Needs Assessment

DRAFT48 2.7 Truck Routes and Freight

Omaha has a truck route system that encompasses is serving areas of the city that may be developing land its expressway system as well as major arterial streets uses not readily suitable to truck traffi c and implies a throughout the city. Many of these surface street truck need for further attention to how truck movements routes coincide with the NDOR system roads that pass are accommodated with respect to pedestrians and through the city; non-state roads that are part of the transit vehicles. While truck routes are important to truck route system are mostly those providing direct commercial areas because of the prominence of trucks access to the expressway system (in other words, these in freight distribution, attention must be given to the are roads with interchange access to the expressways). specifi c patterns of land form that are desired in areas In all, the truck route network in the City consists planned for non-industrial use and how truck-oriented of 228 centerline-miles of surface street routes; all roadways respond to them. 43 centerline-miles of the expressway system are Th is applies in particular to the instances of truck also included. Th is includes both state- and locally- routes passing through primarily residential areas of the controlled streets and highways; NDOR roads make city. up nearly half of the centerline-miles of the system. Of the total length of surface-street routes, only 80 miles of Truck Routes and Traffi c Congestion the system are within areas of industrial land use. Th is Th e table to the right presents an inventory of the suggests that nearly two-thirds of the truck route system major truck corridors in Omaha with information

Map 2.7.1 Truck Routes and Industrial Land Uses

Bridge in State of Good Repair Structurally Deﬁ cient Bridge

City/County

Water

60th 60th

Fort Military Ames

Maple Blondo

Dodge Dodge

Paciﬁ c

d h h

60th 60th

72 72nd

90th 90th

68t

120th 120th

156th 156th

144th 144th 1 168th 18 180th

204th 204th 132 132nd

192n 192nd

Center Center nd

42 42nd

L Street L Street

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Inventory and Needs Assessment

DRAFT49 about their operational characteristics as estimated by levels of congestion. Places where congestion does the MAPA regional travel demand forecasting model. occur are mostly limited to major expressway access Most of the city’s truck route corridors enjoy relatively approaches and areas of pre commercial land use. free-ﬂ ow traﬃ c movement and do not experience high

2.8 Railroads

As discussed previously in this report, Omaha’s history and development are inextricably tied to railroads. Today city’s principal railroad corridor lies south of Although the Transcontinental Railroad being downtown and is oriented east to west. Th is corridor, constructed in the mid-19th century was originally parallel to Interstate 80, crosses the Missouri River near designated with an eastern terminus in Council Bluﬀ s, the alignment of Leavenworth Street. Th is remains an Iowa, decisions by railroad developers led to the railroad active freight corridor and serves a major concentration terminating in Omaha. Th is laid the foundation for the of industrial land uses. city to become a major railroad transfer point, which in turn facilitated the city’s development as a major Omaha has also been involved in plans for a high-speed agricultural distribution center. Th e development of rail corridor connecting the city to Chicago. Although the Omaha stockyards in the 1880s eventually brought this is not part of the federal high speed rail pilot every major freight railroad company to Omaha. Its projects receiving federal construction funding in the two major passenger rail stations, Union Station and late 2000s, it has been studied at a planning level, Burlington Station, served a combined total of eight including environmental studies and feasibility analyses railway companies. of several possible routes.

Th e dual rise of trucking as a means of freight distri- Assessing Community Impacts of bution and aviation and automobiles for passenger Railroads travel lessened the importance of Omaha’s railroads. In any community with an extensive railroad network, Both of Omaha’s grand passenger stations closed in surface street crossings of the railroads are an important the 1970s after the consolidation and nationalization safety concern for vehicles, pedestrians and the trains of passenger rail services as Amtrak, and extensive using the railroad. Omaha’s long-established status as sections of freight rail corridors were abandoned a freight rail hub has undoubtedly led to the grade- throughout the twentieth century. Although multiple separation of many street-rail crossings over time, freight and passenger lines once served the city, today although many at-grade crossings remain. Figure 10.1 the Burlington Northern-Santa Fe and Union Pacifi c illustrates the location of these; most lie in areas of railroads are the city’s two remaining freight operators. industrial land use. Omaha is served by the Amtrak national passenger rail system’s California Zephyr service connecting Chicago In considering transportation needs for the city, it is and the San Francisco Bay area at its station on Pacifi c important to evaluate the location of grade railroad Street (adjacent to the historic Burlington Station crossings in the context of community characteristics. rail terminal). Amtrak accommodated over 43,000 Th ese suggest that grade separations have occurred boardings and alightings at this station in 2009, making primarily in areas where the impact of the crossing Omaha the busiest station in Nebraska. (especially on vehicle traffi c operations on public

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Inventory and Needs Assessment

DRAFT50 streets) is given greater political and economic weight. Th e areas of Omaha where grade crossings remain likely do not have the same political or economic inﬂ uence. Although the crossings themselves are located primarily in industrial areas, it is nonetheless important that communities reliant on street links that pass through these areas have safe crossings that allow reasonably reliable passage on streets and do not block vehicular traﬃ c for long periods of time during freight rail movements.

Map 2.8.1 Railroads and Industrial Land Uses

Bridge in State of Good Repair Structurally Deﬁ cient Bridge

City/County

Water

60t 60th

Fort Military Ames

Maple Blondo

Dodge Dodge

Paciﬁ c

d h h

60t 60th

72 72nd

90th 90th

68t

120th 120th

156th 156th

144th 144th 1 168th 18 180th

204th 204th 132 132nd

192n 192nd Center Center

L Street

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Inventory and Needs Assessment

DRAFT51 2.9 Aviation

Omaha enjoys a solid, reliable level of aviation service, vehicles. Th e Omaha area’s other airports are also with one airport for scheduled commercial aviation generally well-served by the roadway network, although and three additional airports in the Omaha region for not with the same directness of connection to the general aviation services. Eppley Airfi eld, Omaha’s expressway system that Eppley Airfi eld enjoys. primary airport (IATA and FAA identifi er OMA, ICAO code KOMA), is the largest and busiest in the state of However, other means of transportation access to the Nebraska in terms of operations, passenger movements airports, especially Eppley, are limited. Metro only and mail and cargo tonnage handled. Eppley Airfi eld provides one route to the airport from downtown, Route provides direct scheduled connections to approximately 16, and this operates on half-hour frequencies in peak 20 US cities through 20 airlines; in 2009, the most periods only, with no mid-day service and last service recent year for which information is available, the terminating at 6:10 PM. Although the close proximity airport served over 4.2 million passengers. It handled to downtown may make taxi or rental car options over 102 million pounds of cargo and over 54 million convenient and desirable for Omaha visitors, workers at pounds of mail. the airport may benefi t from improved transit service.

Ground Access to Eppley Field Additionally, the airport’s short distance from Although Eppley Airfi eld is not directly served downtown (under 4 miles along Abbott Drive and by Omaha’s expressway system, it is connected to other downtown roadways) suggests that shuttle service downtown Omaha by Abbott Drive, a four-lane arterial along this corridor may be a benefi t to passengers roadway. To the north, Abbott ties into the eastern wishing to reach downtown Omaha. Th is service does end of the Arthur C. Storz Expressway, a limited-access not need to be operated by Metro, but if operated more roadway connecting to the northern end of the US 75 frequently with smaller vehicles, it may help to satisfy expressway. Th e proximity of the airport to downtown, a general transit need to the airport and would allow the relative lack of development to generate local traffi c Metro to focus North Omaha service on more direct and corresponding lack of traffi c control, and the ample routes from downtown. capacity of Abbott Drive make downtown connections from the airport relatively fast and convenient for Th e fi gure on the following page shows the three Nebraska airports serving the Omaha metropolitan area.

Table 2.9.1 General Aviation Statistics for Omaha-Area Airports Eppley Airfi eld North Omaha Millard Airport Council Bluffs (OMA) Airport (3NO) (MLE) Airport (CBF) Annual Aircraft Operations 111,155 (2009) 14,250 (2008) 72,300 (2005) 38,700 (2008) (Year) Aircraft Based at Airport 122 50 173 75 Distance from Omaha CBD 3 miles NE 7 miles NW 11 miles SW 6 miles E (in direct distance) Highway G-60 72nd St, Major Access Roadways Abbott Drive S 132nd Street (McPherson McKinley St Avenue) Data Sources: Omaha Airport Authority; FAA Airport Master Records; MAPA Traffi c Counts; MAPA GIS.

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Inventory and Needs Assessment

DRAFT52 Omaha’s Airports Each of Omaha’s airports has convenient access to major highways Eppley Airfi eld (OMA) in the regional roadway system, with both general aviation ariports Scheduled Commercial and General Aviation (Millard and North Omaha) close to the Interstate highway system. Eppley Airfield, Omaha’s principal airport and the only provider of scheduled passenger and freight aviation, is connected to downtown Omaha by Abbott Drive.

North Omaha Airport (3NO) General Aviation

Millard Airport (MLE) General Aviation

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Inventory and Needs Assessment

DRAFT53 Section 3

TRANSPORTATIONTRANSPORORTATIONTTION ELEMELEMENTENT

Th e Transportation Element was developed through By the end of the process, seven public meetings as a year-long planning process that featured extensive well as numerous meetings with stakeholders, partner public involvement in an eff ort to make this agencies, and community groups had occurred, giving component of the Omaha Master Plan one that had a the project team a broad understanding of the Omaha solid base in refl ecting community intent. community’s needs, desires and challenges. Th is chapter of the Transportation Element details how Th e City of Omaha began the Transportation the plan process involved these various community Element eff ort with a commitment that this plan members. would be community driven and technically sound. Omaha adopted a philosophy that lasting transporta- Th e public engagement process was organized around tion solutions for the city will emerge when people four primary events: a November 2010 visioning throughout the community are brought together in a meeting, two open-house design workshops held in spirit of cooperation. In order to assure that this would March 2011, and a prioritization presentation and be the community’s plan, great eff orts were made to discussion in September 2011. Th roughout that meet with, work with and communicate with as many time, though, stakeholders and members of the public citizens as possible in as many ways as possible. Th ese interacted with the Transportation Element’s planning eff orts have attracted and actively involved residents, team to share insight, feedback and discussion of employees, and local business interests from around the critical issues. city.

Th is section describes the public outreach eﬀ orts undertaken in developing the Transportation Element and summarizes the information and feedback that each committee, stakeholder group and individual participant provided to the Transportation Element planning team. 3.1 Structure of Public Engagement Activities

Th e Transportation Master Plan process was designed to be open and inclusive, engaging the people of Omaha through a variety of formats and activities.

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Summary of Outreach and Involvement Activities

DRAFT54 November 2010 Visioning Exercise 3.2 Key Stakeholder Th e plan process was formally inaugurated with the Groups community in November 2010, where Mayor Jim Suttle and Omaha Department of Planning Director Although the Transportation Element was formed Rick Cunningham introduced the planning team to primarily by a core planning team composed of City of the public and outlined their aspirations for what the Omaha staff and their consultants, it relied on valuable plan could provide for the community. Th e leaders input from community stakeholders representing both of the planning team presented their approach to special interests and professional backgrounds. Th ese transportation and how the Transportation Element of groups are described in additional detail here in the the Omaha Master Plan could be developed to support following subsections. Environment Omaha, Omaha by Design and other citywide planning eff orts seeking to improve the city’s Bicycle-Pedestrian Advisory quality of life. Committee March 2011 Design Workshops Th e Bicycle-Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) is a relatively new organization in the City and has been In two separate weeks in March 2011, the planning formed along with Omaha’s recent establishment of a team conducted week-long working sessions intended staff position for coordinating bicycle and pedestrian to allow stakeholders and the general public an projects and activities. During the Transportation opportunity to observe and weigh in on the plan Master Plan eff orts, the committee included representa- development process through participating in a tion from local design and engineering consulting fi rms, design workshop. Planning team members worked the Omaha Police Department, the bicycle merchants’ on drawing, mapping and defi ning project concepts; community, the Metropolitan Area Planning Agency, met with stakeholders and individual citizens; and and even neighboring municipalities. undertook site visits. Each of the two weeks featured a Monday evening kickoff meeting and a Th ursday Th e Transportation planning team coordinated with evening wrap-up, where work from the preceding three the BPAC at the committee’s regular monthly meetings days was showcased to meeting attendees. over the course of the Transportation Master Plan process, discussing critical bicycle needs, potential route September 2011 Prioritization alternatives, and the perceived levels of cyclist comfort Meeting on diff erent types of bicycle facilities. Intended as a ‘fi rst glance’ at early plan recommendations, the planning team held a project prioritization Design and Engineering Advisory results work session in September 2011 in which the Committee fi rst-draft results of the project evaluation process were Th is committee was organized by City of Omaha presented to stakeholders and the public. Th is allowed staff with the purpose of allowing local transporta- a public response to the early conclusions of the plan tion engineers and other professionals associated with and gave the project team valuable feedback to refi ne roadway and street design to have a more organized and adjust its evaluation criteria. form of involvement in the Transportation Element’s planning process.

Th e committee engaged in three meetings with the Transportation Element planning team throughout

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Summary of Outreach and Involvement Activities

DRAFT55 the plan’s development process to off er feedback on core infrastructure and need to focus the public fi nance the initial recommendations for plan philosophy, resources off ered by SIDs on other supporting capital. on a fi rst-draft prioritized project list, and on the growth management/development framework that the Other stakeholder representatives planning team proposed as a larger context in which the In addition to these groups, focused stakeholder Transportation Element should be implemented. meetings with representatives of other organizations occurrent throughout the public outreach process, Development Advisory Committee especially in concert with the March 2011 multiday Developers from the Omaha community met with the workshops. Th ese organizations included the Transportation Master Plan team to discuss the climate University of Nebraska Medical Center, the University for development in Omaha current at the time of the of Nebraska at Omaha, Metropolitan Community plan’s development and to off er insight on the City’s College, Omaha Public Schools, and the Omaha and Douglas County’s use of Special Improvement Chamber of Commerce. Districts (SID) to fi nance new infrastructure for land development. Many of these meetings discussed capital improvement needs and plans for these agencies, especially universi- Th is committee gave the project team valuable insight ties and hospitals, and explored specifi c transportation into the mechanisms of SIDs and the special dynamics project ideas that could help these agencies to better involved in their creation and ongoing management. respond to future needs. It helped the team to understand the relative lack of a legal or policy instrument to encourage development in more established parts of Omaha that already feature

3.3 Development of Community Goals to Guide the Plan

It was the original intent of the City and the planning Th e Stakeholder Committee discussion led to the team that it formed to tie the Transportation Master refi nement of these ideas and consolidating them into Plan to other planning initiatives, and more broadly, four separate goals, listed as follows. to tie it to a wider range of community indicators and concerns beyond just transportation and Provide balanced options for enhanced movement. To do this, the planning team identifi ed mobility. Th e mobility of a city and region involves the development of community goals as a key early step much more than moving vehicles on roadways—it to the plan. Th ey used the Stakeholder Committee to also involves walking, bicycling and public transit use, begin a discussion of what these goals should be, with a but more importantly it involves an organization of proposal of seven goals intended to drive plan projects transportation facilities that enable all of these uses and and recommendations toward fi scally responsible give users of the system more choice in matching a trip’s decision-making, promotion of public health and purpose and length to a mode of travel. improved environmental quality, preservation and enhancement of neighborhoods, and partnership with Attain a safe and healthy environment. economic development eff orts. Omaha’s citizens and visitors should feel comfortable in their environment. Th is goal related as much to

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Summary of Outreach and Involvement Activities

DRAFT56 citizen concerns over air and water quality as it did for the transportation system to provide opportunities for recreation and more active living.

Create livable and connected neighborhoods. Neighborhoods are the lifeblood of a city, and they should accommodate basic civic and recreational uses. However, not all neighborhoods will have a variety of these services self-contained, which makes connectivity to other neighborhoods and parts of Omaha essential.

Promote economic returns with fiscal sustainability. Investment decisions made today aﬀ ect Omaha’s future abilities to aﬀ ord new investment, both in terms of the obligations they establish and in terms of the economic returns on these investments. 3.4 March 2011 Public Outreach Activities

Th e centerpiece activities of the public involvement Master Plan up to that point. Tuesday, Wednesday process were two week-long workshops in March 2011. and Th ursday of each week featured intervals of time Th ese were focused on generating ideas and producing where members of the public were welcome to visit conceptual plans and drawings for transportation and the workshop, discuss emerging plan ideas with the land development projects, but they featured multiple planning team, and share desires, insight and concerns. opportunities for citizens and stakeholders to share Each Th ursday evening featured another meeting, input with the planning team. where wrap-up presentation for the week’s activities showcased the concept plans developed as well as new Both of these workshops were organized around an analysis and public input applied. open-house format where an open, public meeting on Monday evening inaugurated the workshop activities Each workshop was based on a general area of the and discussed progress made on the Transportation City of Omaha and its immediate surrounding areas.

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Summary of Outreach and Involvement Activities

DRAFT57 Th e workshop during the week of March 7-11, 2011 focused on Omaha west of Interstate 680, and the workshop the week of March 21-25, 2011 was based on the area inside of I-680.

Th e following project and policy ideas were developed during these workshops and came speciﬁ cally from public and stakeholder input:

• A new neighborhood concept for the Miracle Hills area, looking forward into the future to explore a possible redevelopment of the Miracle Hills golf course should its owners wish to seek a diﬀ erent use for the land. • A policy and series of street improvement projects to restore parts of Omaha’s historic boulevard system • Th e two-way conversion of Turner Boulevard between Dodge and Farnam Streets.

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Summary of Outreach and Involvement Activities

DRAFT58 3.5 Previous Planning Eﬀ orts

Because the previous plans and studies consulted in developing project candidates all featured their own public involvement eﬀ orts, the planning team creating the Transportation Element relied on these plans and their recommendations as valuable contextual information. Th e Transportation Element does not supersede these plans per se, but rather organizes their recommendations into a common framework throughout the entire City of Omaha.

• Downtown and Midtown Master Plans. Both of these plans recommended numerous projects oriented to improving quality of life in these districts of Omaha. • North and South Omaha Development Plans. Th ese plans were driven largely by economic development-related concerns and as such identifi ed street- and transportation-related projects that enhanced the public realm and made their neighborhoods and commercial districts more attractive for private development. However, the demographic profi les of these parts of Omaha suggest that they may also be well served by better walking, bicycling and transit options, as they generally have a greater number of households without cars than other parts of the city. • Benson-Ames Master Plan • Omaha’s history. While not captured entirely in a single planning eff ort, the historical growth patterns, economic trends and demographic evolution of the City of Omaha are a vital context in which to consider future project recommendations. Examples of this include the potential for street connections across former (and now disused) railroad corridors that separate neighborhoods, intersection improvements to correct off set intersections resulting from streets not aligned between diff erent historic subdivisions, and use of streets originally graded and built for streetcars for bicycle routes.

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Summary of Outreach and Involvement Activities

DRAFT59 Section 4

TRANSPORTATIONTRANSPORORTATIONTTION ELEMELEMENTENT

One of the primary reasons for creating a transporta- Project Codes and Nomenclature tion plan is to identify speciﬁ c capital projects that Th roughout this section, candidate projects—whether enhance the overall transportation system in a way developed directly at one of the Transportation that allows Omaha to achieve its goals for the future. Element’s open workshops or taken from a previous As the Transportation Element was being developed, plan or study—were assigned a working project code its planning team began with an inventory of project that grouped them into one of several major categories. recommendations from previous plans and studies, Th e numbers given to each project in conjunction with including the City of Omaha’s Capital Improve- their code were assigned simply in the order in which ments Program, MAPA’s Transportation Improvement they were entered onto a candidate list; these numbers Program and Long-Range Transportation Plan, the do not indicate ranking or an order of preference. Downtown Omaha Master Plan and the Destination Likewise, when projects were removed from consid- Midtown plan. Each of these individual eﬀ orts eration early in the process (such as projects from envisions and recommends capital projects for Omaha, previous plans that were fully completed while the but these recommendations have not been thoroughly Transportation Element planning work was ongoing), consolidated into a single master plan that assigns the number was dropped from the list and subsequent citywide priorities for future implementation. renumbering of later projects did not happen.

In addition, the Transportation Element was an Th e following list of project classes by two-letter code opportunity to identify projects that had not yet been is referred to throughout this and the subsequent two identifi ed or recommended, responding to transporta- sections of this Transportation Element report. tion needs beyond those addressed in previous studies. Th ese were developed mostly through interaction with B: Bicycle Route Projects, either on-street stakeholders and the Omaha public during the March bicycle lanes or shared streets/bicycle boulevards. Th ese 2011 workshops and with ongoing interaction with projects are strictly on-street. City of Omaha staff . BG: Bridge projects. Th ese included pedestrian Th e candidate projects that resulted from the Transpor- bridges as well as roadway bridges. Rail bridges were tation Element’s planning process are described here. not evaluated as they are typically owned, constructed Th ey are organized by their thematic focus, based on and maintained privately. the major component of the Omaha transportation system that they address. CS: Cross-Section modification. Most commonly road diets, these projects also included wide lane restripings and modifi cation of lane widths.

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Developing New Project Ideas

DRAFT60 IN: Intersection Projects. Th ese included oriented to improved sidewalks and pedestrian vehicle-based safety, operational and capacity projects, conditions. but also pedestrian-based crossing improvements. PC: Pedestrian Crossing: Th ese site-speciﬁ c MP: Multi-Use Path. Th ese were strictly oﬀ -street projects refer to pedestrian crossing improvements not projects for bicycles and pedestrians. necessarily associated with a larger intersection project, such as mid-block crossings. NS-PUB: Publicly-led new street projects. Th ese are mostly associated with development projects, RC: Roadway Capacity projects. Th ese are though some are extensions of current arterial roadways conventional roadway projects for vehicle-carrying and others are new street connections with a public capacity, most commonly roadway widenings to add purpose. travel lanes.

OW: One-Way to Two-Way Conversions. SG: Traffic Signal Addition/Modification.

P: Pedestrian Corridor projects. Th ese TR: Transit Guideway Projects. Th ese typically consisted of streetscape projects, though projects involved some level of capital investment and they also included projects from neighborhood plans do not refer strictly to transit operations recommendations.

4.1 Roadway Capacity Projects

Although Omaha has expressed a desire to diversify its relying on the section-line arterial system as primary transportation system and improve modal options, the regional access. Th e City of Omaha has responded to primary means of transportation in and around the these patterns of development by continuing to focus city remains by private vehicle. For this reason, many capacity improvement on this arterial system when capacity projects called for in the regional long-range existing roadway capacities are exhausted. transportation plan and programmed in MAPA’s Transportation Improvement Program and the City To be sure, these capacity projects will continue to of Omaha’s Capital Improvement Program constitute be important. Th e Land Use Element of the Omaha important additions to the Omaha transportation Master Plan calls for increased intensity around key system. development nodes, but owing to Omaha’s geographic size there will continue to be a need for vehicle Roadway capacity projects have typically been focused movement to diﬀ erent parts of the city. However, on arterial roadways in Omaha’s western neighbor- these projects can be coordinated to respond to true hoods, the parts of the city that have experienced its transportation need, and the street design assumed for primary growth since the 1950s. Th ese arterials are each of these capacity projects can be shaped to take on formerly rural section-line roads and, in many parts of a broader set of street users. western Omaha, are the only continuous thoroughfares over longer distances. Indeed, development patterns Refer to the Master List of Candidate Projects have increasingly been based on development of an beginning on Page 80 for a list of all capacity project entire quarter-section or even an entire section at once, candidates considered.

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Developing New Project Ideas

DRAFT61 4.2 Reorganizing the Cross-Section: Road Diets, Restriping Projects and Lane Reconﬁ gurations

Just as roadway capacity needs have long been a major in the north and south of the city near the Missouri factor for the transportation system of western Omaha, River, and the city’s central neighborhoods feature a any roadways in Omaha east of Interstate 680 have rich pattern of land uses that combines parks, schools capacity beyond what current traffi c volumes suggest and other civic institutions with residential and retail that they need. Th ere are many reasons for this: surface uses, this suggesting a greater desire to walk and use streets were the sole means of vehicle travel prior to active transportation modes. the Interstate Highway system and the addition of expressways to Omaha, combined with a general Road Diets shift in population to the western edge of the city, One approach to cross-section reorganization is the contributed to a decline in traffi c volume on what were reduction of travel lanes from a cross-section and the once primary in-tow thoroughfares. use of this space for other purposes. Th is concept is popularly referred to as a ‘road diet’ and in its most A citywide planning eff ort is a remarkable opportunity common form involves the conversion of a four-lane, to review roads and streets meeting these characteristics undivided roadway cross-section to a three-lane and to explore how much capacity they currently need. section (with one travel lane per direction and a center two-way left turn lane). Th e road diet as a planning It is useful and highly benefi cial that most of these technique emerged in the 1990s in tandem with a candidates for cross-section reorganization are also in renewed interest in urban living and the consequent parts of Omaha with the greatest need for complete focus on making urban infrastructure more responsive streets: most of Omaha’s zero-car households are located to quality-of-life concerns. Th e phrase itself suggests the

Table 4.2.1 Successful Road Diet Examples

ADT ADT Location Street Before After Duluth, MN 21st Avenue East 17,000 17,000 Kirkland, WA Lake Washington Boulevard 23,000 25,900 Seattle, WA North 45th Street 19,400 20,300 Covington, WA State Road 516 29,900 32,800 Bellvue, WA Montana Street 18,500 18,500 East Lansing, MI Grand River Boulevard 23,000 23,000 Santa Monica, CA Main Street 20,000 18,000 Oakland, CA High Street 22,000 24,000 Orlando, FL Edgewater Drive 20,500 21,000 University Place, WA 67th Avenue 17,000 15,000 East Lansing, MI West Grand River Avenue 18,000 18,000 East Lansing, MI Abbott Road 15,000 21,000 Charlotte, NC East Boulevard 21,400 18,400

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Developing New Project Ideas

DRAFT62 Map 4.2.1 Candidate Roadways for Road Diets

4-lane to 3-lane diet candidate (ADT less than 25,000 vehicles per day) 6-lane to 5-lane diet candidate (ADT less than 3

35,000 vehicles per day) 60th City/County 60th Water

Fort MilitMilitary 5 ary Ames

Maple Blondo

Dodge 1 Dodge

h Paciﬁ c

156th 156th

192nd 192nd

18 180th

168th 168th nd

2nd 6 60th 60th

7 72nd

90t 90th

120th 120th

144th 144th

132 132nd Center 2 Center 4

L Street

Table 4.2.2 Key Road Diet Project Candidates Map Project Project Name Basic Description and Purpose Number Number Reduce to two-through-lanes in each direction and add 1 CS-002 Cuming St Road Diet streetscape amenities, from 30th St to Saddle Creek Rd Reduce to three lanes with on-street parking and a strong 2 CS-003 Center St Road Diet pedestrian character, from Hanscom Park to 32nd St Streetscape improvements, coverting to 3 lane section with one 3 CS-008 30th St (Main St) turn lane in the center and parallel parking, from Craig Ave to Interstate 680 4-lane to 3-lane road diet, add bike lanes, from L St to Leavenworth 4 CS-010 24th St St 4-lane to 3-lane road diet, includidng on-street bike lanes, from 5 CS-020 60th St Sorenson Pkwy to NW Radial Hwy 4 to 3 lane road diet, with bike lanes. May include 2-lane typical 6 CS-022 Leavenworth St sections in certain areas, from 10th St to 39th St

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Developing New Project Ideas

DRAFT63 idea that some roads carry more ‘weight,’ or vehicular three-lane sections. Th is is primarily due to the advent capacity, than they need to be functional and healthy. of the two-way left turn lane and its ability to preserve Th e practice of road diets has followed a course of fl ow in the two travel lanes. Four-lane undivided improving vehicular safety and converting unnecessary sections are prone to erratic movements when a vehicle space in a fi xed right-of-way to space serving left-turning vehicle must wait in the inner lane, thus other users of the street, such as parking vehicles, blocking that lane’s throughput while the motorists bicyclists, and pedestrians. waits for a gap in oncoming traffi c to turn, and drivers behind this fi rst motorist rapidly shift into the outer Th is change in thinking is rooted in an objective to turn lane to continue through. Two-way left turn provide high-quality, livable urban environments, lanes manage this expectation for through movement, yet there is more benefi t to road diets, even from a clearly separating through movements from turning vehicular perspective. Road and street context are movements. critical factors in making design decisions, not simply because they defi ne the design constraints, but also Th ey also provide a clear safety benefi t: not only from because they defi ne motorist expectations. In urban the reduced tendency for waiting motorists to ‘jump’ in areas, motorists have diff erent expectations than in front of moving vehicles in an adjacent through lane, suburban or rural areas. Because of a network of blocks but also in that they allow turning motorists to see all and streets with greater development densities, they oncoming traffi c. Four lane sections often preclude understand that there is a need for more frequent turns, turning motorists from clearly seeing both oncoming that vehicles parking on streets may momentarily slow travel lanes, especially when they are attempting to see traffi c, and that there is likely to be more traffi c in behind other queued turning vehicles in the oncoming general. In suburban and rural areas, by contrast, lower direction. densities and greater intersection spacing suggest to motorists that there are fewer impediments to freedom Wide Outer Lanes of traffi c movement; as a result, these motorists are Many streets in Omaha originally constructed for likely to tolerate less congestion and streetcars feature wide outer lanes that, even with delay. on-street parking against the curb, still provide more space than is needed for regular vehicle travel. Th ese With such an understanding in mind, the design of provide an opportunity to add to the City’s bicycle the street cross-section does not need to be focused on network with a simple addition of lane striping to maximizing vehicular capacity if there is not the needed designate bicycle space, vehicle travel lane, and parking. traffi c volume to be accommodated. In fact, road diets present multiple functional benefi ts when they KEY PROJECT EXAMPLES: tailor a street’s capacity to its need, as presented in the following sections. As illustrated in the diagrams to the • BG-: Lee Valley Trail Tunnel. Th is right, road diets seek to convert the space freed from project would construct a tunnel under the the removal of one travel lane for other street functions I-680 embankment to allow a bicycle/pedestrian that can benefi t quality of life, such as on-street bicycle off -street path to connect the two sides of the lanes and on-street parking. Th e example shown expressway. It ties into a short trail segment here demonstrates such an arrangement, reducing through Lee Valley Park (Project MP-018, pre-existing lane widths to fi t both on-street bicycle connecting to 108th Street) and into the lanes and parking. Studies suggest that there is proposed Nicholas/Western Corridor (Project actually an increase in roadway capacity, under certain B-045). conditions, when four-lane sections are converted to

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Developing New Project Ideas

DRAFT64 • B-: Woolworth Bicycle Boulevard. of these one-way streets move the bulk of their traffi c Th is crosses I-480 and provides access to in one peak hour or the other, but not both. On such Hanscom Park. streets, the limitation of business exposure to passing motorists is especially limiting to business potential. One-Way to Two-Way Conversions Where road diets are an approach to reconfi guring From the perspective of safety, there are other reasons space in the street in cases of excess vehicle capacity, that these conversions are desirable. Th ey help to match converting vehicular fl ow of one-way streets to two-way speeds to those appropriate for urban areas. One-way operations is another method of designing streets streets tend to carry traffi c at higher speeds, largely to be more livable. In the past, streets were typically because they facilitate coordination of traffi c signals to designed for two-way fl ow and converted to one-way allow continuous fl ow and because motorists do not to increase effi ciency of movement. Th is came from a face oncoming traffi c. perceived need to move motorists quickly in and out of downtowns, giving centers of employment and business KEY PROJECTS: easy access to growing urban areas where automobiles were an increasingly dominant mode of transport. • OW-: Turner Boulevard. Th is And while it is true that a pair of one-way streets does converts Turner Boulevard to two-way traffi c have a slightly greater vehicle=moving capacity than from Harney to Dodge Streets, easing traffi c two-way streets, this approach is based on maximizing circulation on the east side of the Midtown capacity when it is needed most: the peak travel Crossing area. It also allows a proposed bicycle periods. For the remainder of the day, when the need connection to 33rd Street north of Dodge to to move large traffi c volumes is not as urgent, one-way take advantage of Turner’s off -street sidepath streets continue with one-way fl ow and only allow one through the Field Club neighborhood south of direction of visibility, as illustrated in the diagrams to Harney. • OW-: th and th Streets. the right. Th is extends from Paul Street to just north of I-480, returning streets to two-way traffi c in an Th ere are several reasons why one-way streets area north of downtown with redevelopment compromise livability of urban street systems (and thus potential. the urban environments in which they are located). Th e fi rst of these is how they alter the existing street network to make it less intuitive to visitors. One-way systems often prohibit a visitor from following the most Shared-Use Vehicle-Bicycle Streets direct or simple path to reach a destination, instead Although striped bicycle lanes are the most visible requiring a series of turns and additional distance that and easily understood way of providing for on-street adds time and delay to a trip. cycling, there are many cases where existing curb-to- curb dimensions do not allow bicycle lanes and Studies have also shown that one-way streets are less standard vehicle lanes to be fi t. In these cases, the conducive to successful business corridors, largely diff erent trade-off s to allow bicycle lanes to be fi t are because they limit visibility to a single direction and at often not politically feasible. a given time of day off er less exposure to businesses. Since one of the primary reasons that (historically Omaha is at a juncture where cycling is emerging as two-way) streets were converted to one-way operations a commuting option and the understanding of the was the need to gain additional traffi c capacity, many benefi t in providing bicycle routes and facilities is

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Developing New Project Ideas

DRAFT65 only now taking shape. While Omaha should begin planning for a more expansive bicycle system (and has done with this Transportation Element), it must also be understood that general community support for cycling is not great enough to easily allow certain trade-oﬀ s, especially as they would involve a loss of convenience to motorists (such as the reduction of vehicle capacity or the elimination of on-street parking in older neighborhoods).

As a result, many bicycle route projects proposed for Omaha during the design workshops and in previous discussions were envisioned only to be streets that have signed bicycle routes and sharrow markings and that would not have marked bicycle lanes.

Th ese projects are generally designed with bicycles in mind, but they are one of a variety of design options to enhance Omaha’s bicycle and pedestrian network. Refer to Section 4.3 for a more extensive discussion of a uniﬁ ed bicycle-pedestrian system for Omaha.

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Developing New Project Ideas

DRAFT66 4.3 Expanding the Bicycle and Pedestrian Reach

Omaha has conventionally approached the addition of Th e projects in BikeOmaha not already implemented bicycle facilities on an opportunity basis and has not have been retained as recommendations for this typically integrated vision-based master plans for its Transportation Element and, where feasible routes were bicycle network with the larger transportation planning identifi ed, they have been augmented and extended. process. Th e Bike Omaha system of pilot projects for bicycle routes is a formal eff ort that has been accepted Harney Bikeway System by the City of Omaha, but none of its route recommen- Downtown Omaha has seen an extensive addition of dations have been planned or programmed in a City bicycle lanes on its streets in recent years. However, capital improvements plan or in MAPA’s long-range these bicycle lanes are mostly on one-way streets and do transportation plan or transportation improvement not always feature a reciprocal route system where one program. direction of travel is mirrored on an adjacent one-way street. Th is is complicated by changes from one-way to Th is plan took a revised approach to the addition of two-way travel on some streets. bicycle facilities, focusing instead on committing in the long-run to a core system of routes off ering clear Th e Transportation Element planning team identifi ed and consistent connectivity over long distances. A an opportunity to repurpose excess vehicle capacity on secondary system an east-west downtown street to be used as a two-way bicycle path (or ‘bicycle track,’ per emerging parlance) On-Street and Off -Street Facilities separated from vehicle travel lanes by a raised, planted Together median. Th e team selected Harney Street as the leading Omaha’s cycling community already makes use of an candidate for this conversion due to its relationship of extensive system of off -street trails to complement the traffi c volume and roadway capacity and its proximity bicycle network provided on its streets. Th e nearly to the Old Market shopping and entertainment district. 200 miles of completed off -street trails far surpass Th e team proposed this idea not only for its transpor- the current combined length of on-street facilities in tation benefi ts, but also for economic development place today and, even with expansions of the on-street reasons. Such a project would not only greatly enhance network, the off -street trails will remain a critical layer the visibility of cyclists in downtown, it would appeal to of infrastructure to support non-motorized travel. a diff erent type of cyclist, including Omaha visitors.

Carrying Forward the BikeOmaha Network Th e spine of the system is Harney Street itself, Th e BikeOmaha Pilot Projects developed previously principally the extent between 10th Street and 24th have served as a framework for an on-street system that Street. Th is is where Harney is currently at its widest focuses on Omaha inside the I-680 expressway loop and has generally the least traﬃ c. However, branches and that connects multiple neighborhood commercial of the same type of cycle track design are proposed to centers, schools, parks and the primary activity centers be applied to other downtown streets, creating a small of downtown and midtown Omaha. Th e projects network connecting the Omaha Convention Center, selected for BikeOmaha were intended as pilot projects for a larger citywide system and were chosen Text continues on Page 70. Refer to the series of diagrams on to demonstrate the use of inherently bicycle-friendly the following pages for a more detailed description of the Harney streets to designate a formal route system. Bikeway system.

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Developing New Project Ideas

DRAFT67 The Harney Street Bikeway System Concept

Harney Street in downtown Omaha is a four-lane one-way street typically carrying under 8,000 vehicles per day. Th e Transportation Element’s planning team saw this as an opportunity to use space for a premium bicycle corridor that would allow two-way travel. As the concept evolved, it encompassed other short branches connecting major downtown destinations, eventually reaching as far west as the University of Nebraska Medical Center campus and connecting this via bicycle with downtown Omaha and the Old Market.

At left, Harney Street looking east from 24th Street today; below, the proposed vision for Harney’s bikeway project. As is visible in the picture of current conditions, which was taken around 3 pm on a weekday, traffic on Harney outside of peak hours does not approach its car-carrying capacity. The bikeway project concept was first proposed as a way of increasing cycling infrastructure in downtown Omaha while reusing existing right-of-way.

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Developing New Project Ideas

DRAFT68 Althouughg this idea is propoosed as a way of inccreasing bicycle vvisibility in downtown and attractinng non-traditional cycling commuuters, it also oﬀ ers greae t potential as an economic develoopment investment—helping to geenerate visitor exposure along a ggreater extent of dowwntown and Midtoown Omaha, but also creating a leisure oppportunity for Omaha residents and thuss creating greater demmand for downtowwn services and raaising the appeal of downtoown livinng. Speciﬁ c project componeents are discussed in additional detail bbeginning on Pagge 71; please refer to Section 6.4 for policy recommendations on how advanced study of this opportunitty should be strucctured.

The Harney system is envisioned to consist of five princi- eventually terminating at the UNMC campus. The concept pal project components: Project B-100 (1), the principal is intended to evolve over time into a branded and unified extent of the Harney Bikeway from 10th to 24th Streets; system, as suggested in the conceptual diagram at the bot- B-101 (2), the 13th Street and Capitol Avenue Bikeway tom of the page, that not only increases bicycle transporta- Branch; B-102 (3), the 13th Street and Cass Street Bikeway tion through central Omaha but also serves a placemaking Branch; B-103 (4), the 24th Street Bikeway Branch connect- function, as a core downtown civic amenity that connects ing to the Joslyn Art Museum; and B-104 (5), the Harney major downtown institutions and destinations. Bikeway Midtown Extension continuing further west,

3 3 2 2 4 5 1

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Developing New Project Ideas

DRAFT69 Qwest Arena, the Old Market, the Omaha Central KEY PROJECTS: Business District, the Joslyn Art Museum, Midtown Crossing and ultimately the UNMC campus. Th e • BG-: Lee Valley Trail Tunnel. Th is primary project components are as follows: project would construct a tunnel under the I-680 embankment to allow a bicycle/pedestrian • B-: Harney Bikeway, th to th off -street path to connect the two sides of the Streets. Refer to the diagram on Pages 72-73 expressway. It ties into a short trail segment for a more detailed description of this project. through Lee Valley Park (Project MP-018, • B-: th Street and Capitol connecting to 108th Street) and into the Avenue Bikeway Branch. Th is branch of proposed Nicholas/Western Corridor (Project the Harney Street Bikeway leads north on 13th B-045). from Harney to Capitol, then east on Capitol • B-: Woolworth Bicycle Boulevard. from 13th to 10th, terminating by the Qwest Th is crosses I-480 and provides access to Arena. Hanscom Park. • B-: th Street and Cass Street • B-: th Street Bicycle Bikeway Branch. Th is branch of the Harney Boulevard. Th is crosses Dodge Street in the Street Bikeway leads north on 13th from Capitol Dundee neighborhood, providing proximate to Cass, then east on Cass from 13th to 10th, connection to the UNMC campus and the St. terminating at the Omaha Convention Center. Cecilia cathedral and school. • B-: th Street Bikeway Branch. • B-: th-th Street Bicycle Th is branch of the bikeway system leads from Route. A key crossing of Dodge Road at a Harney at 24th to the Joslyn Art Museum. portion where its intersections are large and • B-: Harney Bikeway, Midtown widely spaced. Extension. Th is continues Project B-100 • RC-: Harrison between th and further west, eventually terminating at the th Streets. A key crossing of Dodge UNMC campus. Th is section is likely to have Road at a portion where its intersections are the greatest implementation challenges due to large and widely spaced. a narrower right-of-way, greater frequency of driveway access cuts, and the need for on-site Meaningful Connections from West parking on much of its private properties. Omaha Another major challenge that Omaha’s cycling Projects that Cross Barriers community faces is the diffi culty in connecting from During the public involvement process, one of the most newer patterns of urbanized development in West signifi cant concerns that cyclists expressed was that Omaha to the older neighborhoods of the central inherently bicycle-friendly neighborhood streets are city. A standard roadway design for arterials in West often disconnected by major barriers, including major Omaha has included an attached eight-foot sidepath arterial thoroughfares such as Dodge Street/Dodge (on one side of the road only) off ering two-way bicycle Road. Finding connections across these barriers is an and pedestrian travel; however, this cross-section is a important step to promoting cycling as a convenient relatively recent design policy and has not been applied and viable means of travel. universally on all arterial roadways. For this reason, many parts of West Omaha, especially those parts that predate the application of the sidepath in arterial capacity projects, do not have a clear path of bicycle connectivity.

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Developing New Project Ideas

DRAFT70 Westside-Fairacres Trail System Th e Fairacres Park neighborhood off ers several opportunities for connecting West Omaha to central Omaha with a Project B-057 would stronger bicycle network. Th e concept discussed here uses provide a short a series of off -street, multi-use paths and one short on-street on-street connection between the two section to provide a continuous bicycle route from 144th principal trail extents. Street to the West Papio Trail. A short stretch Projects PC-007 and of on-street is an PC-008 add button- acceptable bridge Th ese projects introduce several innovations for Omaha, activated pedestrian in this system, but it hybrid beacons to the including pedestrian-activated hybrid beacons at 114th and should be well marked trail crossings of 114th 120th Streets, the use and upgrading of a utility easement, and signposted. and 120th Streets to and transitions between on-street and off -street facilities provide additional safety measures. These would following the same route. be the fi rst of their kind in Omaha.

N 8 r 3 r 9 l t s e h d t i d a r 7 c t ir C y d 3 h h M A u 1

h 1 o m

t 1 1 i v C 1 l n 4 1 um 13 a 2 g

5 3 e i 3

6 4 ng 3r s 4 4 9 n 3 d 2 t t h 006 1 h -

1 t R u O r n h d 1 h 0 e d

t 4 3 9 Burt 8

t 6 1 2 h t 1 -016 h MP

ng Burt 0 i - um

urt 1 C B 7 B 1 01 6 t e - ia U u Burt W n er h n eb P h r Webst bster t We

e fo P v s 7 i l 1 M 2 A te a - 3 1 1 r C 7 1 2 8

t 1 S

h 9 t 15 1 0 4 B- h NS-PU

7 t

4 N h

t 4

h 5 a D o d g e )"èéNS-PUB-01 FNB èé )" 1 Old Chicago G 1

r Chic h 5

t t

odin ago t Mill

7 7 7

S 7

1 1

h Davenport 1

1 1 1 e 1 eh Giannelli an

1 1 1 3 0 Da 2 ve 0 B 8 npo 9 rke t rt t u t B h h a 1 r h

h h

k e kj s h

t t t h t

y 1 la 9

8 8 d a 8 2 g t

1 1 1 u 1

a M uglas 2 u 1

1 1 1 n S n o 1 Kuhn d D 7 Heavenly t

H h

is e

c r

n o

a e kj r

F s d

W d n

alsh n kj

2 2 3

3 J 2

2 MP-01 o 1

1 3

h 1

1 y n 0

0 arne D - - H W

P P e M l 1 1 6

Dewey 1 a

4 4

o 4

1 1

o 2 1 1 r

r 1 1 1 Jones

1 1

r 2 1 1 M

M is 2 n enworth e

v 3 1

3 ea 1 d L g Jackson 1 r d t d i h 2 r eavenworth t w L

1 4 1

5 5 5 s 5 E t o e 3 2 C m h e d

1 r ue

0 0 0 0 r Jones 1 a 0 a s e t 2 C e l h t

t ene

0 0 0 0 0 w 0 y 1 L h 2

e 1 M v

- - fo o 2 a n - 2 A r D 9 w d d t o 1 3

1 C C 2 r C h kj th nworth o d Leave 1 d 4 1 2 t 3t h 3

n 113th R R

9 R

t 1 e w 1 t h h Mayberry P 3 y a

d a 1 A F F r

y l s v a rcrc a 3r3 t e w m 2 kj a n M u n 1 i 13 e n kj 1s M o ason t arcy kj CIFIC 1 M PA 0

kjCIFIC t PA Forrest h

-013 0 P h M 1 ierce 9 P Pierce t

2 2 1 t

1 1

4 1

9 t 1

h ce 6

Pier oppleton t

P h h h h h

t t t

7 7 7 Po 7 FIC n ppleton 1 o 1 fair Popplet 1 William Bel May 3 n 8 on o t B h h m Air t h rig ple t g t Pop e th s t a wford William l m g i Cra 9 4 p a 3 6 ill rk p i 1 3 n 3 1 i ton l h 1 a Pine pple o l t l P l Po i 1 r 1 l W 3 P m o th 2 i y o n 1 Cr a h 1 k W 9 7 t 6 li lw r e l 3 2 orth o 2 lw S a t o i H h o 1 t d Wo h w w wf h t l y 1 W r o 2 Briggs o lo 1 e 1 o o o s o W d n n l L 1 i r 1 w P W o h o t d e l W t d o in o or d 8 P B 0 o a e w Woolw t ir li W i e l nd A

Project MP-013 would use the right-of-way edge on Paciﬁ c Street to build a Project MP-013 uses and sidepath from 144th east improves a utility easement to 132nd Street, turning to between 126th and 127th the north along the east Streets, illustrated in the side of 132nd and using the image to the right. southernmost side of the Jewish Community Center’s parking lot and driveway.

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Developing New Project Ideas

DRAFT71 Th e Fairacres Park trail system, illustrated in detail two-lane thoroughfares with driveway access to private on the previous page, is one example of how this properties. As in Omaha, many of the boulevard kind of connection could be made. Western Omaha systems in other cities were intended to extend and from Interstate 680 to 144th Street is already built connect city parks with streets that were given a distinct and developed and making connections from east aesthetic character. In Omaha, this system connected to west will likely mean a combination of facilities prosperous neighborhoods of grand homes and civic (and facility types) that take advantage of easements, buildings with more modest workers’ neighborhoods, private property setbacks, and unused space in existing though the boulevard streets are primarily residential in rights of way. Th ese connections will also alternate nature. None of the boulevard corridors has a predomi- from on-street to off -street facilities, underscoring nantly commercial land use pattern. the importance of consistent, continuous signage and pavement marking to keep users oriented to the trail. Th e boulevard system has also lost components of its original plan over time, due largely to the construction North Omaha of urban expressways in the 1950s and 1960s and the Th e neighborhoods north of downtown Omaha are expansion of certain streets to provide more automobile likely to experience the greatest benefi t from enhance- carrying capacity. Lincoln Boulevard south of Cuming ments to the bicycle system, as this part of the city Street and east of 30th Street and Deer Park Boulevard generally has the greatest concentration of zero-car were partially removed by expressways, where small households and requires travel to reach major areas of connecting portions along Cuming Street and what is retail and employment. It does feature an extensive today the Northwest Radial Highway have been signifi - grid of streets to help accommodate bicycles and cantly altered to be urban arterial roadways. pedestrians; although many of its streets feature 25-foot curb-to-curb sections that allow little room for traveled Nonetheless, much of the original boulevard system’s way expansion, many carry low traffi c volumes and are streets and alignments remain intact, connecting 36 consequently strong candidates for bicycle boulevards diff erent parks over 45 miles of designated routes. or shared streets. Omaha has an opportunity to restore signifi cant portions of this system, and in so doing to re-establish Th e diagram on the opposite page details key project their purpose in the context of the city’s transportation candidates for North Omaha, including bicycle and recreation needs. boulevard and bicycle lane opportunities connecting the east and west sides of the North Expressway. Th e ‘New Boulevard’ Street Type. Th e bulk of the boulevard streets in Omaha are two-lane local streets with large parkway spaces separating the street traveled Rehabilitating the Omaha Boulevard way from sidewalks. Th e land in public right-of- System with a benefi t for cyclists way usually extends beyond the sidewalks, which is Omaha is in the company of Chicago, Cleveland, somewhat atypical for urban street sections but which Denver and Minneapolis in having a legacy system of suggests that additional land is available for landscaping grand boulevards stemming from the City Beautiful or other street and neighborhood enhancement. and Progressive eras of American urban development. However, unlike those other cities, it has neither a Th e Transportation Master Plan proposes a ‘New unifi ed sense of identity for the boulevards nor a Boulevard’ street design type that takes advantage of the consensus on their role in today’s community. While large right-of-way envelope and relatively gentle grade some examples of multiway garden boulevards do changes to add on-street bicycle lanes to boulevard exist, most of the streets in Omaha’s system are simple streets through reconstruction projects. Previous plans

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Developing New Project Ideas

DRAFT72 North Omaha Bicycle System Th e potential for bicycle additions in North Omaha not only reﬂ ects its relatively rich street network, but also its greater concentration of parks, low-traﬃ c streets and boulevards in Omaha’s historic boulevard system. Key opportunities are shown in the diagram below, with special attention given to projects that would contribute to a bicycle framework serving other parts of Omaha.

Project B-017 restripes Projects B-020, B-039 and B-059 wide travel lanes to add constitute a bicycle boulevard for on-street bicycle lanes, Pratt Street that is a major connection a major opportunity for between 16th Street and Fontenelle connecting North Omaha Park. with downtown.

2 3 M

t 3

n 8 r a h

d E t 1 dith 2 t Mere C

!@ h s

s R

4 Taylor 1 t C ish S r 2 AME 3 Taylo Corn CS-007 I L 2

I h A t

3 n

N h

t L 5

6 4 d kj - 2 er 6 ahl

2 S t t 0 kj 1 h h lor 2 Tay d kj 3 s IN-031 Boy 0 kj Sahler t Boyd N Sahler S hler 1 - Sa 1 PU 9 yd 2 Bo 8 !@ B e t agu h - 8 pr P 00 B-015 S t a h x !@ 7 t to n h Sprague n o 1 t 2 2 MP-00 Pax 2 6 2 ahler 7 S 6 C 6 5

5 t J t t t h r h h ue h t g o

pra e S 4 rd h h Lai

3 t i h 2 3 les 3 g 4 g g Ru

4 7 aird

4 7 L n 3 2 gue 8 a 9 r 3 Sp h kj 0 s 2 1 t e ggl r t Ru t r t h A d

t h h 0 d s o h paulding t S n Ruggles kj -

Ruggles 4 0 Manderson

B B B B B B B 1 B 4 Spaulding anderson 1

h 4 M kj

t 4 9 t h

4 0 t

0 h 8 - 4 9 erson - 6 t and -01 4 M BG 059 h 3 N B- tt 0 I IN Pratt Pra

- 2

h h h h h h 2

Manderson IN 039 8 "BG Evans

- t t t t B

9 " t

h h h h h h h h h

!@ h 2

t t

20 t ans t 0 0 0 0 B-0 0 @! vans Ev h E

6 6 6 6 6

4 4 4 4

Pratt 4 2 3 t

7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7

h 6

!@ 0 s 2 1 1 1 1

Evan 1 6 t

t h

!@ y 7 kney

t in

h 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

!@ P 1 2 h t

I Evans h

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0

7 3

a a a

y a

- Pinkne 2

------4 r -

3 - 2 s d mmet Emmet van 4 E E 0 0 P n 0 3

3 t

B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B

d B w M 7 - h kj 8 r M ey d

Pinkn tol 2 M 0 is et 2 Br a m N Em ristol 1 Lothrop

P B I e 6 l h s

c othrop t 0 L

t 1 t

4 2 h

4 4 8 4 4

t - -

me 4

6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Em 6

9 5 4 1 8 1

1 t

4 4 t 4 t h t

4 ord 8

h f h

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

d 1

et e P 9 B 1 Emm h encer

5 p

S t h r e

h 0 0 0 0

t t

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

h -

Bedford - pencer

S M

4 - - - -

Bedford F 2

B B B

B Wirt

S S S S S S S S S S S S S S

7 h

t t Wirt h

C C C C C C C C C C C C C C

5 er 5

Spencer n Spenc kj Spencer Binney

e 4

4 h

h 0 Binney retc 8 d us

G n Loc t

5 0

h t

irt irt 2 5 W

irt W 1

W -

2 0 2 kj t rt Locus 9 inney r 2 t a B t

irt h h W

h P 7

w 0

4 aple t M g 1

i 3 t - kj 9 ney in h

S ey B Maple 5

n 0 1 Bin kj o kj 8 t

t h M 5 t h

ey 3 aple rby Bi S Binn M Co nn h ey 4 t 3

4 h

h 1

1 N t aple orby 2 M C

C s y 0 Corb n Maple t t

5 4 d Miami Ohio 9 Miami Ohio 3 o t iami Ohi 2 M h Corby 5 14th n iami M 1 3 1 Corby d hio 7

2 O 2

h d 4 ady

t C t t n

h n 8

5 2 t

Miam 1 i 2 4 B-016 7 B 4 Lake zie 0 Sherwood Liz t 9 hio O h

- 4 kj 1

0 t 5 5 5 Ohio h Robinson

t llis Wi 0

0 0 h 2 Willis Willis 2 - Lake Erskine 6

0 8 r Lake t Victo

4 h

- t Grant kj Grant h 3 F B ant W

o r Grant Gr P d U

nt Erskine P e O n S- e Burdette kine e Burdett 2 s 2

Er M l

7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7

l N 7 5 5 e e Burdett 1 Gr 8 1 t 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 8 1

s 5 h t L d h t t

0 trick h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

nt Pa 0

0 0 ra 0

G 2

o o o o

t 5 B- o s

A 2

- - - - e -

3 t h

t 3 t t t - - a dsay Y h 0 in kj tte L 9

I Burde t 7 r t

t urdette h h h B h d ck 7

atri h

h t P

B B B B B B B B B B B B B B

ette B S S S S

Burd S

h 0 2 2

D o

3 d g g g

g Blon

i i i i ndo 4

0 Blo ce 9 9

6 9 Gra

atrick 2 t C C C

P o C A d

n t

4 o e e e e Bl e h

o ondo h n e

h l r r r 1 B 1

9 2

d d d d

d d

u c

t R

r r

o r

h ond

C C C

Bl C 0 0

n 0

4 h

h h

h r

e t 3 3 3 3 3 k

4 Par

- - t -

8 rker

t t t

Pa t r

5 ke

r Par 8 e 9 8 5

3 3 3 3 3 3

A A A A

y t M A Parker

t r 2 0 0 0 h 0 t 4 7

h 4

B B B B B r 1 6

tu t

4 4

4 a k

c o r

1 e la

n n i n D C 3 h

2 l l t tur

6 eca D 0 r

C h i

h h h h 1 8 d ur

t ecat t

D F - B l h

u Decatur a 2 th

o o o 0

b 9 Franklin - kj t B anklin h Fr

0 Frank Franklin

4 4 4 4 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Franklin 6

5 3 Seward

4 w 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1

3 C C o t

h es

l 2 Charl

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0

0 0 0 0 d o l Sewa 3 Sewar

u 8 1

- -

4 - - - o 3 n 4 d kj s t

t 1 H h 0 r 1

d y t S S S S S S S S S S S r S a y S

Sew Happ s B B B C s B t

arles 0

lu t Char Ch - C C C C C C C C C C C C

b S C C

h h h h

ad h milton milton Paul t t t t t t

t 38 Ha Ha 0 6 - 1

es d B P 1

Charl l 3

0 0 0 0 e 0 t 7

n 8

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 on 1 to 1 l h

C mi 3

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

t k t 8 r 3 h h

o B-0kj

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

L 0 H afay

amilton ette O Caldwell

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H 0 !@ r Indiana kj Nich Lafayette l I diana Ni h l Project MP-020 utilizes an abandoned rail corridor to connect North Omaha with Saddle Creek Drive and Cuming Street with a multi-use path.

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Developing New Project Ideas

DRAFT73 and studies (especially the North Omaha Development • Turner Boulevard from Farnam Street to Program) have proposed a series of multi-use paths Woolworth Street alongside the street traveled way, but this approach is • Fontenelle Boulevard, from 45th Street not ideal in all boulevard street contexts. On streets to Sorensen Parkway (this includes the extent of with a high concentration of driveways (which include Fontenelle through Fontenelle Park) the ‘parking pad’ spaces along such extents as Fontenelle • Happy Hollow Boulevard, from Franklin Boulevard between Northwest Radial Highway and Street to Leavenworth Street Fontenelle Park), sidepaths may present safety problems in that they expose path users to a greater number of Other sections of the boulevard system do not readily confl ict points than would bicycle lanes, where they are allow reconstruction of the street to add bicycle lanes moving traffi c in the traveled way and thus have right without an impact on parkway/planter strip sections of of way over vehicles leaving a driveway. the street or, in the most constrained cases, an impact to private property. However, a consistent signage Th e New Boulevard type is proposed on the following program that identifi es these routes as part of the candidate projects: system can help to guide pedestrians and cyclists using them in the ‘gap’ sections. • John A. Creighton Boulevard from Maple Street (Adams Park entrance) to Hamilton Street

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Developing New Project Ideas

DRAFT74 4.4 Transit Guideway Projects

Several previous studies have explored the idea of North 24th Street premium transit corridors in and around downtown One of the branches from the Dodge corridor Omaha. Th e Downtown Master Plan has presented the envisioned in the Downtown Master Plan is a streetcar most extensive set of recommendations. Its recommen- on 24th Street from Dodge to Lake Streets. Th is would dations for three primary phases of downtown premium serve the North Omaha business district along 24th transit service refl ect a vision for a more multimodal Street and would likely provide a valuable catalyst to environment in Central Omaha. Th e Transporta- economic development eff orts in this area. Th e street tion Element’s planning team explored several of also has a bicycle and streetscape project concept these projects as candidates and examined their fi t proposed for it; the addition of premium transit could and feasibility in their respective neighborhoods and make this an important multimodal corridor in North surroundings. Omaha.

Dodge Street Downtown/Midtown Corridor Dodge Street/Dodge Road Transitway Dodge Street has long been envisioned as a premium Intended as an extension of the Dodge Downtown/ transit street for Omaha, due largely to its main street Midtown Corridor, this concept was developed during role and land use patterns. Th e ﬁ rst phase of transit the Transportation Element’s workshops as a way to described in the Downtown Master Plan envisions this begin expanding higher-level transit oﬀ erings beyond transit being located on Farnam and Harney Streets the immediate urban core of Omaha. Th e prevailing (with one way of transit travel on each of the one-way patterns of density in this area suggest that this service streets); a later study led by Metro Transit has extended is likely to be commuter-oriented in the short term, the reach of this corridor along Dodge Street as far west but the high level of travel demand along the Dodge as 72nd Street. corridor suggests that this area of Omaha may likely see increased future need for person-carrying capacity through transit.

The Downtown Master Plan’s multi-phase vision for premium transit additions. Graphic Source: HDR and the City of Omaha.

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Developing New Project Ideas

DRAFT75 The Dodge Street Transit Guideway Concept In concert with the premium transit proposals for downtown and North Omaha, the Dodge Street Transitway concept proposes to extend enhanced or premium bus service westward along the Dodge Road arterial and expressway corridor. It would take advantage of successful express route oﬀ erings on this same route and seek to improve transit travel times and oﬀ er a legitimate alternative to vehicle commuting from West Omaha.

The diagram below provides a basic summary of its opera- Shoulder-running transit on the Dodge Expressway could tional characteristics: it originates in downtown Omaha as ultimately be replaced with a more formalized guideway, a limited-stop bus service, continues west from the UNO but in the short term this allows transit vehicles a dedi- campus to I-680 and Dodge running in mixed traffic and cated space in which to bypass traffic congestion, as illus- taking advantage of queue jumper lanes at major intersec- trated in the photograph below. tions, and continues west from these to the 168th/Dodge interchange serving two park-and-ride facilities. It is intend- A key approach to making a case for this concept is the ed to capitalize on the current popularity of Metro’s Dodge evolution of bus stops to transit stations, raising the profile park-and-ride express routes but also to begin establishing early foundations for more sophisticated transit offerings on this corridor.

With relatively minor capital investments, this kind of service could be inaugurated today and take advantage of the Dodge Road expressway’s limited access and high speeds to provide automobile-competitive travel times into central Omaha. The key operational characteristics that improve travel time are the queue-jumper lanes and the use of the reversible center lane along Dodge Street from 66th Street to Turner Boulevard.

Queue Jumper Lanes I-680 Street h t t 90t MMi e e Shoulder- Running e xe d tr S Tr Stree

aﬃ h c nd 50t P P 72 Center Transit Lane

P&R P&R

I-680/Dodge UNO Village Pointe DOWNTOWNOMAHA 72nd/Dodge 50th-Dundee

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Developing New Project Ideas

DRAFT76 of transit’s role in the community and engaging a placemaking element of transit in supporting the Dodge Street corridor. The diagram below illustrates conceptual station locations adjacent to areas of potential redevelopment where land could be claimed for station locations more easily.

The photo to the right and the illustration below offer a vision for how these stations might appear, using the Dodge reversible center lane as a dedicated transitway. Successful trial operation of the project should begin dia- logue for how the project could be funded and constructed to be a more permanent infrastructure addition.

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Developing New Project Ideas

DRAFT77 4.5 Streetscape Projects

Several previous plans and studies identifi ed streetscape and landscape project candidates. For purposes of this discussion, these are defi ned here as projects whose • P-: Northwest Radial Highway primary benefi t is not transportation-related but rather from th to nd Streets. Th is related to economic development and/or aesthetic project would apply the standards of the Green improvement. Streets plan to this stretch of Northwest Radial, upgrading street landscaping and reducing the While their primary benefi t may be beyond the scope of traveled way from six to four lanes. conventional transportation projects, these projects do • P-: Florence State Street have an important role in public works improvements Streetscape. Th is creates a landscaped center for maturing neighborhoods, especially neighborhood median as well as roadside tree planting and commercial districts. Many of these areas have aged pedestrian scale lighting. beyond their original market lifespans and commercial • P-: th Street - North Omaha activity has moved to other areas, usually to sites of Streetscape. Th is builds on streetscape suffi cient space to provide on-site parking and fl oor enhancements already completed in the North plans tailored to modern distribution needs. Th ey Omaha commercial district along 24th Street. will often not see new economic activity without Because of other project opportunities identifi ed demonstration of a public interest in their renewal and for this street, streetscape design should be revitalization. coordinated with potential transit and bicycle improvements as not to eliminate opportunities Th ese projects do not have to originate entirely with for accommodating those travel modes. transportation capital funds. Indeed, it is often the case that streetscape-oriented projects come about as a result of opportunities tied to other capital improvements already occurring on a street. An example of this that is contemporary to this Transportation Element is the Combined Sewer Overfl ow mitigation program that is separating sewer and stormwater infrastructure throughout Omaha east of 72nd Street. In many cases, drainage infrastructure—including curb and gutter—is reconstructed as a result of the separation. Pursuit of these projects should take advantage of these opportunities, which will likely help in reducing project cost for streetscape improvements.

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Developing New Project Ideas

DRAFT78 30th Street Streetscape at Ames Avenue Th e project candidate shown in the photo (before) and illustration below (after) would add key streetscape improvements to a commercial street in North Omaha. Th e project is not proposed as a standalone streetscape project but rather as a road diet to match current travel demand to capacity, yet it still has potential through a lane reduction to add landscaping, curb extensions and on-street parking to promote a more vital business district and pedestrian environment.

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Developing New Project Ideas

DRAFT79 Master List of All Project Candidates Th e lists on the following pages provide details for all candidatee projects initially considered in the Transportation Element’s development. As many of these ideas originated fromm previous plans and studies, including the MAPA Transportation Improvement Program and Long-Range Transpoortation Plan, the origin of the candidate is provided. Th ese projects formed the basis of the comprehensive evaluation process described in Section 5, and this list was

Roadway Capacity Projects Project Origin of this Number Project Name Basic Description and Purpose Idea Assigned Widening project including turn lanes at intersections, from RC-001 Fort St Capacity Project 2011-2016 TIP 123rd St to 132nd St two sections. 144th St and Blondo St from 135th St to 153rd RC-002 144th St and Blondo St 2011-2016 TIP Ave, from W Dodge Rd to Eagle Run Dr RC-003 168th St Capacity Project Widen with turn lanes, from W Center Rd to Q St 2011-2016 TIP RC-004 168th St Capacity Project Widen with turn lanes, from W Center Rd to Poppleton St 2011-2016 TIP RC-005 114th St Capacity Project Widen with TWLTL on Center Lane, from Burke St to Pacifi c St 2011-2016 TIP RC-006 108th St Capacity Project Widen with turn lanes, from Madison St to Q Street 2011-2016 TIP RC-007 120th St Capacity Project Widen with turn lanes, from Stonegate Dr to Fort St 2011-2016 TIP RC-008 108th St Capacity Project Widen for Two Way Left Turn Lane (TWLTL), from Q St to L St 2011-2016 TIP RC-009 156th St Capacity Project Widen to 4 lanes, from Blondo St to Pepperwood 2011-2016 TIP Construction of connector road, closing of island break & RC-010 108th St Capacity Project lengthening of left-turn lane and addition of right turn lane, 2011-2016 TIP from L St to M St Widen 16ft Median to 28ft median urban divided with dual left West Center Rd Capacity RC-011 turn lanes at W Center and 156th St, from Industrial Rd to 159th 2011-2016 TIP Project St RC-012 108th St Capacity Project Widen to 4 lane urban , from W Dodge St to Blondo St 2011-2016 TIP Industrial Road Capacity Widen 4 lane divided rural to 6 lane Urban divided with turn RC-013 2011-2016 TIP Project lanes, from 132nd St to 144th St Construction of connector road, closing of island break & RC-014 108th St Capacity Project lengthening of left-turn lane, and addition of right-turn lane, 2035 LRTP from Q St to L St RC-015 90th St Capacity Project 3 Lane with TWLTL, from F St to L St 2035 LRTP RC-016 Pacifi c St Capacity Project 4-lane divided with LTLs, from 180th St to 168th St 2035 LRTP RC-017 Harrison St Capacity Project 4-lane divided with LTLs, from 156th St to 144th St 2035 LRTP RC-018 156th St Capacity Project 3-Lane, 1NB, 2SB, from Pacifi c St to S of Dodge St 2035 LRTP RC-019 168th Capacity Project 4 lane divided with LTLs, from W Dodge Rd to W Maple Rd 2035 LRTP RC-020 Q St Capacity Project 3 lane with TWLTL, from 48th St to 96th St 2035 LRTP RC-021 Ida Rd Capacity Project 4 lane urban with LTLs, from N-133 to 120th St 2035 LRTP RC-022 Pacifi c St Capacity Project 4-Lane urban, from 180th St to 192nd St 2035 LRTP RC-023 Fort St Capacity Project 4-Lane Divided with LTLs, from 132nd St to 144th St 2035 LRTP Harry Anderson Dr Capacity RC-024 3 lane urban, from Harrison St to Q St 2035 LRTP Project RC-025 180th St Capacity Project 4 lane urban, from Maple to Ida 2035 LRTP

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Developing New Project Ideas

DRAFT80 eventually developed into the project recommendations to be programmed into future Transportation Improvement Programs and City of Omaha Capital Improvement Programs. Refer to the map of project candidates, included as an appendix to the Transportation Element, for geographic location of these candidates.

Roadway Capacity Projects Project Origin of this Number Project Name Basic Description and Purpose Idea Assigned RC-026 222 nd St Capacity Project 3 Lane Urban, from Harrison St to W Center Rd 2035 LRTP RC-027 Skyline Dr Capacity Project 3 Lane Urban, from W Center Rd to W Dodge Rd 2035 LRTP RC-028 Fort St Capacity Project 4 lane divided, from 168th St to 204th St 2035 LRTP RC-029 Ida St Capacity Project 3 lane urban, from 180th St to 204th St 2035 LRTP RC-030 State St Capacity Project 4 lane divided, from 144th St to N-133 2035 LRTP RC-031 State St Capacity Project 3 Lane urban, from 144th St to 204th St 2035 LRTP RC-032 108th St Capacity Project 3 Lane urban, from Fort St to Ida st 2035 LRTP RC-033 180th St Capacity Project 3 Lane urban, from Maple St to Ida St 2035 LRTP RC-034 120th St Capacity Project 4 lane urban, from Fort St to Rainwood Rd 2035 LRTP RC-036 144th St Capacity Project 6 lane urban divided, from Maple St to Harrison St 2035 LRTP Upgrade the existing two-lane roadway to a three-lane urban City of Omaha RC-044 48th St Capacity Project section with chanelization at major intersections, from L St to Q 2011-2016 CIP St. Construct storm sewers. City of Omaha RC-046 78th St Capacity Project Widen to three lanes, from W Center St to Pacifi c St 2011-2016 CIP Reconstruct to a standard three-lane urban section, from City of Omaha RC-047 84th St Capacity Project Pacifi c St to Harney St 2011-2016 CIP Widening the section to a full fi ve-lane section to match the City of Omaha RC-048 96th St Capacity Project intersections of 96/Harrison and 96/Q., from Y St to Park Dr 2011-2016 CIP Upgrade two-lane rural to fi ve-lane divided urban roadway City of Omaha RC-049 120th St Capacity Project with channelization at major intersections, including widening 2011-2016 CIP bridge over Big Papillion Creek., from W Maple St to Fort St Upgrade the existing two-lane roadway to a three-lane urban City of Omaha RC-050 F St Capacity Project section, from 148th St to 156th St 2011-2016 CIP Upgrade existing two-lane roadway to a fi ve-lane urban City of Omaha RC-051 Fort St Capacity Project section with channelizations at the major intersections, from 2011-2016 CIP 123rd St to 132nd St Upgrade to six-lane divided section with channelization at the City of Omaha RC-052 Harrison St Capacity Project major intersections, from 157th St to 169th St 2011-2016 CIP RC-053 Dodge St Capacity Project 6-lane roadway, from Happy Hollow St to 69th St TMP Workshop RC-054 Ida St 4 lane divided, from 180th St to 132nd St 2035 LRTP Widen to 7 lanes, add turning capacity at key intersections as RC-055 84th St TMP Workshop needed, from Harrison to Center RC-056 Maple Road Widen to 6 lanes, from 144th St to Maplewood Drive TMP Workshop Total street reconstruction to add lanes, bike lanes, and on- Downtown RC-058 16th St street parking., from Dodge St to Howard St Master Plan

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Developing New Project Ideas

DRAFT81 Road Diets Project Origin of this Number Project Name Basic Description and Purpose Idea Assigned Destination Reduce to two-through-lanes in each direction and add CS-002 Cuming St Road Diet Midtown streetscape amenities, from 30th St to Saddle Creek Rd Master Plan Destination Reduce to three lanes with on-street parking and a strong CS-003 Center St Road Diet Midtown pedestrian character, from Hanscom Park to 32nd St Master Plan Streetscape improvements, coverting to 3 lane section with Downtown CS-008 30th St (Main St) one turn lane in the center and parallel parking, from Craig Florence Master Ave to Interstate 680 Plan 4-lane to 3-lane road diet, add bike lanes, from Dodge Rd to CS-009 90th St TMP Workshop Arbor Street 4-lane to 3-lane road diet, add bike lanes, from L St to CS-010 24th St TMP Workshop Leavenworth St Lane Diet and complete street concept, from 144th St to CS-012 Millard Ave TMP Workshop Industrial Rd South Omaha Reduce to two-through-lanes in each direction and add Development CS-013 Q St streetscape amenities. Bike lanes should be included if right- Project/TMP of-way permits., from 27th St to Hwy 75 Workshop 4-lane to 3-lane road diet. This will retain on-street parking CS-016 16th St and add bicycle lanes for Project B-017., from Commercial TMP Workshop Ave/Sprague Street to Capitol Ave Remove one travel lane (right-hand lane in the direction of CS-018 Douglas St travel) to add on-street parking and sidewalk adjacent to TMP Workshop Gene Leahy Mall., from 8th St to 10th St 4-lane to 3-lane road diet, includidng on-street bike lanes, CS-020 60th St TMP Workshop from Sorenson Pkwy to NW Radial Hwy Reduce 6-lane section to 4 lanes, including bicycle lanes and CS-021 Northwest Radial Highway TMP Workshop on-street parking, from Fontenelle Blvd to Cuming St 4 to 3 lane road diet, with bike lanes. May include 2-lane CS-022 Leavenworth St TMP Workshop typical sections in certain areas, from 10th St to 39th St

Intersections Project Origin of this Number Project Name Basic Description and Purpose Idea Assigned Sorensen Expressway/North IN-002 Extend Right-Turn Lane/ramp, Add additional lane to ramp 2011-2016 TIP Freeway Capacity Addition Dodge/Douglas Couplet at S curve reconfi guration to restore land to park and move IN-004 2011-2016 TIP Turner Blvd reconfi guration one-way couplet beginning to east of Turner Blvd 90th/West Maple Intersection Add additional left-turn lanes to provide dual lefts on all four- IN-005 2011-2016 TIP Capacity legs of intersection 58th/NW Radial Design Reconfi gure intersection of Maple St & NW Radial Hwy. Install IN-007 2011-2016 TIP Modifi cation and Signalization New Signals

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Developing New Project Ideas

DRAFT82 Intersections Project Origin of this Number Project Name Basic Description and Purpose Idea Assigned 30th/McKinley Intersection IN-009 Safety project-Chanelization, lane additions 2011-2016 TIP Upgrade 63rd/NW Radial Safety IN-010 Safety project to improve pedestrian crossing 2011-2016 TIP Improvements 2035 LRTP/ W Center Rd/156th St Capacity Additional intersection capacity: widen 4 lane 16 ft median City of Omaha IN-011 Improvements to 4 lane 28 ft median urban divided with dual left turn lanes 2011-2016 CIP (406) Maple St/NW Radial Highway IN-012 Reconfi gure Intersection. Install new signals 2035 LRTP Intersection Improvements Destination Dodge St/Saddle Creek Rd IN-013 Modernize/redesign grade separation Midtown Interchange Modernization Master Plan Destination Reconstruct the intersection to allow northbound and IN-014 42nd St/Leavenworth St Midtown southbound left-turns. Master Plan Destination Reconstruct the intersection to increase sight distance and IN-015 40th St/Davenport St Midtown to reduce potential for collisions Master Plan Omaha Construct on/off ramps to provide a second set of ramps to IN-017 20th St/I-480 Downtown serve the Events District. Master Plan Omaha IN-018 24th St/Davenport St Construct a roundabout to calm traffi c along 24th St Downtown Master Plan North Omaha Improve the key intersection with adequate turning IN-019 30th St/Ames St Development movements and pedestrian accommodations Project Reconfi gure the northbound right-hand turn lane and Benson-Ames IN-025 72nd St/Military St establish wayfi nding and gateway features Master Plan IN-028 144th St/W Center Rd Dual left turns eastbound and west bound TMP Workshop Roundabout; consider fi gure-8 dual roundabout. Sidepath IN-029 52nd St/Happy Hollow Blvd TMP Workshop needs separate crossing provision. IN-030 31st St/Paxton St Roundabout TMP Workshop IN-031 42nd St/Paxton St Roundabout TMP Workshop IN-032 120th St/Q St Dual left turn lanes and 2 thru lanes EB TMP Workshop IN-033 NW Radial Hwy/Hamilton St Dual NB/SB left turn lanes TMP Workshop Reconstruct the intersection (consistently the highest accident rate intersection in town). Include striped IN-034 132nd St/W Center St TMP Workshop crosswalks and either reconstruct corner radii to control free- fl o w r i ght turns or add channelizing islands. Remove channelized right turn lanes, allowing suffi cient IN-043 Farnam St/25th St TMP Workshop corner radii for appropriate design vehicle movements TMP Intersection improvements to allow new path (MP-025) to IN-044 Fort/Saddlebrook Workshop/ connect to sidewalk across intersection City Staff

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Developing New Project Ideas

DRAFT83 New Streets (Not Associated with Private Development) Project Number Project Name Basic Description and Purpose Origin of this Idea Assigned construct 3 lane urban cross-section extending road from Hwy NS-PUB-001 120th St Extension 2035 LRTP 36 to Rainwood Road NS-PUB-002 192nd St Extension 3 Lane urban section extending road from Maple Rd to Hwy 36 2035 LRTP Omaha Downtown NS-PUB-003 16th St Connect 16th St between Capitol Ave and Dodge St Master Plan New connection to provide a direct vehicular and pedestrian Omaha Downtown NS-PUB-004 Capitol Ave link Master Plan New connection to provide a direct vehicular and pedestrian Omaha Downtown NS-PUB-005 Douglas St link Master Plan Omaha Downtown NS-PUB-006 Little Italy connection Provide addtional access to and from this isolated area Master Plan North Omaha NS-PUB-007 New Connection New East-West Connection from Paxton Blvd to Sprague St Development Project North Omaha NS-PUB-008 New Connection New East-West Connection from NW Radial Hwy to Lake St Development Project North Omaha NS-PUB-009 New Connection New connection from Seward St to Grant St Development Project New connection from Seward St to proposed road (NS- North Omaha NS-PUB-010 New Connection PUB-008) Development Project North Omaha NS-PUB-011 New Connection New connection from Ohio St to Bedford Ave Development Project North Omaha NS-PUB-012 New Connection New connection from Larimore Ave to Grand Ave Development Project Create a new connection with signalized intersection at the NS-PUB-014 117th St Extension at-grade portion of Dodge St from Dodge Rd South Frontage TMP Workshop to Miracle Hills Dr New street along Keystone Trail Corridor to provide public edge New Street Parallel to NS-PUB-016 for 72nd/Dodge development concepts in TMP from Cass St to TMP Workshop Keystone Trail Dodge St Formalized, improved public street along current Rose Blumkin South side of Furniture NS-PUB-017 Drive. Includes bridge across creek (refer to BG-015). from TMP Workshop Mart property Howard St to 72nd St New two-lane urban street constructed along park edge as NS-PUB-018 Miracle Hills shown in TMP redevelopment concept for Miracle Hills. from TMP Workshop Blondo St to Dodge St Allow Capitol Ave to connect directly with 20th St from 19th St Omaha Downtown NS-PUB-019 Capitol Ave to 20th St Master Plan Extend 11th St from Nicholas to Cuming (with an eastward curve) to allow direct access to highway network, per Omaha Downtown NS-PUB-020 11th St Downtown Omaha Master Plan alignment from Nicholas St to Master Plan Cuming St New street and bridge over Papio Creek from Mill Valley Rd / NS-PUB-021 Mill Valley Road Ext TMP Workshop 109th Ct to Miracle Hills Dr

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Developing New Project Ideas

DRAFT84 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects Project Number Project Name Basic Description and Purpose Origin of this Idea Assigned Bike Lanes, from 4-lane to 3-lane road diet (Project Omaha Downtown B-001 16th St Bike Lanes CS-016) from Cuming St to north of Nicolas St Master Plan Bike lanes to be restriped in conjunction with Omaha Downtown B-002 15th St Bike Lanes conversion to a two-way street (Project OW-004) Master Plan from Capitol Ave to Leavenworth St Bike Lane. Would be superseded by Harney St Omaha Downtown B-003 Harney St Bike Lanes Bikeway project (B-100) from 15th St to 11th St Master Plan Two-way bike lanes on Howard to coincide with Howard St / St Mary's Ave Bike Omaha Downtown B-004 Howard conversion (already occurring). One-way Lanes Master Plan bike lane along St. Mary's from 13th St to I-480. Shared Bike/Parking Shoulders from Leavenworth St Omaha Downtown B-006 13th St to Pierce St Master Plan Proposed Aksarben Bikeway. Bike lanes where Omaha Downtown B-007 Leavenworth St restriping will allow and sharrows to ﬁ ll in gaps in Master Plan lanes from Riverfront Trail (proposed) to I-480 Bicycle Boulevard (Sharrows). Project description and cost estimate include a bridge over railroad to Omaha Downtown B-008 Mike Fahey Bicycle Boulevard connect to Riverfront Trail; project extends from Master Plan Riverfront Trail (proposed) to 16th St Capitol Ave and Farnam St Bicycle Bicycle Boulevard (Sharrow Markings) from 16th / 8th Omaha Downtown B-009 Boulevard St to 8th St / 15th Master Plan Bicycle Boulevard (Sharrow Markings) from Omaha Downtown B-010 11th St Bicycle Boulevard Leavenworth St to Farnam St Master Plan Bicycle Boulevard (Sharrow Markings) from Farnam St Omaha Downtown B-012 Conagra Dr Bicycle Boulevard to 10th St Master Plan 7th St and Pierce St Bicycle Bicycle Boulevard (Sharrow Markings) from Omaha Downtown B-013 Boulevard Leavenworth St to 6th St Master Plan 6th St and Marcy St Bicycle Bicycle Boulevard (Sharrow Markings) from Riverfront Omaha Downtown B-014 Boulevard Trail (proposed) to Leavenworth St Master Plan Improvements to include bicycle lanes and standard sidewalks. Bicycle boulevard with traﬃ c calming North Omaha B-015 Sprague St Bike Lanes appropriate if cost and impacts are prohibitive, from Development Project Paxton Blvd/New Street Extension if constructed (refer to NS-PUB-007) to 16th St Bike lanes and sidewalks along Lake and Grant, North Omaha B-016 Lake/Grant St Bicycle Corridor upgrading streets to complete streets standards from Development Project 45th St to 16th St Bike Lanes, from 4-lane to 3-lane road diet (Project North Omaha B-017 16th St CS-016). Extends north to Fort Street with Project Development Project B-061 from Sprague St to north of Nicolas St Bike Lanes through restriping wide travel lanes, using North Omaha B-018 24th St sharrows where needed. Coordinate with Project Development Project P-008. from Cuming St to Lake St Bike Lanes or sharrow-based Bike Boulevard, depending on feasibility from likely cost and North Omaha B-019 33rd St property/community impact. from Cuming St to Development Project John A Creighton Park Blvd

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Developing New Project Ideas

DRAFT85 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects Project Number Project Name Basic Description and Purpose Origin of this Idea Assigned Bicycle Boulevard as recommended in NODP. Uses North Omaha B-020 Pratt St-42nd St Bicycle Boulevard Pratt St from 52nd to 42nd, then 42nd from Boyd/ Development Project Paxton Trail to Pratt, from 52nd St to Boyd St. Bike Lanes added only in conjunction with two-way B-023 Turner Blvd Bicycle Boulevard TMP Workshop conversion, from 30th St to Harney St. Bike Lanes through restriping wide travel lanes, using sharrows where needed. This may involve removal of B-024 Florence Blvd Bicycle Boulevard TMP Workshop one side of on-street parking. From Commercial Ave to Locust St. Sharrow markings to create a route from Pacifi c Elmwood Park Rd Bicycle B-025 to the UNO campus, connecting to Leavenworth TMP Workshop Boulevard corridor, from Pacifi c St to UNO Campus. B-026 67th St Bicycle Boulevard Installing Sharrows from Pacifi c St to Pine St. TMP Workshop Neighborhood Bike Boulevard (uses sharrow B-027 Mockingbird Dr Bicycle Boulevard TMP Workshop markings) from 96th St to 108th St. Bike boulevard/shared street through neighborhood B-028 Westwood Ln Bicycle Boulevard streets. Alternative alignments may need to be used TMP Workshop in more detailed design. From 120th St to 132nd St. Bike boulevard/shared street through neighborhood B-029 Stonegate Dr Bicycle Boulevard streets. Alternative alignments may need to be used TMP Workshop in more detailed design. From 120th St to 124th St. Bike boulevard/shared street through neighborhood streets. Alternative alignments may need to be used B-030 Eagle Run Dr Bicycle Boulevard TMP Workshop in more detailed design. From east of 132nd St to 120th St. Bike boulevard/shared street through neighborhood Maplewood Blvd Bicycle B-031 streets. Alternative alignments may need to be used TMP Workshop Boulevard in more detailed design. From Maple St to 90th St. Bike boulevard/shared street through neighborhood B-032 138th St Bicycle Boulevard streets. Alternative alignments may need to be used TMP Workshop in more detailed design. From Maple St to Fort St. Bike boulevard/shared street through neighborhood streets. Alternative alignments may need to be used B-035 162nd St TMP Workshop in more detailed design. From California St to Blondo St. Bike boulevard/shared street through neighborhood B-036 Rolling Ridge Rd streets. Alternative alignments may need to be used TMP Workshop in more detailed design. From 156th St to 168th St. Add bike lanes and on-street parking from BikeOmaha Pilot B-037 32nd St Woolworth St to Vinton St Projects Restripe to add bike lanes/sharrows, one side of B-038 Hamilton St on-street parking from 30th St to Fontenelle St / NW TMP Workshop Radial Hwy Bike boulevard, add roundabouts and traffi c diversion at key intersections as needed (these may be B-039 Pratt St TMP Workshop implemented later after bike boulevard) from 30th St to 42nd St

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Developing New Project Ideas

DRAFT86 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects Project Number Project Name Basic Description and Purpose Origin of this Idea Assigned Bike lanes (sharrows as needed). Includes a bike-only B-040 60th St / Webster St connection across Happy Hollow parkway strip. From TMP Workshop NW Radial Hwy to Happy Hollow Blvd. Bike Lanes, shared street (sharrow routes) from 24th B-041 Woolworth St TMP Workshop St / Twinridge Blvd to Center St Bike Lanes (this project conincides with CS-002) from B-043 Cuming St TMP Workshop 30th St to NW Radial Hwy Bicycle route/bicycle boulevard based primarily on sharrow installation and reorientation of traffi c B-044 40th St TMP Workshop control from Leavenworth St to Boulevard Trail (at Paxton) Bike boulevard, new bike path from west of 102nd from Happy Hollow Trail to Lee Valley Park. Steep B-045 Western St / Nicholas St grades and visibility problems associated with TMP Workshop vertical curvature make Western a diffi cult candidate; alternative routes should be explored. Stripe bicycle lanes on wide travel lanes; resurfacing may not be needed. North of Jackson may need to B-046 10th St be accomplished with a combination of bike lanes TMP Workshop and sharrows. From Pacifi c St to Doorly Zoo/Bridge over I-80. Bike lanes added in conjunction with road diet B-047 Cuming St TMP Workshop restriping. From 30th St to 13th St Bike lanes through reconstruction of street for curb B-048 Boyd St, 79th St and 78th St and gutter (if that happens). from 88th St to 78th St/ TMP Workshop Bedford St intersection Bike lanes or bike boulevard on local streets. May B-049 Wirt St and Bedford St include a pedestrian hybrid beacon at Bedford and TMP Workshop 72nd if warranted. From Military Ave to 78th St Reconstruct roadway (when design lifespan requires) B-050 Northwest Radial Highway for four travel lanes, bike lanes and wider sidewalks TMP Workshop from Military Ave to Fontenelle Blvd Reconstruct non-curbed portions of street to add bike lanes; restripe portions around Methodist B-051 84th Street Bikeway TMP Workshop Hospital (south of Dodge) as appropriate to add bike lanes. From Maple Rd to Center Rd. Bike lanes and sharrows along neighborhood streets BikeOmaha Pilot B-052 Corby St-Saddle Creek Rd connecting Hamilton St to Benson commercial Projects district from 60th St to Hamilton St Shared bike routes from Mercy Rd to 57th St via a BikeOmaha Pilot B-053 Mercy-Shirley-60th Bike Route collection of neighborhood local streets from 78th St Projects to 57th St Bike route (with primarily sharrow marking) BikeOmaha Pilot B-054 48th St-Poppleton St connecting from Leavenworth to Woolworth routes Projects from Leavenworth St to Woolworth St Bike boulevard, with markings and signage indicating BikeOmaha Pilot B-055 Howard St right to full lane usage and stop sign orientation for Projects free fl ow from Happy Hollow Blvd to 48th St

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Developing New Project Ideas

DRAFT87 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects Project Number Project Name Basic Description and Purpose Origin of this Idea Assigned Provides on-street connection between two major B-057 Westover Connector legs of the Fairacres Park trail system from 144th to TMP Workshop Big Papio Trail from 123rd St to 126th St Widen street to include bicycle lanes from Paxton North Omaha B-058 31st Avenue Bike Lanes Blvd Trail to Metro Community College. from Paxton Development Project Blvd to Saratoga St Bicycle Boulevard as recommended in NODP. Makes Pratt St Bike Boulevard - 16th to use of existing pedestrian bridge over US 75 to North Omaha B-059 30th connect two halves of project length. from 16th St to Development Project 30th St Continuation of Pratt St Bicycle Boulevard (as Pratt St Bike Boulevard - 52nd to recommended in NODP) to proposed bike lanes on B-060 TMP Workshop 60th 60th St to come from project CS-020. from 52nd St to 60th St Stripe bicycle lanes on wide travel lanes; resurfacing may not be needed. Follows bicycle lane project B-061 16th St Bike Lanes B-017, which requires more extensive restriping TMP Workshop for a 4-lane to 3-lane road diet. from Sprague St/ Commercial Ave to Fort St Stripe bicycle lanes on wide travel lanes; resurfacing B-062 Military Avenue Bike Lanes may not be needed. from Fontenelle Blvd to TMP Workshop Hamilton St Add shared-lane markings to continue bicycle route TMP Workshop/ B-063 Martin Avenue Bicycle Route from CS-026 to north from Belvedere/Curtis to Minne City Staff Lusa Blvd Add shared-lane markings to provide formal TMP Workshop/ B-064 Minne Lusa Bicycle Route connection from Miller Park to the north. from Martin City Staff Ave to Redick St Reconstruct for two-way dedicated bike lane and B-100 Harney St Bikeway (Downtown) TMP Workshop one lane median from 10th St to 24th St Branch of Harney St Bikeway north on 13th from 13th St and Capitol Ave Bikeway B-101 Harney to Capitol, then east on Capitol from 13th to TMP Workshop Branch 10th from Harney St to 10th St Branch of Harney St Bikeway north on 13th from 13th St and Cass St Bikeway B-102 Capitol to Cass, then east on Cass from 13th to 10th TMP Workshop Branch from Capitol Ave to 10th St Branch of Harney St Bikeway/Cultural Trail from B-103 24th St Bikeway Branch Harney at 24th to Joslyn Art Museum from Harney St TMP Workshop to Dodge St Reconstruct for two-way dedicated bike lane and B-104 Harney St Bikeway (Midtown) raised median. Preserves one-way fl ow and two TMP Workshop travel lanes. from 24th St to 42nd St 10' concrete pedestrian and bicycle trail from Abbott MP-002 Riverfront 4 Trail 2011-2016 TIP Dr-Millers Landing to Kiwanis Park Completion of Boulevard Trail from 50th and Happy North Omaha MP-005 Boulevard Trail Hollow to Fontenelle Park from 50th and Happy Development Project Hollow Blvd to Fontenelle Park Multi-use trail upgrade from Fontenelle Blvd to North Omaha MP-006 Boulevard Trail upgrading Adams Park Development Project

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Developing New Project Ideas

DRAFT88 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects Project Number Project Name Basic Description and Purpose Origin of this Idea Assigned North Expressway Right-of-Way North Omaha MP-007 Multi-use trail from Lake St to Sprague St Trail Development Project North Omaha MP-008 Sorensen Pkwy Trail Multi-use trail from Fontenelle Blvd to Miller Park Development Project Multi-use trail alongside road right-of-way. Signage Benson-Ames Master MP-009 Happy Hollow Blvd should be provided for traffi c control at important Plan points. From 50th St to Keystone Trail Bike Trail/side path along Pacifi c from Big Papio Trail MP-010 Pacifi c St TMP Workshop to Keystone Side path along streets connecting Hanscom Park MP-011 Hanscom-Spring Lake Connector along Hanscom Blvd, Vinton St, and Deer Park Blvd Previous Trails Plan from Ed Creighton Blvd to Spring Lake Dr Complete sidepath on east side of 144th from Dodge MP-012 144th St Previous Trails Plan Rd to Pacifi c St Sidepaths and off -street trails connecting from 144th to Westover Connector at 126th. Uses MUD and MP-013 Fairacres Trail: Pacifi c-132nd Previous Trails Plan Jewish Community Center properties. From 126th St to 144th St. Connection through West Fairacres Park between MP-014 Fairacres Trail: West Fairacres Park 120th and 123rd Streets. May include pedestrian Previous Trails Plan hybrid beacon crossing. From 120th St to 123rd St Path connection through Lee Valley Park connecting MP-015 Lee Valley Park Connector Previous Trails Plan to tunnel crossing under I-680 from I-680 to 108th St New trail alongside property lines south of Burt MP-016 Burt St Trail (east) Street connecting to 124th Street and California St TMP Workshop path west of 132nd from 124th St to 132nd St New Trail alongside California and Burt Streets from MP-017 Burt St Trail (west) TMP Workshop 132nd St to 144th St Extend Harney St Bikeway through the UNMC MP-018 UNMC Connector campus, tying to Howard St bike boulevard if TMP Workshop possible from 42nd St to 48th St Short extension of Field Club from UNMC extension MP-019 Field Club Trail Extension II (project MP-012) to Harney St Bikeway extension TMP Workshop through UNMC from Saddle Creek Rd to UNMC Trail Connection through North Omaha neighborhoods along historic rail alignment, from Cuming St (near MP-020 North Omaha Trail Saddle Creek) to John A Creighton/Sprague Street TMP Workshop intersection. from Cuming St to John A Creighton Park Blvd (at Sprague St) Extend West Papio Trail per preexisting alignment, TMP Workshop/ MP-021 P-MRNRD West Papio Extension in cooperation with P-MRNRD from Harrison St to City Staff Millard Ave Complete this portion of West Papio Trail, possibly West Papio Trail - 168th and Maple TMP Workshop/ MP-022 through SID contribution from Maple Rd to Existing Section City Staff Trail End (South of 162nd Ave) Complete this portion of 144th St Trail. Includes 144th St Multi-Use Path (Ellison to TMP Workshop/ MP-023 bridges over water crossing. from Elison St to Redick Redick) City Staff St

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Developing New Project Ideas

DRAFT89 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects Project Number Project Name Basic Description and Purpose Origin of this Idea Assigned Complete missing trail segment from current end of 144th St east side path south of Fort (complete to 144th St Multi-Use Path (Larimore TMP Workshop/ MP-024 Larimore, where existing trail to the south currently extension) City Staff terminates). from Larimore St to halfway point between Larimore and Fort Trail/path connection from Fort to existing trail from Saddlebrook Drive alignment TMP Workshop/ MP-025 Redmon/Standing Bear Lake connector path to Fort (south of Fort) City Staff St Extend Big Papio North trail through Tranquility Park, Tranquility Park Multi-Use Path/Big TMP Workshop/ MP-026 utilizing pre-existing planned trail alignments from Papio Trail Extension City Staff Military Rd to Current end of Big Papio North trail Fill in missing trail gap, possibly achieved through SID West Papio Trail Gap Completion - TMP Workshop/ MP-027 contribution. from existing end of trail east of 144th 144th and F City Staff to existing end of trail north of L (near Hillsdale) Multi-Use Path connecting existing sidepath to Sorensen Parkway - 52nd to 56th TMP Workshop/ MP-028 project proposed in NODP (MP-008) from 52nd St to Path City Staff 56th St TMP Workshop/ MP-029 State St Conector Trail Multi-Use Path from Wenninghoff Rd to 83rd St City Staff Extension of the Spring Lake Trail from I St to the TMP Workshop/ MP-030 Spring Lake Trail Extension Riverfront Trail South Branch from I St to Riverfront City Staff Trail Extend Field Club Trail through Medical Center MP-031 Field Club Extension - UNMC Previous Trails Plan campus from Saddle Creek Rd to Leavenworth St Construct connector trail between Standing Bear MP-032 Crown Point West Connector Path and Tranquility paths from Standing Bear Lake Trail to Previous Trails Plan Tranquility Park Trail (MP-026) Connect to Cunningham Lake Trails generally along Wenninghoff . Alignment assumes use of a pre- MP-033 Wenninghoff Connector Trail Previous Trails Plan existing alignment from a City proposed trails spatial dataset. From Fort St to State St Sidepath along Highway 36 from north Omaha to TMP Workshop/ MP-034 Highway 36 Sidepath Bennington community from N 52nd Ave to 156th City Staff St Complete connection from Keystone Trail to Field Club Trail around and over UPRR right-of-way using TMP Workshop/ MP-035 Keystone Trail East Phase 2/3 36th St from 43rd St to Existing south end of Field City Staff Club Trail (at Vinton St) Extend Riverfront Trail south to Omaha city limits TMP Workshop/ MP-036 Riverfront Trail South Leg from Heartland of America Park to Harrison St City Staff Create multi-use path along the north side of Center TMP Workshop/ MP-037 Hanscom-Field Trail connection Street connecting 36th Street to the Field Club Trail City Staff from 36th St to Field Club Trail Pedestrian overpass over North Replace the existing structure from Pratt St / 28th St North Omaha P-003 freeway to Pratt St / 27th St Development Project Maple St Pedestrian Pedestrian activiated crossings at mid-block locations Benson-Ames Master P-005 Improvements from 58th St to 72nd St Plan City of Omaha 2011- P-011 Vinton St Streetscape improvements from 13th St to 24th St 2016 CIP

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Developing New Project Ideas

DRAFT90 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects Project Number Project Name Basic Description and Purpose Origin of this Idea Assigned Construction of nodes to shorten crossing distance Howard St/19th St Pedestrian PC-001 for pedestrians and increase site distance for 2011-2016 TIP Improvements vehicular traﬃ c NW Radial Hwy/60th St Pedestrian Accommodate and encourage safe ped/bike Benson-Ames Master PC-002 Improvements crossing Plan NW Radial Hwy/61st St Pedestrian Accommodate and encourage safe ped/bike Benson-Ames Master PC-003 Improvements crossing Plan Maple St/60th St Pedestrian Improve pedestrian amenities:narrower crossing Benson-Ames Master PC-004 Improvements distances, wider crosswalks and decorative paving Plan Maple St/61st St Pedestrian Improve pedestrian amenities:narrower crossing Benson-Ames Master PC-005 Improvements distances, wider crosswalks and decorative paving Plan Maple St/63rd St Pedestrian Improve pedestrian amenities:narrower crossing Benson-Ames Master PC-006 Improvements distances, wider crosswalks and decorative paving Plan 120th St/(mid-block between Pedestrian hybrid beacon signal to allow cyclists and PC-007 Farnam and Jackson) Pedestrian pedestrians on the West Fairacres Trail a protected TMP Workshop Improvements crossing Pedestrian hybrid beacon signal to allow cyclists and 114th St/(at Lamp St) Pedestrian PC-008 pedestrians on the West Fairacres Trail a protected TMP Workshop Improvements crossing

Transit Projects Project Number Project Name Basic Description and Purpose Origin of this Idea Assigned Fixed Route Transit on Farnam Based on an earlier concept of single-track, single Omaha Downtown TR-002 and Harney Sts direction on each of the one-way streets Master Plan Second Phase of Downtown Master Plan routes, Omaha Downtown TR-003 Streetcar Extension consisting primarily of a loop from the core Farnam- Master Plan/Other Harney corridor north to I-480 Studies Omaha Downtown Third Phase of Downtown Master Plan routes, including TR-004 Streetcar Master Plan/Other extensions north and south along 24th Street. Studies Westward extension of premium transit on Dodge TR-005 Dodge Street Transitway TMP Workshop featuring capital improvements to reduce travel times

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Developing New Project Ideas

DRAFT91 Streetscape and Landscape Projects Project Number Project Name Basic Description and Purpose Origin of this Idea Assigned Incorporate Green Street standards. upgrade street NW Radial Hwy P-004 landscaping and incorporate a pedestrian/bike pathway Benson-Ames Master Plan Streetscape from 48th St to 72nd St Street lined center island as well as a conlonnade of Downtown Florence P-007 State St street trees and new ornamental lighting from 30th St to Master Plan Mormon Visitor Center Underwood Avenue - Streetscape improvements per RDG/Kiewit Foundation City of Omaha 2011-2016 P-012 Dundee Business District plan from 49th St to 51st St CIP Streetscape

Bridge Replacements and Repairs Project Origin of this Number Project Name Basic Description and Purpose Idea Assigned Destination Enhance the interstate bridge with pedestrian amenities and Midtown Master BG-002 St Mary's St on-street parking Plan/2011-2016 CIP Destination Enhance the interstate bridge with pedestrian amenities and Midtown Master BG-003 Leavenworth St on-street parking Plan/2011-2016 CIP South Omaha BG-004 Q St New roadway bridge includes a 10' sidewalk on the northside Development Project Widen the existing bridge to add one lane and walkways on BG-005 10th St 2011-2016 TIP both sides of the bridge BG-006 26th St Bridge replacement 2011-2016 TIP BG-007 Farnam St Add architectural amenities 2011-2016 TIP BG-008 Harney St Bridge new street lights and architectural amenities 2011-2016 TIP City of Omaha BG-009 L St Replace the bridge 2011-2016 CIP City of Omaha BG-010 72nd St Reconstruct the pedestrian overpass 2011-2016 CIP City of Omaha BG-011 84th St Bridge replacement 2011-2016 CIP BG-012 96th St Replace bridge with culvert 2011-2016 TIP New Bridge over Missouri River in conjunction with 16th Street BG-013 Gateway Bridge 2035 LRTP approach roadway north of John J Pershing. Tunnel crossing under I-680 embankment to connect Lee Valley BG-014 Lee Valley Trail TMP Workshop Trail with new street and Western Avenue bike route New bridge connecting current Howard Street to Rose Blumkin BG-015 New Street (NS-PUB-017) TMP Workshop over Little Papio Creek. Associated with NS-PUB-017. Pratt St / 27th St North Omaha BG-016 Improve and upgrade the existing pedestrian bridge structure. intersection Dev. Project

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Developing New Project Ideas

DRAFT92 4.6 Transportation and Land Development Projects

Th e candidate projects discussed in this section are primarily intended to be pursued as capital projects developed and funded through conventional transportation planning processes. However, there are many opportunities for enhancements to Omaha’s transportation system to be made through land development. Whether these are contributions made entirely by developers or strategic public investments to help enable development that the City wishes to see occur, they are nonetheless projects that should be pursued as private development occurs.

Th ese transportation opportunities are presented in this section in the context of several diﬀ erent site-speciﬁ c development opportunities. Th ese sites were selected by the Transportation Element planning team after an analysis of land in Omaha demonstrating notable redevelopment potential. During the course of the Transportation Element’s March 2011 design workshops, conceptual master plans were developed for these sites as a means of illustrating reasonable potential for development yield and for identifying the transportation system improvements that would help to enable this development.

It is important to keep in mind that each of these master plans is entirely conceptual. Th e planning team did seek advice and insight from City of Omaha staff and representatives from the development community to gain a better understanding of Omaha’s market potential, development product types and general desire for certain forms of development; however, none of these master plans is intended to suggest fi nal alignments of streets, specifi c transportation improvements to be made, or an assignment of responsibility to a developer or to the City of Omaha. Th ey are illustra- tive concepts intended to provide the City a head-start in understanding the types of transportation system Throughout the development of conceptual master plan sites, the enhancements that are needed to prepare Omaha for Transportation Element team focused on potential for transportation improvements, especially those that could be added by private develop- strategic pursuits of infi ll development. ment.

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Developing New Project Ideas

DRAFT93 Crossroads Mall and the Nebraska Th is project provides an important example of a Furniture Mart project with public beneﬁ t that is not central to the development of a site but that would not be executed before the site’s development occurs. One of the most signiﬁ cant opportunities for redevelopment inside the Interstate 680 loop is around the intersection of Dodge and 72nd Streets, a longtime concentration of retail uses that features the Crossroads Mall, the Nebraska Furniture Mart, and an assortment of large-lot and small-lot retail properties built in a primarily auto-oriented, ‘retail strip’ pattern of development.

Th e conceptual master plans for this area developed at the Transportation Element’s design workshops focus on the Crossroads Mall and the southern end of the Furniture Mart site. Th ey feature a series of street network enhancements, a land use pattern that focuses mixed uses around the Dodge/72nd intersection to capitalize on the prominence of this as a major Omaha address, and a series of open space Cass additions designed and located to take advantage of the existing Keystone Trail

on the west side of the site.

7 76th

75t 75th Th e diagram on the opposite page Dodge identiﬁ es several key design and transportation enhancements. One of these has

been treated as a candidate project to be d 72nd evaluated with other candidates: Project 72n NS-PUB-017, an extension of Howard Street on a bridge across the Little Papio Creek.

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Developing New Project Ideas

DRAFT94 Map 4.6.1 Dodge and 72nd St

Cass Commercial Mixed Use Oﬃ ce 4 Multi Family 7 2 Single Family

Parks & Open Space 7

76th 76th

Institutional 3 5th 75th 7 2 Cross Roads Mall 6 NE Furniture Mart Dodge

2 1 2

72nd 72nd

4 5

1 Extend Cross Roads Mall main street across Dodge 3

2 Encourage higher density, mixed use development as redevelopment occurs

3 Create new park that builds on existing multi-use trail

4 Front proposed park with new residential and mixed use 7 development Paciﬁ c 5 Provide new two-lane street to capture adjacent residential population (Project NS-PUB-017)

6 Front Dodge with higher density mixed use development speciﬁ cally around proposed enhanced bus routes

7 Provide new parallel connections to Dodge and 72nd

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Developing New Project Ideas

DRAFT95 Dodge and I-680

Th e Dodge Road and Interstate 680 interchange marks the beginning of Dodge Road’s expressway serving West Omaha. It is typical of the highway-oriented ‘edge city’ concentrations of oﬃ ce, retail and higher-intensity residential uses that have been developed in North American metropolitan areas since the 1950s and the advent of the Interstate Highway system. Although current land use patterns and development form are oriented predominantly to automobile access, several large parcels and an ongoing wave of development activity both suggest that the site has strong potential to evolve into a more intense, urbanized land form.

Th e conceptual master plan on the opposite page proposes a mix of land uses similar to what is in place today, but it proposes that the urban form be changed fundamentally, based largely on a more consistent pattern of blocks and streets. Th e diagrams below illustrate the street network today and the proposed street network; the latter features an extensive addition of local street network that allows multiple alternatives for circulation and allows motorists route choices that

do not rely on arterial roadways.

120th 120th

Interstate 680 680 Interstate Interstate

Dodge Dodge

Existing Network Proposed Network

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Developing New Project Ideas

DRAFT96 Map 4.6.2 Interstate 680 and Dodge

Blondo

Encourage higher- intensity adjacent 1 to open space

102t 102th

108 108th

Encourage a Miracle Hills mix of uses and densities within 5 the Golf Course development

Frontage Road California Street 3 Dodge

4 680 state

Interstate 680 InterInterstate

1 114th

156th 156th

117th 117th

108th 108th

120th 120th

Commercial Mixed Use Oﬃ ce Regency Pkwy Multi Family

Provide a public edge to Single Family existing open space as Parks & Open Space redevelopment occurs Institutional

1 Guide development around a ﬁ ne-grain connected street grid 2 Add a new street connection that connects Blondo to Dodge (NS-PUB-018). This street can provide a public edge to a green space corridor along the Big Papio Creek.

3 Realign Dodge Frontage Roads to create developable parcels to front onto Dodge surface road (NS-PUB-015). 4 Improve north-south connectivity with extension of 117th Street across Dodge (NS-PUB-014). 5 Explore opportunities for connections across creek to improve east-west connectivity.

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Developing New Project Ideas

DRAFT97 North Omaha Redevelopment West Carter Lake (illustrated in Map 4.6.6, Page 102) North Omaha features several sites with potential for Th e former industrial site to the west of Carter Lake redevelopment, and previous plans such as the North represents another opportunity for added development Omaha Development Project have proposed specifi c with supporting street network. However, signifi cant development programs for some of these areas. grade changes to the west of this site limit the ease of adding street network to the established North Omaha Th e diagrams on the following pages illustrate potential street grid. for redevelopment and for the transportation infrastructure needs to support redevelopment. Many transpor- Nonetheless, development should be based on a tation improvements in these areas are likely to be connected network of streets. No projects in this furnished through private development. development area were proposed to be publicly-led capital projects, yet the City should help to guide Saddle Creek and Cuming (illustrated in development of this site by assisting in connections to Map 4.6.4, Page 100) the surrounding street grid and improving sidewalks along major surrounding streets. Th is redevelopment area is based on large commercial and industrial properties around the intersection of Saddle Creek/Northwest Radial Highway and Cuming Street. Although the primary transportation improvements that these conceptual plans propose are related to street network, one major public project proposed is a reconfi guration of the Saddle Creek/Cuming intersection itself.

Grant-Lake Inﬁ ll Area (illustrated in Map 4.6.5, Page 101) Anchored by a disused railroad corridor and older industrial properties, this corridor is primarily surrounded by single-family homes and features larger parcels at its northern end where higher densities could be accommodated. Th e rail corridor presents an opportunity to connect a series of dead-end streets with a new public street and to add an oﬀ -street trail connecting to other parts of North Omaha and to the city’s trail system.

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Developing New Project Ideas

DRAFT98 Map 4.6.3 North Omaha Grant-Lake Inﬁ ll (page 101) LakeLLake Commercial Mixed Use Oﬃ ce Multi Family Single Family Parks & Open Space Institutional

Military

33rd 33rd

NW Radial Radial NW NW

Saddle Creek-Cuming (page 100)

Cuming

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Developing New Project Ideas

DRAFT99 Map 4.6.4 Saddle Creek-Cuming

Commercial Mixed Use Oﬃ ce Multi Family Hamilton Single Family Parks & Open Space Institutional

NW Radial

Radial

40th 40th

Cuming

4th

46th 46th 45th 45th 4 44th

Th e major public project proposed for this area is a reconfi guration of the Saddle Creek/Cuming intersection itself. Th e Transportation Element planning team considered a dual roundabout to help separate the concentration of competing turning movements, although preliminaty testing suggested that this design would likely not accommodate current traffi c volumes. Other concepts include a single point intersection with today’s multiple channelizations consolidated into more of a single point, four-leg intersection, and the elimination of a southbound left turn lane from Northwest Radial Highway to Cuming Street to divert traffi c south onto Saddle Creek.

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Developing New Project Ideas

DRAFT100 Map 4.6.5 Grant-Lake Inﬁ ll

Commercial Lake Mixed Use Oﬃ ce 4 Multi Family Single Family 2 Parks & Open Space Institutional Grant Potential Redevelopment Area

1 4

Parker

3 Decatur

Military 6

th 40th 5 40 3 Franklin

3 Seward

Charles

Hamilton

1 Provide new street along abandoned rail corridor (Project NS-PUB-011) 2 Create new higher density, multi-family node around existing Lake and 40th 3 Extend street grid, where applicable, to new street within rail corridor. Most east-west streets are currently dead-ends. 4 Front proposed open space with townhomes or garden apartments 5 Even if no public street is provided, this rail corridor provides a multi-use path opportunity (MP-020) 6 Enhance existing single-family neighborhoods with new single-family and multi-family developments

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Developing New Project Ideas

DRAFT101 Map 4.6.6 West Carter Lake

Commercial Commercial Cornish Blvd 3 Mixed Use Oﬃ ce Multi Family Single Family Parks & Open Space 1 2 Institutional 5

Carter Lake Lake Carter Carter

16th 16th 16th

Locust

1 Extend Commercial Avenue to Carter Lake Drive 2 Provide public edge to Carter Lake with fronting residential development 3 Front residential along existing sports facilities 4 Encourage light industrial and /or ﬂ ex oﬃ ce along Locust Street 5 Create new open spaces throughout site that takes advantage of existing topography and views 6 Create a new neighborhood center with mixed use development

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Developing New Project Ideas

DRAFT102 Section 5

TRANSPORTATIONTRANSPORORTATIONTTION ELEMELEMENTENENTT

In order to develop a comprehensive list of recommendations for Omaha, the project candidates and strategic policy approaches suggested through the public and stakeholder involvement process needed to be evaluated and prioritized for feasibility and for adherence to real funding constraints.

Th e evaluation process took a three-step approach. The fi rst step was to develop a series of quantifi able performance metrics by which projects could be assigned numeric values or scores. Th e community goals for the project discussed in Section 3 of the Transportation Element served as the basis for these metrics: each goal was broken down into several diff erent specifi c indicators for which values could be determined in a consistent and systematic manner. 5.1 Project Pre-Screening Although the candidate projects identifi ed in earlier stages of the Transportation Element’s plan development all have a transportation purpose and were seen as legitimate enhancements to Omaha’s transportation system, the planning team sought to better identify those projects with a true transportation purpose for future adoption into capital improvement programs. Th e following paragraphs describe a series of preliminary screening steps that eliminated project redundancy and removed projects from the candidate list that were considered not to be essential for transportation reasons.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects Th e plan development process identiﬁ ed a large number of bicycle and pedestrian projects, both on-street and oﬀ -street. Many of the on-street routes are short-length, neighborhood serving routes that do not on their own form a citywide commuting system. Th ese projects undoubtedly add to Omaha’s bicycle inventory and are worthwhile pursuits, but should be considered long-term or opportunity-based projects to which to aspire as resources become available and conditions favor their execution.

Likewise, many candidates for multi-use path and trail projects proposed during the Transportation Element’s development process are more likely to serve a recreational function than a commuting function, owing largely to their alignment near or in parks. A similar preliminary screening was applied, with staﬀ direction, to deﬁ ne those trail and path projects with a clear and defensible relationship to the transportation system.

In both cases, projects identiﬁ ed by this screening process to be opportunity-based or less critical to a core non-motorized transportation system should be pursued and advanced when opportunities arise, though they do not represent the highest priority for programming capital funds. Table 5.1.1 on the following page identiﬁ es the projects that were removed from consideration for the capital projects list as a result of this preliminary screening step.

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Evaluation Process

DRAFT103 Table 5.1.1 Bicycle and Multi-Use Path Projects Screened from Capital Program Consideration Project Project Project Name Project Name Number Number B-001 16th St Bike Lanes B-051 84th Street Bikeway B-002 15th St Bike Lanes B-053 Mercy-Shirley-60th Bike Route B-003 Harney St Bike Lanes B-054 48th St-Poppleton St B-004 Howard St / St Mary's Ave Bike Lanes B-055 Howard St B-008 Mike Fahey Bicycle Boulevard B-058 31st Avenue Bike Lanes B-009 Capitol Ave and Farnam St Bicycle Boulevard B-059 Pratt St Bike Boulevard - 16th to 30th B-010 11th St Bicycle Boulevard B-060 Pratt St Bike Boulevard - 52nd to 60th B-012 Conagra Dr Bicycle Boulevard B-061 16th St Bike Lanes B-013 7th St and Pierce St Bicycle Boulevard B-062 Military Avenue Bike Lanes B-014 6th St and Marcy St Bicycle Boulevard B-063 Martin Avenue Bicycle Route B-015 Sprague St Bike Lanes B-064 Minne Lusa Bicycle Route B-016 Lake/Grant St Bicycle Corridor MP-002 Riverfront 4 Trail B-017 16th St MP-005 Boulevard Trail B-019 33rd St MP-006 Boulevard Trail upgrading B-020 Pratt St-42nd St Bicycle Boulevard MP-007 North Expressway Right-of-Way Trail B-023 Turner Blvd Bicycle Boulevard MP-008 Sorensen Pkwy Trail B-024 Florence Blvd Bicycle Boulevard MP-011 Hanscom-Spring Lake Connector B-025 Elmwood Park Rd Bicycle Boulevard MP-015 Lee Valley Park Connector B-026 67th St Bicycle Boulevard MP-016 Burt St Trail (east) B-027 Mockingbird Dr Bicycle Boulevard MP-017 Burt St Trail (west) B-028 Westwood Ln Bicycle Boulevard MP-018 UNMC Connector B-029 Stonegate Dr Bicycle Boulevard MP-021 P-MRNRD West Papio Extension B-030 Eagle Run Dr Bicycle Boulevard MP-022 West Papio Trail - 168th and Maple Section B-031 Maplewood Blvd Bicycle Boulevard MP-025 Saddlebrook Drive alignment (south of Fort) Tranquility Park Multi-Use Path/Big Papio Trail B-032 138th St Bicycle Boulevard MP-026 Extension B-035 162nd St MP-027 West Papio Trail Gap Completion - 144th and F B-036 Rolling Ridge Rd MP-028 Sorensen Parkway - 52nd to 56th Path B-038 Hamilton St MP-029 State St Conector Trail B-039 Pratt St MP-030 Spring Lake Trail Extension B-040 60th St / Webster St MP-031 Field Club Extension - UNMC B-044 40th St Bicycle Boulevard MP-032 Crown Point West Connector Path B-045 Western St / Nicholas St Bicycle Boulevard MP-033 Wenninghoﬀ Connector Trail B-046 10th St Bicycle Lanes MP-034 Highway 36 Sidepath B-048 Boyd St, 79th St and 78th St MP-036 Riverfront Trail South Leg B-050 Northwest Radial Highway MP-037 Hanscom-Field Trail connection

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Evaluation Process

DRAFT104 Projects Closely Tied to Land Table 5.1.2 Development-Related Projects Development Screened from Capital Program Consideration As discussed in Section 4.6, many development and Project redevelopment opportunities carry with them potential Project Name Number transportation benefi ts. Th ese site-based developments New signal and geometric modifi cation IN-007 often feature suggestions for added street network, to intersection of NW Radial and 58th St though they may also include multi-use paths, reconfi g- New signal and geometric modifi cation IN-012 uration of existing intersections, or the upgrading of to intersection of NW Radial and Maple St Connection from Northwest Radial streets to be better equipped for bicycle, pedestrian and NS-PUB-008 Highway to Lake Street transit use. Ohio to Bedford Connecting Street NS-PUB-011 (North Omaha) Th e projects tied to development are listed in the 117th Street Extension (across Dodge NS-PUB-014 table below. Designation of this relationship was Road) used judiciously and applied only to candidate New connection from Cass to Dodge, NS-PUB-016 projects with little need or reasonable likelihood of parallel to the Keystone Trail being implemented were their related redevelopment NS-PUB-017 Howard Street Bridge Connection Miracle Hills connection from Blondo to opportunity not to be taken. Th is designation is not NS-PUB-018 Dodge applied broadly to projects proposed with a signifi cant New connection; extension of 11th Street NS-PUB-020 quality-of-life benefi t, especially in established from Nicholas to Cuming neighborhoods unlikely to see signifi cant redevelopment eff orts.

5.2 Project Evaluation Criteria Th e review of project proposals from previous plans and studies combined with the development of new project ideas through the Transportation Element’s public outreach activities. Twenty-four evaluation criteria used to develop a basic priority list for candidate projects relied on a combination of quantitative assessment using geographic information systems (GIS) data and qualitative judgment on the performance of a project.

City of Omaha staﬀ gave extensive review of these criteria before they were approved, including reviewing the results of a ‘test run’ of over 80 projects. As the consultant team was working through the evaluation process, they noticed ways that the scores in these criteria could better respond to a realistic range of possibilities.

Th e criteria are listed individually below with special notes on how scores were applied. At the end of each metric’s section is a summary of outcomes, detailing how the metric was applied with general observations on the metric’s relationship to proposed projects.

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Evaluation Process

DRAFT105 Goal 1: Provide balanced options for enhanced mobility

Th is goal expresses a desire for building Omaha’s transportation system in a way that provides modal choice and enables Omaha to continue providing a high level of transportation infrastructure performance to the community. It understands that in places where Omaha seeks to add population density, true urban mobility means a sophisticated set of transport options.

Metric 1.1: Modal Options Th e Modal Options metric evaluated the existence of non Metric 1.1 Modal Options single occupancy vehicle modes, including bicycle, transit Methodology: Judgment of capacity increase based and pedestrian components to be evaluated by direct on project description, GIS analysis used to determine access, proximity, and connectivity. Projects were evaluated connection to multi-modal projects (e.g. bike projects) through qualitative eff orts and GIS analysis. POTENTIAL SCORES 1 Substantial increase only to SOV capacity Outcomes. Substantial increases counted as an increase of 2 Increase only to SOV capacity one travel lane per direction or greater. Examples of this would be a two-lane to four-lane widening with no other 3 SOV capacity with minor bike/ped benefi t modes benefi ting. Typically, scores of 2 were reserved for 4 Bike/ped or transit benefi t intersection projects that added turn lanes or proposed 5 Benefi t to 2+ modes channelized intersections. Th ese also applied to two-lane to three-lane capacity projects.

Metric 1.2: Street Congestion Reduction of traffi c congestion improves air quality by reducing automobiles’ idle time and reduces time spent in Metric 1.2 Street Congestion travel. Candidate projects were evaluated on reduced travel Methodology: Use travel demand model and compare roadway link V/C ratios from baseline to build scenario times from the baseline. POTENTIAL SCORES Outcomes. Th is metric depended on travel demand model 1 Adds signifi cant congestion results and as such not all projects could be evaluated under 2 Adds some congestion it. Projects not ‘visible’ to the model were assessed according to engineering judgment and the typical outcomes of 3 Neutral similar projects (for example, projects proposing to add 4 Eliminates some congestion turn lanes at intersections were determined to eliminate 5 Eliminates signifi cant congestion some congestion if the model showed congestion along the corridor; these projects thus received a score of 4).

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Evaluation Process

DRAFT106 Metric 1.3: Street Options (Parallel Routes) Th is metric is a qualitative assessment of how a street project can provide new connections to the existing street network, Metric 1.3 Street Options thereby providing new ways to accomplish the same trip or Methodology: Use GIS to measure and count new links connecting areas that currently have no direct connections. POTENTIAL SCORES Outcomes. Most projects did not add new street Removes more than one network option or 1 separates neighborhoods or travel sheds network and thus received neutral scores. Speciﬁ c project performance is explained in the Scoring Notes ﬁ eld of the 2 Removes one network option project list. 3 Neutral 4 Adds one network option Adds or opens multiple network options or 5 connects neighborhoods or travel sheds

Metric 1.4: Street Connectivity (Intersec- tions and Turn Options) In addition to street network that provides travel Metric 1.4 Street Connectivity alternatives, new and existing streets alike need to Methodology: Use GIS network analysis to calculate have a good connectivity—through a regular spacing links and nodes; count both in each scenario and compare resulting ratios of intersections and minimal amount of dead-end streets—that allow new streets to actually support the POTENTIAL SCORES transportation system. Th is measure examines how 1 Lowers link/node ratio a project aﬀ ects the relationship between links, or 2 Score not assigned speciﬁ c street segments in a network, and nodes, or the 3 No change endpoints of these segments. 4 Score not assigned Outcomes. Very few projects either lowered or 5 Improves link/node ratio increased the link/node ratio, so most received a ‘no change’ score of 3. Th e projects that increased this ratio are new street projects, most associated with adjacent site redevelopment prospects, and the high scores assigned to those projects under this metric led many of them to perform well. In all reality most of the New Public Street projects would not be implemented until private land development occurred, meaning that the elevated ranking may not mean they become short-term obligations to the City.

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Evaluation Process

DRAFT107 Goal 2: Attain a safe and healthy environment

One of the driving concerns behind rethinking Omaha’s transportation future is the city’s public health proﬁ le, ranked 142nd out of 182 United States metropolitan areas in a study performed with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Behavioral Risk Factors Statistical Survey. In addition to the physical activity-based implications of transportation systems heavily tilted to driving (and especially longer and longer distances as a community’s urban footprint expands), degraded air quality aﬀ ects everyone in a community and the transportation system is generally less safe for non-motorized users.

Metric 2.1: Operational Safety Intersections with a high number of crashes were identifi ed Metric 2.1 Operational Safety throughout the city. Often, the likelihood of accidents to Methodology: Compare project intent to calculated accident rate from GIS datasets occur at an intersection can be signifi cantly reduced through proper design. Project corridors that included “critical POTENTIAL SCORES intersections” would include designs techniques to reduce 1 Tends to increase crashes on bike/ped corridor future accidents. “Critical Intersections” were identifi ed as 2 Tends to increase crashes locations of greater than 20 accidents per year. 3 No safety eff ect Outcomes. High accident rates tend to be focused on very 4 Tends to reduce crashes limited, specifi c extents of corridors. For this reason, few 5 Tends to reduce bike/ped crashes projects showed much of an impact on a corridor’s accident rate. Projects where there was determined to be a likelihood of increased accident rates usually involved physical changes to roadway design that increased speeds, extended the crossing distance at intersections, or increased potential confl ict points (such as projects that increased the number of median openings along a corridor, such as CS-002, the Cuming Street road diet).

Metric 2.2: Walking and Biking Accessibility Connections for pedestrians and bicyclists to reach parks, Metric 2.2 Walking/Biking Accessibility schools and other community facilities promotes safe Methodology: Use GIS buff ering to measure and tally intersection of walk sheds with project alignment opportunities for exercise, increase the number of children walking to school and the choice to complete shorter trips POTENTIAL SCORES by means other than the automobile. Using GIS, a quarter Projects performing in the bottom fi fth, when all projects are sorted in order of accessibil- mile buff er was drawn around community facilities (school, 1 libraries, parks, recreation centers). Th is process measures ity, in providing connections to community facilities the number of these buff er areas that intersect with the project, normalizes this number on a per-mile basis, arranges 2 Second-lowest fi fth the projects in descending order by this number, and divides 3 Middle fi fth the entire project list into quintiles. 4 Second-highest fi fth 5 Highest fi fth

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Evaluation Process

DRAFT108 Outcomes. Th e outcome of this metric depended on how many of the ¼-mile buﬀ er areas mentioned above intersected with a project. Using GIS, each project was assigned a number of how many buﬀ er areas intersected with it and this number was normalized on a per-mile basis.

Roughly half of the projects on the list did not intersect with any of these community facility buff er areas. Th is was especially common for West Omaha suburban projects due to the self-contained, planned community nature of much of that area’s development (where parks and schools are often located inside the square mile bounded by major arterials). Because of this high number, which would account for the bottom two fi fths of the list and a part of the middle fi fth, all projects with no community facilities were assigned a score of 1 (or that reserved for the lowest fi fth) and the remaining projects were divided evenly into quartiles by rank.

Metric 2.3: Access to Healthy Food Sources Metric 2.3 Healthy Food Access Considers access to full-service grocery stores, community Methodology: GIS buﬀ er analysis around qualifying gardens and farmers markets as a source of fresh food that food source locations to determine accessibility contributes to a balanced, healthy diet. POTENTIAL SCORES

Outcomes. Healthy food sources were identifi ed from Degrades access to quality food in vulnerable 1 community a comprehensive survey of food-vending businesses throughout Douglas County. Th e survey collected extensive 2 Degrades access information on the types, variety and aff ordability of food 3 No eff ect sold at diff erent locations. In general, those locations that 4 Improves access provided at least two types of fresh fruits and vegetables, 5 Improves access in vulnerable community whole wheat grain products, rice, fi sh and a variety of meats were selected as healthy food sources. Th is corresponded generally to those establishments in the survey receiving a score of 60 or higher.

Areas considered ‘vulnerable communities’ are those where basic health indicators demonstrate higher levels of health risk and a greater incidence of diet-related health problems.

Projects received favorable scores under this metric if they improved the walking conditions between healthy sources and non-served areas (deﬁ ned as those areas beyond

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Evaluation Process

DRAFT109 a half-mile walk from the store), if they created new connections that might make the trip easier, if they allowed bicycle or transit travel to extend the half-mile reach, or if they enhanced intersections making a street easier to cross.

Metric 2.4: Impacts of Vehicle Delay Metric 2.4 Impacts of Vehicle Delay Th is metric utilized quantitative assessment of travel Methodology: Travel demand model and comparison of roadway links between diﬀ erent scenarios demand model outputs to estimate vehicle delay from volume/capacity ratios. Change in delay by implementing POTENTIAL SCORES the candidate project was calculated from the 2035 ‘trend’ 1 Adds delay to congested corridor (2010 LOS E or F) scenario. 2 Adds delay

Outcomes. Th is is another model-driven metric. Delay 3 Neutral and the alleviation of delay are both estimated by 4 Decreases delay comparable volume-to-capacity ratios in each scenario’s 5 Decreases delay to congested corridor model outputs. Generally, most capacity projects were seen to decrease delay based on this measurement and thus received higher scores.

Metric 2.4 Impacts of VMT Metric 2.5: Impacts of Vehicle Miles Traveled Methodology: Travel demand model and comparison Using output from the travel demand model, the percent of aggregate VMT for diﬀ erent scenarios change in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) was determined POTENTIAL SCORES from the 2035 trend model to determine the ability to reduce trips. 1 Worst-performing scenario 2 Score was not assigned Outcomes. Based on scenario-wide model results, the 3 Middle-performing scenario lowest overall VMT was achieved in the Transportation 4 Score was not assigned Enhancements scenario, the next-lowest in the Beltway scenario, and the highest VMT in the de facto LRTP/ 5 Best-performing scenario TIP scenario. A project was scored based on the highest performing scenario to which it was assigned (as some projects were assigned to more than one scenario).

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Evaluation Process

DRAFT110 Metric 2.6: Impervious Surfaces Th is metric is used primarily for street projects and assesses Metric 2.6 Impervious Surfaces the estimated impervious surface area of the traveled Methodology: GIS calculation of impervious area roadway for a project relative to the project street’s current addition (added lanes × lane width × project length) condition. Area is estimated by multiplying a total number POTENTIAL SCORES of travel lanes by an assumed average lane width and the overall project length. 1 More asphalt 2 More asphalt, 2010 congested corridor Outcomes. Th is metric assigned scores of 3 to most 3 No more asphalt projects, as they did not add asphalt. Roadway widening projects, either for capacity or bicycle lanes, uniformly 4 Score was not assigned received low scores for this project. Multi-use paths did as 5 Less asphalt well, as they are assumed to use an impervious surface in their construction.

It was rare that projects removed asphalt and thus received high scores, but notable examples include the Harney Street bicycle track projects (B-100 to B-104), which proposed conversion of one lane of travel to a raised landscaped median.

Goal 3: Create livable and connected neighborhoods

Metric 3.1: Appropriateness to Context Metric 3.1 Appropriateness to Context Appropriateness to Context refers to how a proposed facility Methodology: GIS-based comparison of project type/ relates to current and future surrounding land use. Th is scope to future land use and community facilities metric was determined through qualitative analysis using POTENTIAL SCORES GIS spatial maps and prior knowledge of Omaha’s neighborhoods. 1 destructive 2 unsupportive Outcomes. Th e intent of the metric was to measure ﬁt 3 neutral of a project to its surroundings. Very few projects were assigned a score of 1; only those requiring additional right 4 consistent 5 improves

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Evaluation Process

DRAFT111 of way from neighborhoods to increase vehicle capacity were considered to be ‘destructive’ to the surrounding environment.

At the same time, it was important for non-roadway projects to be considered in the broader scheme of the Omaha transportation system. Th is involved considering how appropriate transit capital investments would be in corridors not likely to support additional density and development, especially given the ﬁ scal limitations that Metro Transit typically faces.

Metric 3.2: Consistency with Neighborhood Metric 3.2 Neighborhood Plans Plans Methodology: Qualitative analysis based on a project’s consistency with plan’s intent Th rough GIS, and the inventory of previous plans and studies, an evaluation was conducted to determine POTENTIAL SCORES consistency of each candidate project with the studies’ land 1 Counter to plans use and density recommendations. 2 Score was not assigned Outcomes. Although application of this metric was 3 No clear relationship relatively straightforward, certain projects did not originate Project is consistent with the intent of a in previous studies but meet the general intent and goals of 4 neighborhood plan, even if not deﬁ ned as a the plan. Th e need to recognize these kinds of projects led project idea in that plan to the addition of a score of 4 (which had been absent in the Supportive of and directly responsive to 5 project proposals in plans previous version of the criteria).

Th e assignment of a score of 1 for this metric often involved a degree of subjective judgment, as there are rarely prohibited actions in a plan that a later project candidate could embody. For that reason, scores of 1 were assigned sparingly.

Metric 3.3: Contribution to Complete Streets Metric 3.3 Complete Streets Methodology: Qualitative assessment Th e existence of non single occupancy vehicle modes, including bicycle, transit and pedestrian components was POTENTIAL SCORES seen as an important candidate project element. Increases vehicle speed and discourages 1 non-SOV modes Outcomes. Th e key indicator in this metric is speed. 2 Discourages non-SOV modes Although average speeds can be reported in the travel demand model, not all project candidates would be 3 No change evaluated as such and engineering judgment was used to 4 Improves access for one mode estimate eﬀ ects on speed in other projects. 5 Improves access for 2 or more modes

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Evaluation Process

DRAFT112 In addition, intersection-specifi c projects do not have the same impacts on vehicle speed that street corridor projects do, making the assignment of scores to these kinds of projects diffi cult. Engineering judgment was used to assess whether physical changes to an intersection as envisioned in the candidate project concept would have an eff ect on speeds. For example, roundabouts, bulbout curb extensions and enhanced crosswalks likely do aff ect speeds, although simply adding crosswalks or adding a traffi c signal do not.

Metric 3.4: Quality of Public Realm/Street Metric 3.4 Street Character Character Methodology: GIS-based comparison of project type/ A metric to identify projects that improve or create public scope to future land use and community facilities space and/or promote the vitality of an activity center POTENTIAL SCORES based on a review of land uses. Th is metric uses a ratio of proposed street width to average building height. Th is is 1 Ratio changed to be greatly out of character intended to identify where wider roads in less intense land 2 Changed to somewhat out of character uses are likely to create barriers to the community or be seen 3 No change as inconsistent with neighborhood character. Th is measures 4 Change improves ratio the ratio of average building height to traveled-way width and its match to context. 5 Greatly improves

Outcomes. Th is metric was intended to capture both the interest in aesthetics expressed by some stakeholders and to identify where larger project footprints were likely to be inappropriate. In very few cases were scores other than 3 assigned to projects, mostly because new roadway widening projects are located mostly in planned suburban environments where subdivision walls separate private property from the roadway project. Th e notable exceptions to this occurred in cases where a roadway widening proposed acquisition of right-of-way from parks or other community facilities, or where road diet projects envisioned to add on-street parking could reduce the perceived width of the travelway.

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Evaluation Process

DRAFT113 Metric 3.5: Quality of Public Realm – Landscape/Streetscape Addition Th is metric assesses the amount of street tree coverage added Metric 3.5 Landscape/Streetscape Methodology: GIS-based calculation of tree coverage and can be used to estimate increases in canopy, increases (project length × tree spacing assumption) in length of buff ered pedestrian walkways and potential air quality contribution. POTENTIAL SCORES Removes greenspace when Green Streets 1 Outcomes. Recognizing project-specifi c additions from Plan says it should add the Green Streets Plan, this metric tracked the addition or 2 Removes green space removal of trees and other landscaping in a project. 3 Neither adds nor removes Metric 3.6: Community Preference 4 Score was not assigned Community Preference was a qualitative assessment of 5 Adds greenspace projects that have been openly opposed or supported by the public either via project specifi c venues (i.e. workshops or public meetings) and /or City council meetings.

Outcomes. Expressions of community preference were Metric 3.6 Community Preference Methodology: Review of past plans, proposals and likely to be made in the opportunities for interaction with reports the consultant team, although staff have forwarded on comments from residents during the Omaha TMP process. POTENTIAL SCORES Staff comments factored into this evaluation as well. Most 1 1 - strong opposition projects were assigned a score of 3 unless specifi c comment 2 2 - some opposition was made otherwise. Nearly no projects were strongly opposed by the community, and even some projects that 3 3 - little indication had some opposition also had support. 4 4 - generally supported 5 5 - greatly supported Metric 3.7: Parks and Community Facilities Accessibility In the theme to improve connections, candidate projects received preference if they provided direct access to community facilities through non single occupancy vehicles. Scoring was based on candidate projects that Metric 3.7 Parks Accessibility included a bicycle or pedestrian element within ¼ mile of a Methodology: GIS-based network analysis indicating community facility. 1/4-mile walk accessibility POTENTIAL SCORES Outcomes. Very few projects if any removed bike or ped 1 Removes bike and ped access. Most projects were given a score of 3 or 4; projects with bike lanes were not assumed to add anything beyond 2 Removes bike or ped existing sidewalks. 3 Neutral 4 Adds one 5 Adds 2

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Evaluation Process

DRAFT114 Goal 4: Promote Economic Returns with Fiscal Sustainability

In order to ensure that new enhancements to Omaha’s transportation system can continue to serve the community, it is important to pursue projects that can be feasibly funded and for which maintenance can be absorbed into regular maintenance budgets.

Metric 4.1: Unique Financing Projects were given preference if a specifi c fi nancing source was dedicated for the project. Funding could include Metric 4.1 Unique Financing Methodology: Qualitative assessment of projects earmarks or TIF/BID fi nancing. based on likelihood for diff erent funding options

Outcomes. Most projects are likely to qualify only for POTENTIAL SCORES Project relies entirely on the generation of a standard funding sources. Th e score of 4 was added later in 1 the process to recognize the potential of the City of Omaha’s new revenue source or agency other than City sewer separation program to help fund street reconstruction 2 Score was not assigned along the lines of a candidate project’s vision. If there were 3 Standard funding sources other fi nancing mechanisms, such as business improvement Overlap with CSO areas may yield potential for districts, the project received a score of 5. Projects likely 4 project cost-sharing with that program to be carried out in conjunction with private development 5 Unique fi nance (BID, tolls, etc.) generally received scores of 5 for this metric, causing many of them to rise in rankings. Staff have already identifi ed that these projects would not necessarily be a public responsibility.

Metric 4.2: Economic Development Th is metric was based on a qualitative assessment of cost and Metric 4.2 Economic Development value estimates. Methodology: Qualitative assessment POTENTIAL SCORES Outcomes. Most projects received a neutral score, as the consultant team applied a fairly conservative estimate of 1 Impedes adjacent economic opportunity economic development potential. Th ose projects receiving 2 Score was not assigned the highest scores were projects central to improved land 3 Neutral access, greatly enhanced public amenities (including streetscape and the addition of on-street parking) or that 4 Somewhat improves showed potential to add signiﬁ cant person-moving capacity 5 Greatly improve to a corridor.

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Evaluation Process

DRAFT115 Metric 4.3: Project Feasibility, Cost and Constructability Th is metric was originally used for project cost, but Metric 4.3 Project Feasibility was expanded to include engineering feasibility and Methodology: Score calculated arithmetically based on system below how complex the project would be to design and implement. Th is is intended to give a higher score to SCORING SYSTEM projects that are relatively straightforward and at a cost All projects begin with a score of 5. One point is deducted for each of the following, and a project level that they do not require major commitments of may exhibit any or all of these factors (though no funding, and to give lower scores to projects that are project is to be scored less than 1). complicated. Engineering is complicated beyond basic roadway/ facility construction concerns Outcomes. Although a subjective metric, the project Multiple bridges are involved team began to realize a need to account for general Environmental impacts feasibility other than simply relying on cost. A major reason for this is the LRTP’s use of costs for long-term Signifi cant property impacts projects that include an annual infl ation factor in Unusually high cost (more than 50% above their cost estimate. As cost information estimating standard unit cost estimates and any future-year a project’s cost in current dollars was not readily infl ation adjustment) available, this broader metric allowed the project team Multiple jurisdictions involved (especially outside of to factor in other elements that may make cost less of Nebraska) an impediment to a project’s moving forward. Th e complexity of some projects, especially special projects such as the Harney Bike Trail and Dodge Transitway projects, were refl ected in lower scores for this metric.

Metric 4.4: Concurrency with Committed Public Services Measures whether or not a project is consistent with Metric 4.4 Concurrency areas of committed public services, especially physical Methodology: GIS-based overlay of project with sewer infrastructure-based services such as water and central service area sewer systems. POTENTIAL SCORES 1 project outside public service boundary Outcomes. Although expansion Omaha’s public service area relies to a large extent on sanitary 2 Score was not assigned improvement districts (SIDs), it is already suffi ciently outside service boundary, but serving 3 large to account for most projects. Th e general critical need defi nition used for this area corresponds with the 4 Score was not assigned boundary for future sewer expansion limits set by staff 5 within service boundary at the April 2011 workshop with the consulting team.

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Evaluation Process

DRAFT116 Metric 4.5: Project Utility Preparing for growth includes increasing the capacity to Metric 4.5 Project Utility carry higher levels of traﬃ c in key areas. Th is metric utilized Methodology: Travel demand model results the travel demand model to determine future capacity of augmented by qualitative assessment candidate projects. Capacity was measured by comparing future traﬃ c volume from the baseline. POTENTIAL SCORES 1 Degrades people movement Outcomes. Th ough originally the intent of this metric to 2 Maintains reward projects that added capacity, the project team later Does not add (or remove) person-carrying added a neutral score intended to keep from ‘downgrading’ capacity, but addresses other critical factors 3 the score of projects addressing some critical need. such as corridor accident rates, roadway defects, etc. Project utility for transit projects is based on estimates for 4 Score was not assigned daily ridership as determined by the regional travel demand 5 Improves model.

Metric 4.6: Facilitate Goods Movement Appropriate roadway design is critical to ensure trucks are able to reach local retail, industrial activity, and multimodal distribution facilities. Candidate projects along the exiting Metric 4.6 Goods Movement Methodology: GIS-based overlay of truck routes and truck route network were evaluated on their ability to projects, comparing proposed design criteria facilitate future truck movements. Th e truck network was deﬁ ned as Omaha’s current designated truck route network POTENTIAL SCORES Degrades truck route(might include elements and all routes maintained by the Nebraska Department of 1 Roads. such as roundabouts that impede movement) 2 Degrades Outcomes. Th is metric is used for determining negative 3 Neutral impacts on freight movement potential based on physical 4 Score was not assigned changes to the roadway. Projects such as roundabouts, mid-block traﬃ c calming and intersection reconstructions 5 Improves truck mobility using smaller corner radii were assigned lower scores for this reason (and scores of 1 if the project were on a city-designated truck route).

Th e projects determined to improve freight movement potential were those that alleviated congestion on major truck corridors (or corridors with Interstate highway access) or that eliminated a need for turns or sharp curves in truck routes.

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Evaluation Process

DRAFT117 Metric 4.7: Parking Facilities Candidate projects were qualitatively assessed for their ability Metric 4.7 Parking Facilities to create on street parking opportunities and/or do not Methodology: Qualitative Assessment adversely impact access to surrounding parking opportunities. POTENTIAL SCORES Outcomes. Another straightforward metric to apply, 1 Removes in area of need projects receiving a score of 1 were generally located in 2 Removes business districts or in neighborhoods with limited on-site parking. Bicycle lane projects were generally identifi ed to 3 No eff ect avoid situations of possible confl ict with on-street parking, 4 Score was not assigned although in places where this confl ict appeared to happen 5 Adds parking nonetheless the project received a lower score.

5.3 Use of Goal-Based Metrics

Th e metrics described in the previous sections were Patterns that emerged and how this used primarily for a fi rst-order ranking of projects to aligns with political reality obtain a sense of implementation priorities relative both to the candidate projects considered and to the Due to the nature of many of Omaha’s previous community goals developed in the Transportation transportation plans and studies, the candidate project Element’s public involvement process. Th e assignment list refl ected a vastly greater scope of transportation of scores based on the detailed scoring process was not project types from what conventionally appears in intended to set project priorities. Instead, a series of transportation improvement programs and receives adjustments were made to this list to refl ect the political funding. Many plans developed at the neighborhood needs of advancing certain projects, the established level called for streetscape-based projects, bicycle and commitments of funding to certain projects, and pedestrian improvements, aesthetic enhancements critical transportation needs such as bridge replace- to bridges and other transportation facilities and ments. As a result, the recommended list of projects other projects not focused on conventional mobility is diff erent from that developed purely from this objectives. Th e Green Streets Plan in particular metrics system. Nonetheless, the goals and metrics identifi ed multiple candidate projects in which streets scoring system helped to identify projects that refl ect would be reconfi gured to refl ect that Plan’s principles. a high degree of responsiveness to a far-reaching set of community goals. Th is elevated many projects to As a result, the ranked project list that resulted from positions of higher priority when such projects were this fi rst evaluation included a large number of these typically not developed and programmed under more projects and, due to their generally high level of conventional transportation planning frameworks. responsiveness to the identifi ed community goals, these projects tended to fall in the higher parts of the rankings. By contrast, many roadway capacity projects did not perform as well in the ranked list: their scopes were narrowly defi ned as to focus entirely on vehicle

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Evaluation Process

DRAFT118 capacity and the metrics measuring community impacts Other projects were also scored highly based on their such as impervious surface addition, widening of the broad response to the four main community goals, street envelope, and the increase of traffi c worked although they were primarily considered as candidates against these projects. due to their inclusion in previous plans and studies and do not necessarily have a clear transportation benefi t. Th e political reality of present-day transportation Th ese included streetscape projects, pedestrian bridges, planning and funding is somewhat diff erent from this and certain multi-use trail and path projects. and it is important to appreciate this reality in moving forward from the ranked project list. Projects given too low of a score As suggested above, many roadway capacity projects Projects that were given a good score that are were given relatively low scores, especially projects worthwhile specifi ed as a full two-lane to four-lane or fi ve-lane As stated previously, the ranking process identifi ed widening in their description in the MAPA long-range several projects worthy of further development that transportation plan or transportation improvement demonstrate strong promise for a broad community program. Many of these projects appear to be based benefi t beyond simply transportation; certain projects on general projections of capacity need and assumed a of these represent bold advances for Omaha’s transpor- basic roadway widening from two lanes to four or fi ve tation system and take progressive approaches to solving lanes into the future. Th e evaluation process pointed problems and addressing community needs. Certain out the following projects that could minimize negative projects should be considered for the strong potential impact and increase their performance rating if they for community benefi t. Th e Harney Bikeway System sought a three-lane roadway section instead: projects (B-100 through B-104) are one example of this, due to their combination of repurposed right-of- • RC-049: 120th Street between Maple and Fort way, bicycle benefi t appealing to residents and visitors, • RC-051: Fort between 123rd and 132nd Streets and their economic development potential. • RC-052: Harrison between 157th and 169th Streets Projects given too high of a score Th e high number of bicycle project candidates initially Th e Omaha Beltway and the Scoring Process resulted in a bicycle-heavy set of projects; this was Th e Beltway is a regional-scale candidate project adjusted considerably with the application of the and as such does not easily fi t into the evaluation pre-screening steps discussed in Section 5.1. While intent of many of the metrics, which focus on local many of these bicycle projects are estimated to have and neighborhood-specifi c performance indicators; relatively low costs, this nonetheless represents a therefore several neutral scores are applied throughout signifi cant departure from the conventional transpor- its scoring. It is given a high score for consistency tation program’s composition of primarily roadway with previous plans (Metric 3.2) and for community capacity projects. Given the largely vehicle-based preference (Metric 3.6) due to MAPA’s reports of transportation system in Omaha and community most recent survey results (which indicate that 75% of expectations of relatively free-fl owing travel and short respondents support the idea). It is also given a high travel times, such a balance is likely to raise community score for economic development (Metric 4.2), though concerns that the larger priorities of Omaha’s transpor- the degree to which economic development benefi ts tation needs are not being met. the City of Omaha is unclear. It receives low scores for its high cost (nearly equal to all currently planned and programmed projects in the current LRTP, TIP

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Evaluation Process

DRAFT119 and CIP combined), for other engineering challenges policy. It should be evaluated on a regional scale including multiple environmental clearance issues in and should not be held to the same criteria as those the new alignment sections, and for concurrency with used to measure project performance at the local and currently committed public services. neighborhood scales considered throughout much of the Transportation Element’s candidate development Th is score performance should not be used to evaluate process. the Beltway solely on its merits. It remains a key topic of discussion and an important project proposal in considering how Omaha will direct future growth

5.4 Travel Demand Model Enhancement

Th e other major assessment step was a detailed eff ort to has been added between the trip generation and trip adapt and enhance the MAPA regional travel demand distribution steps to allow bicycle/pedestrian project forecasting model to include and evaluate Transporta- candidates to be evaluated in the context of other tion Element project candidates. Th is section provides projects. Second, transit mode choice and transit a brief summary of that process and how the planning assignment have been added. Th e planning team used team analyze diff erent project scenarios. More detailed National Household Transportation Survey (NHTS) information can be found in the technical appendix on data as a basis for estimating current modal shares in Travel Demand Model Enhancement. the models’ diff erent traffi c analysis zones.

Th e MAPA model follows the standard four-step travel Th e multimodal model is implemented in a TransCAD demand modeling process: macro in the same way that the MAPA model is and uses most of the MAPA model script. • Trip generation (calculating trip ends from households and jobs) Development of Scenarios • Trip distribution (linking trip ends to form trips) Projects were not modeled individually but rather in • Mode choice (dividing trips by mode) a series of three citywide transportation scenarios that • Assignment (assigning trips to the network) grouped together projects based on a general policy and mission approach. Th e purpose of this approach was In the MAPA model, the mode choice component has to use the model to understand synergy of a program been limited to converting auto person trips into auto of compatible projects as well as the eﬀ ects of a shift in vehicle trips. No other modes are modeled. land use policy. Individual project-related measures of eﬀ ectiveness were then reported project-by-project and Th e planning team worked to develop a multimodal used as needed in the evaluation criteria discussed in model following the same general structure with two Section 5.2. major changes. First, a non-motorized trip model Th e combined total of the current amounts budgeted in the City of Omaha’s Capital Improvement Program

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Evaluation Process

DRAFT120 (for transportation projects only), the MAPA Transpor- the eff ects of pursuing the Beltway as a major regional tation Improvement Program and the MAPA 2035 project priority. Long-Range Transportation Plan was assumed to be the region’s eff ective fi scal constraint. Other scenarios were Due to the need to limit each scenario’s included limited to that same amount. projects based on the assumed regional fi scal constraint, the Beltway scenario features far fewer projects than Scenario 1: TIP/LRTP/CIP Default the other scenarios. Th e $750 million estimated cost Th e fi rst of these three scenarios used the projects for the project leaves little in the fi scally constrained currently programmed in the MAPA TIP and City amount to accommodate other projects; the other of Omaha CIP along with all planned projects in the projects selected in this scenario are capacity and fi scally-constrained MAPA 2035 Long Range Transpor- roadway extension projects that would interface with tation Plan. It assumed no additional projects from the Beltway and thus be based on a clear relationship to the Transportation Element’s candidate development the Beltway in their benefi ts. process. Th is scenario was used to provide a status quo baseline on which to compare the performance of Scenario 3: Transportation Enhancements alternative scenarios. Th is scenario features many of the candidate concepts developed during the Transportation Element’s design Scenario 1a: TIP/LRTP/CIP Projects with workshops, although due to the relatively low cost of New Land Use Policy many of these projects it also features a substantial Projects were retained from scenario 1, but socioeco- number of projects from Scenario 1. nomic data used in each of the model’s traffi c analysis zones were substituted with data refl ecting a distribution of population into TAZs in central Omaha. Of the 130,000 persons forecast to be added to Douglas County’s population by the model’s 2035 horizon year, 30,000 of those were distributed into currently- developed TAZs.

Scenario 2: Omaha Beltway Th e recent MAPA-led study for a circumferential expressway around Omaha continues to be a major point of discussion in Omaha’s future growth direction. It was not considered along with other projects in the candidate development and evaluation process of Section 5.2 largely because the planning team considered it to be a regional project priority and one that would not be advanced by a City of Omaha-led transportation plan. However, in recognition of the relative size of the City of Omaha in its metropolitan area and the considerable inﬂ uence that the City has in the regional transportation program, this scenario was developed in order to provide an illustration of

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Evaluation Process

DRAFT121 Section 6

TRANSPORTATIONTRANSPORORTATIONTTION ELEMELEMENTENT

Th e evaluation process pointed to two major observa- ownership opportunity for many Omaha residents, tions. First, the general patterns of transportation have worked against the goals that the City has investment in Omaha over the last few decades have identifi ed in its Comprehensive Plan, most notably been focused on accommodating its growth. Th e those emphasizing an increase in population density advent of the SID as a development fi nancing tool has expressed in the Plan’s Environment Element. Th ese all but made this a necessity: Omaha’s generally solid growth patterns also have implications for transporta- economic base has led to ongoing growth pressure and, tion, especially an ever-increasing commitment of as the SIDs are designed to facilitate new development, transportation resources to adding new infrastructure new additions to roadway infrastructure to serve an capacity and a consequent decline in available resources expanding urbanized area has been a predominant for maintaining what has already been built. Omaha policy concern. Second, making strides toward the is already beginning to see the eff ects of this, extending health and livability goals of the Transportation its regular maintenance cycles beyond what a state of Element, especially in providing greater options in reasonably good repair would suggest is necessary. non-motorized travel modes, suggests a set of project priorities that is signifi cantly diff erent from current Key to this is an understanding that change in the transportation plans and programs. transportation planning and programming paradigm will not happen immediately and entirely at once, but However, these two observations do not need to be will involve ongoing discussion of important project incompatible: Omaha can continue to spend transpor- opportunities, innovative ways of funding projects that tation money to accommodate growth for the next 25 do not receive the same level of assistance as roadway years and can do so in a way that enhances its transpor- projects, and close coordination with land use and tation system and achieves the goals identifi ed in the transportation policy. Transportation Element’s public outreach process. What is central to these two ideas being aligned is how Th is section lays out a framework for how this can Omaha grows. happen, detailing the specifi c project recommendations to appear in capital programs over the next 25 years. For this reason, the Transportation Element’s It also provides policy recommendations, from both recommendations extend beyond a pure transporta- transportation and land use perspectives, as well as a set tion focus and include land use and development. Th e of near-term policy action items intended to launch the union of transportation projects and policies with land implementation of this Transportation Element. It also use and development policies is critical for Omaha to provides a basic discussion of funding options based continue to aff ord providing infrastructure and services. on staff and stakeholder discussions and work sessions Th e current patterns of growth, while they have greatly held during the Transportation Element’s development added to tax base and have greatly increased home process.

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Recommendations

DRAFT122 6.1 Project Recommendations Th e major share of Omaha’s investment in its transpor- philosophy: projects should advance more than basic tation system over the next 25 years will be tied vehicular mobility, and the projects that feature the to specifi c capital projects. Based on the input of greatest range of benefi ts are those that should be a high candidates (discussed in Section 4) and the process by priority for public expenditure. which they were evaluated, the Transportation Element recommends a series of projects to be added to future Th e path moving forward to implement the Transpor- transportation funding programs and to be pursued as tation Element will need to consider the ranked other opportunities arise over the next 25 years. list’s recommendations hand-in-hand with the fi scal, procedural and political realities of developing and Project Opportunity Costs executing capital projects and special programs. For Certain projects have particular sources of funding that this reason, project recommendations are based require their execution within a given time frame. Th is on a series of priority ‘grades’ that refl ect current includes roadway capacity and bridge projects that are programming of funds and projects related to it, eligible for federal funding assistance, as these projects diff erent levels of community need for certain projects, have been planned and designed according to environ- and the potential for broad-based community benefi t mental impact assessment procedures necessary for that specifi c projects present. federal funding per the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). However, a more systematic approach Ranked List needs to be taken to planning projects. Th ere must It is important to understand that the metrics / also be consideration of a project’s purpose and need, priorities list was an exercise to evaluate all of the especially relative to Omaha’s larger set of objectives for identifi ed transportation projects against Omaha’s goals its future, and the fi nite resources with which transpor- for transportation. tation projects are advanced must be understood. A project that may not address a high priority or respond It must also discuss the true realities of our current most directly to a transportation need should not be transportation development process that will not allow advanced simply because of its having entered into the us to make any drastic changes but will provide for environmental review process or because funds have incremental changes over time to create a balanced already been expended on preliminary engineering and transportation system accommodating all users. Be real design. clear that this list is just an example of how we get to a balanced system. Projects and the Ranked Priority List Roadway Capacity Projects Th e ranked project list’s purpose is to evaluate projects with respect to their responsiveness to the Transpor- Owing to Omaha’s patterns of growth in the second tation Element’s community goals, which include a half of the twentieth century, ongoing roadway balanced transportation system that minimizes traffi c capacity needs will remain for the city throughout the congestion and enhances safety and operational charac- implementation of this plan. Th e City should prioritize teristics. Projects that performed well in this evaluation these projects based on the following general criteria and ranking process inherently represent a broad set and in the following order: of benefi ts and serve purposes beyond those that have conventionally been considered for transportation 1. Project satisfi es existing capacity needs and project selection. Herein is the center of this plan’s alleviates major corridor congestion.

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Recommendations

DRAFT123 2. Project will alleviate forecast congestion from identify any overlapping Transportation Element added development along its extent. project recommendations when any maintenance or 3. Project will alleviate forecast congestion special facilities projects are undertaken on Omaha associated with development outside of its streets. extent but assigned to the roadway from travel demand modeling and, if applicable, Bicycle Projects for the Capital origin/destination studies. Projects List Omaha has identifi ed, both before and during the Th e ranked project list is intended to guide capital development of the Transportation Element, a broad project selection and its evaluation methods were based range of potential bicycle projects to add visible, signed, on a similar set of principles. Adjustments to the marked routes to Omaha’s on-street bicycle system timing and programming of roadway capacity projects and to generally improve modal choice in the city’s from this list are likely to occur, but should follow the neighborhoods. Th ere are many diff erent opportuni- three basic sequential steps above. Projects that are ties for achieving formalized bicycle routes while other not responding to a capacity defi ciency, whether now capital improvement projects are being undertaken, or forecast in the future, should not be assigned a high such as Omaha’s combined sewer overfl ow remediation priority until such time that any one of the above three program or the City’s general street resurfacing conditions is applicable. program. However, few bicycle projects have advanced as stand-alone projects in the City’s Capital Improve- Roadway Reconfi guration Projects ments Program, due mostly to scarcity of funds for Th e road diet projects discussed as important opportu- roadway improvements and the predominance of need nities were selected primarily for expanding bicycle for accommodating added vehicle capacity, especially in reach. However, there are several instances where the Omaha’s western suburbs. change to the roadway cross-section could potentially increase safety, help to control travel speeds, and Th e Transportation Element’s associated prioritized improve traffi c operations on the corridor, especially by project list focuses on a core system of on-street bicycle giving left-turning vehicles their own dedicated storage routes and trails, although the plan itself identifi es a space. far more extensive set of routes for the City to pursue as opportunities arise. Th e purpose of this organiza- Th ese road diet projects have been included in the tion is to ensure that a foundational framework of ranked project list as guidance on their importance direct, long-distance bicycle routes is committed to as to Omaha’s transportation system in responding to a funding priority and that all parts of Omaha have the four community goals framing and guiding the access to a citywide bicycle system. Inherent in this Transportation Element. However, the nature of these is the understanding that many streets may not have projects—which does not typically involve major marked, signed bicycle facilities in the short term, but curb-to-curb reconstruction but rather works within that over time they will be pursued as opportunities existing built roadway dimensions—suggests that and funds become available. Capital projects will be implementation of these projects may be opportunity- reserved for completion of the core system. based as well. Th is is especially the case for roadway resurfacing from regular maintenance programs and Th e principal routes of this core system are described in partial or total reconstruction from the City’s ongoing Table 6.1.1 and Map 6.1.3 on the opposite page. CSO eff orts. Implementation of the Transporta- tion Element should keep in mind these projects and

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Recommendations

DRAFT124 Table 6.1.2 Core Bicycle System Projects

Project Project Project Name Project Name Number Number B-004 Howard St / St Mary's Ave Bike Lanes B-103 24th St Bikeway Branch B-007 Leavenworth St B-104 Harney St Bikeway (Midtown) B-018 24th St CS-010 24th St B-037 32nd St CS-020 60th St B-041 Woolworth St MP-009 Happy Hollow Blvd B-043 Cuming St MP-010 Paciﬁ c St B-047 Cuming St MP-012 144th St B-049 Wirt St and Bedford St MP-013 Fairacres Trail: Paciﬁ c-132nd B-052 Corby St-Saddle Creek Rd MP-014 Fairacres Trail: West Fairacres Park B-057 Westover Connector MP-019 Field Club Trail Extension II B-065 Saddle Creek Road and NW Radial Highway MP-020 North Omaha Trail B-066 Blondo St/Benson Gardens Blvd MP-023 144th St Multi-Use Path (Ellison to Redick) B-067 Park Ave MP-024 144th St Multi-Use Path (Larimore extension) B-100 Harney St Bikeway (Downtown) MP-035 Keystone Trail East Phase 2/3 B-101 13th St and Capitol Ave Bikeway Branch RC-002 144th St and Blondo St B-102 13th St and Cass St Bikeway Branch

Map 4.2.1 Candidate Roadways for Road Diets

4-lane to 3-lane diet candidate (ADT less than 25,000 vehicles per day) 6-lane to 5-lane diet candidate (ADT less than 35,000 vehicles per day) City/County Water

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Recommendations

DRAFT125 6.2 Transportation Policy Recommendations

Capital projects may account for the dominant way eventually creates a need for additional transportation that transportation money will be spent in Omaha, but infrastructure capacity, but transportation planning they must also be supported by reform to local policies struggles to program projects to meet the needs of new on how transportation investments are made, how development if that development does not expand in a planning eff orts should integrate transportation into systematic, managed manner. other elements of Omaha, and how Omaha needs to work with partner agencies to achieve outcomes over Th is approach is also tied to a better understand- which it is not solely in control. ing of the true needs for maintenance. At present, Omaha does not maintain a comprehensive inventory Maintenance and a “Fix-It First” of infrastructure conditions in order to understand Approach maintenance priorities. It has also advanced Th e City of Omaha has experienced a steady extension maintenance projects that include capacity additions. of its regular roadway infrastructure maintenance cycle While there is a valid case to be made for consolidating over the last several years, due largely to declines in construction and maintenance eff orts to a single project revenue from declining property values and tax base in to be executed, this should only be done when there is a the wake of the 2008 recession. Capital improvement demonstrated need for capacity additions or other new funds have remained committed to construction of new roadway construction. infrastructure and addition to capacity. Bicycle Project Commitment and Plan Th is plan recommends the adoption of a ‘Fix-It First’ Refi nement policy in which keeping existing infrastructure and As stated previously, many of the recommended bicycle maintenance at a state of good repair is prioritized over projects from the plan development process that are the addition of infrastructure capacity. Th is will be a discussed in Section 4 do not appear in the prioritized critical policy for the ongoing repair and replacement capital projects list. Th ese include many neighborhood- of Omaha’s bridges, many of which are structurally specifi c projects and short-extent projects such as B-015 defi cient, functionally obsolete, or both. Taking such (the Sprague Street bicycle connection between Paxton an approach reduces future maintenance costs, helping Boulevard and 16th Street), B-019 (33rd Street between to ease the City’s backlog of maintenance needs and the Creighton Boulevard trail and Cuming Street, circumventing future cost increases to maintenance and Project B-053 (the Mercy Street bicycle route). projects and programs. Nonetheless, these should all remain valid concepts for the City of Omaha to pursue on an opportunity basis Th e success of such an approach, of course, is closely and as a secondary priority to the completion of a core tied to an eff ective land use policy to control the system. expansion of development. Omaha’s westward growth has historically been made possible by extensions To this end, a map of the recommended bicycle system of its trunk sewer lines. Th ese have been extended should be integrated into all capital works discussions to accommodate large expansions of developed and plans so that opportunities for adding to this larger area, sometimes resulting in ‘leapfrog’ development desired bicycle network can be identifi ed early and in which certain parcels of land not adjacent to integrated into the project development process. existing development will be developed. As with any development, this generates traffi c impact and

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Recommendations

DRAFT126 Th e City of Omaha should also continue to revise and Th e City should move forward with this study update this bicycle system map, especially the secondary and ensure that the study includes the following priority routes that are not part of the core system of components: capital projects, to ensure that route alignment and special project considerations are consistent with the • Inventory of signal head types and light sources conditions and needs of the surrounding neighbor- (i.e. LED or incandescent sources) hoods and built environment. Updating of the map • Inventory of signal heads per intersection may include a more comprehensive bicycle master plan • Inventory of signal timing plans eff ort, although it is recommended that such an eff ort • Th e possibility of a need for diff erent timing plans continue to focus its identifi cation of projects to be beyond AM and PM weekday peak, mid-day and funded and programmed through a capital improve- nighttime ments budget on a basic core system with citywide • Review of warrants at ‘marginal’ intersections reach. where signalization may no longer be needed

Pedestrian Improvement and Development and Local Street Sidewalk Commitment Network Th e City’s previous policy on sidewalk construc- Many of the recommendations of the Transporta- tion has been that developers or property owners are tion Element, including specifi c projects, are closely responsible for sidewalks. Th is policy model is widely tied with potential economic and land development used throughout the United States and is often favored opportunities and should be advanced hand in hand by public administrators and policy makers as a way of with those opportunities when they are executed. controlling municipal expenses. However, such policies can be diffi cult to enforce, especially in established Applicability of the Street Design neighborhoods where little development activity occurs. Guidelines Th e development of the Transportation Element Th e City of Omaha should commit a certain portion included a separate eff ort to develop a street design of its capital improvement budget to addressing guidance document that is intended to be used sidewalk backlog, both in terms of new sidewalks and to better link City-adopted street standards with maintenance of existing sidewalks. surrounding land use context and to identify acceptable use of fl exibility in street design to navigate the Traffi c Control Infrastructure inevitable design trade-off s that occur in the built Th e City of Omaha has identifi ed a need to study environment. Th e Street Design Guidelines that and refi ne traffi c signal timing and coordination in an accompany the Transportation Element are to be used eff ort to improve vehicle-moving capacity on key city for coordinating the design of new streets with new streets and to reduce vehicle idling and emissions, thus development as well as retrofi ts of existing streets. improving air quality. Th e central goal of this study should be to make Omaha’s traffi c signals more effi cient Coordination with NDOR and the for traffi c operations in order to improve overall traffi c Securing of Design Exceptions fl ow and reduce vehicular traffi c emissions as well as According to state statute, all public roads in Nebraska making signals safer and friendlier for pedestrians . must meet the minimum standards of the Nebraska State Highway Design Manual. Because of right-of- way constraints and competing uses of space on urban streets, there will mostly likely need to be cases where

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Recommendations

DRAFT127 certain design parameters need to use dimensions below Enhancement of Project Selection minimum standards specifi ed in the Highway Design Criteria Manual. Th e Metropolitan Area Planning Agency (MAPA) has recently undertaken a process of advancing and refi ning To address this, the Street Design Guidelines are tied its project selection criteria to have a more systematic to a map of specifi c areas of Omaha where relaxations and defensible approach to projects that are added to from design standards are likely to be needed. Th is is its transportation improvement programs. Th e City fo not intended to constitute a request for relaxations or Omaha should develop a similar approach in order to to suggest that every street in these areas will require a tie implementation of the Transportation Element and relaxation to be built. It is intended, though, to focus the execution of its project recommendations to other street design discussions on context and environmental parts of its Master Plan. characteristics in these areas and to begin laying out a case for why relaxations may be needed.

Refer to the Street Design Guidelines document for more speciﬁ c discussion and a map of applicable areas where design relaxations may need to be sought.

Coordination with State and Federal Initiatives Ongoing implementation of the Transportation Element should be coordinated with larger state and federal programs. One example is the federally-led proposals for a nationwide high-speed rail system in which a Chicago-to-Omaha corridor concept has been included. Should programs and projects such as this advance, project and program recommendations from the Transportation Element that prioritize it.

To ensure this, the Transportation Element recommends a comprehensive review of the prioritized projects list no less frequently than every three years to review new initiatives and opportunities and to identify those projects or policies recommended as part of the Transportation Element that would position Omaha to beneﬁ t from those initiatives. If needed, projects should be assigned a higher priority.

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Recommendations

DRAFT128 6.3 Land Use Policy Recommendations

Th e type of development that would support these require a defi nition of blight for aff ected areas that may goals—and that documents such as Environment be controversial. Omaha and Omaha by Design encourage—is diff erent in nature from the development that has Th e following ideas are possible revenue mechanisms been predominant in Omaha in the previous fi fty the City could use to fund infrastructure needed to years. Fundamental diff erences in land costs, ease of facilitate urban development. Th e intent of exploring land assembly, and construction engineering concerns and adopting these ideas is to provide a way to address mean that infi ll and redevelopment to occur in more the higher costs of land and infrastructure improvement established parts of the city are diff erent from new inherent to urban development while maintaining the greenfi eld development. market feasibility of such development. It has been reiterated throughout the Transportation Master Plan A legal mechanism is already in place to facilitate the process that infi ll development struggles to compete latter—the Sanitary Improvement District (SID) in with new suburban development for this reason. use in unincorporated Douglas County. Th ese have proven to be a highly eff ective means of advancing new New Ideas for Development development and have accounted for a large portion Facilitation of the street, water/sewer, power and park infrastruc- Th ere are several policy-based actions Omaha could ture now in place in the City of Omaha (as the result take to create a level playing fi eld for urban infi ll of multiple annexations of formerly unincorporated development. land). SIDs by themselves do not govern the form and intensity of development, but market preferences and Formation of a Development Authority land development policy have led to the vast majority Current actions taken to promote infi ll and urban of SID applications being in development that is development are usually the responsibility of the City primarily single-use, single-family residential. government itself. Omaha should explore the creation of a separate authority—with legal powers of land Th e other parts of the City of Omaha are diff erent, acquisition, assembly, and bonding—to be dedicated to and they carry an entirely diff erent set of development- development eff orts within the city. Th is development oriented conditions. Yet they do not have the same set authority could also administer TIF districts. of tools to help ensure that development can happen. One reason for the SIDs’ eff ectiveness is their ability Business Improvement Districts to transfer the costs of infrastructure from developers Already in place to some degree, business improvement to purchasers of property in new development. Th e districts allow collection of additional property tax older parts of the city where redevelopment is the likely and use the revenue generated for infrastructure means of change do not currently have a means of improvements and aesthetic enhancement. A separate doing this easily. Omaha needs a mechanism or series development authority could provide support to the of mechanisms to level the playing fi eld and facilitate improvement districts and help to facilitate infrastruc- the diff erent forms of development more appropriate ture projects with the departments of the City of to the more mature parts of the City. It may currently Omaha that are involved in their execution. designate tax increment fi nancing districts, although these are not widely used and, as is often the case,

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Recommendations

DRAFT129 Strengthening of Tax Increment Financing use for the City Th e City currently has tax increment ﬁnancing available as a means of funding infrastructure and civic improvements tied to development, but its allowed use in Nebraska is somewhat limited relative to other states. Th ere is a nexus between a project’s viability and the ﬁ nancing district that must be proven—in other words, a TIF cannot be created unless it can be demonstrated that a development project would not occur without the TIF. In addition, TIF can only be used in areas that are deemed blighted and substandard. Th e City should explore changes to TIF legislation that lessen these requirements and consider other factors: for example, instead of blight, the City could designate TIF districts based on an overall ratio of land value to improvement value in an area.

Urban Infrastructure Districts A city-oriented counterpart to the SID should be explored, allowing a similar use of bonds repaid by assessment through a homeowner association or through a special property tax levy to provide the infrastructure needs specifi c to infi ll and redevelopment projects. Th ese projects typically do not need the same new infrastructure to be constructed and can benefi t from the existing street, water, sewer and power systems. However, they may need to provide parking (often in more constrained conditions than in suburban Greenfi eld development), assemble land, or add critical open space. As stated previously, they do not have a means of issuing bonds comparable to SIDs to allow this to happen.

Parking Revenue Districts Parking revenue is often used for transportation-specifi c sources, although district-based parking where pricing is based on meters or on vehicle permits and revenue is used for improvements specifi cally in that district should be explored. Th is can provide mutual benefi t for an entire district—such as street and sidewalk improvements—and thus lessen those costs for individual developments.

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Recommendations

DRAFT130 6.4 Policy Action Items

Although this plan outlines several strategic policy a proactive replacement of aged/obsolete infrastructure approaches to realizing plan goals and shaping the rather than a reactive approach of making repairs once Omaha transportation system to fi t its community’s an element fails. needs, there are more concrete policy- and legislation- based actions that the City of Omaha should undertake Like many municipalities, the City of Omaha currently in the short term to equip it to implement the plan makes infrastructure investment decisions reactively. eff ectively. Th ese short-term steps are intended to By conducting a city-wide Infrastructure Survey, City help identify critical defi ciencies in bringing the City’s policy-makers can make better informed through a infrastructure system to a state of good repair but also proactive approach to infrastructure maintenance, and to change the status quo approach to project pursuit ultimately save money by expanding the lifecycles of and development in a way that achieves the Transporta- existing investments before problems begin. tion Element’s goals. Staff Working Group for Comprehensive Infrastructure Study Implementation Th is Transportation Element has been developed with Develop a City of Omaha Staff Working Group to a planning-level analysis of Omaha’s transportation oversee the implementation of the Transportation needs, but did not include a comprehensive assessment Element. Successful models of transportation plan and of the City’s transportation infrastructure system. program implementation have featured a regular group Omaha needs to develop this kind of an assessment to of agency staff representing multiple departments, better understand maintenance needs and to project budgets and interests. Omaha will develop such an funding needs for addressing maintenance into the inter-departmental group to oversee implementation of future. the Transportation Element. Particular representation should include the following: Although a city-wide infrastructure study is a substantial undertaking, it would be an indispensable • Department of City Planning tool for helping to maintain the existing transporta- • Department of Public Works tion investments in Omaha. Recently the City of • Department of Parks and Recreation Minneapolis completed an Infrastructure Survey that • City of Omaha Transit Authority included 89 bridges, 1,286 miles of roadways, 793 intersections of traffi c signals, and 41,000 street lights. Th e need for Omaha’s municipal government Each component was analyzed to determine its existing departments to work together on implementation condition using a pre-defi ned, statistical metric. For of the Transportation Element underscores its focus example, the City visually surveyed every street and on linking transportation to land use, economic assigned each a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) score development, public space and multiple other charges ranging from 0 to 100. Th ese scores were then used of the City’s municipal jurisdiction. to project future roadway conditions based on current funding levels, and analyzed to determine the amount Complete Streets Policy of funding needed to provided necessary maintenance. Th e City of Omaha should advance the recommenda- Th e study serves as a reference for Minneapolis’ tions of the Transportation Element and develop a system-wide infrastructure management, and allows for Complete Streets policy that articulates and codifi ed a

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Recommendations

DRAFT131 formal commitment to use transportation infrastruc- • A separation of detail in which the ture funds to benefi t all users of streets, including legislative elements of the policy, or those that pedestrians, bicycles and transit users of all ages concern elected offi cials and public-policy decision and abilities. Many communities throughout the making, are kept at a high level focused on United States have developed such policies, but they cultural change and community outcomes, and have varied in levels of eff ectiveness and political the detailed technical elements of the policy draw commitment. It is important that Omaha’s policy on the expertise of engineers, planners and other feature the following principal components: specialized professionals. • Realistic expectations on how complete • An articulated vision for what streets are to be delivered to the community, complete streets mean for Omaha. especially in a way that is consistent with the Th is is a necessary fi rst step: the idea of complete articulated vision discussed previously. Not every streets is, by its defi nition, open to interpretation street will have bicycle lanes; not every street will and diff erent constituencies of the community feature wide sidewalks; not every street will be are likely to see it as diff erent things. Th ere a truck route. Instead, the focus should be on is no one-size-fi ts-all defi nition of complete providing for the needs of all users on a systemwide streets; Omaha needs to clearly express what it basis and to ensure that a particular user’s necessary means. At the same time, complete streets does use of all parts of the system is safe and functional. not necessarily mean that each street is designed to accommodate all users, but rather can mean Metro Transit Development Plan that the city will provide a connected network of Metro should use its transit development plan process streets where certain travel types are prioritized on to take a more thorough approach to route and service certain streets in a way that serves the entire city. planning, extensively overhauling the ways that service Defi ning this policy in line with this ‘balanced is provided today. As the land use recommendations network’ philosophy can be something as simple of the Transportation Element are adopted by the City, as providing streets to accommodate travel on each Metro should continue aligning transit service with of the major modes within a half-mile of every areas of greatest need, potential for ridership generation Omaha resident. and ease of transit operations. • A clear intent that Omaha will begin to distribute funding more equitably In particular, the following should be included in to achieve this vision. Th e Transportation Metro’s plan eff orts: Element’s project candidate evaluation process led to a series of recommendations that are signifi - • Identifi cation of potential study corridors for cantly diff erent in their funding balance from the enhanced or premium transit service, such as the balance that is in practice today. It is important Dodge Street/Dodge Road corridor west of the to reiterate that this does not imply that past UNMC Campus policies have been misguided or incorrect in their • Placement of stops and coordination of stop ambitions, but rather that this Transportation locations with potential development sites Element and its associated process of planning and • Frequency of spacing and walk-shed areas community outreach have identifi ed a diff erent place for transportation infrastructure investment within the larger scope of Omaha’s community MAPA Regional Vision planning. As this Transportation Element was being developed, MAPA was preparing to undertake a regional visioning

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Recommendations

DRAFT132 process that would incorporate land use, economic development and transportation concerns. Th e City of Omaha needs to have a coordinated strategy for participation in this visioning eﬀ ort, ensuring that regional transportation priorities reﬂ ect the needs of the City and the intent of the recommendations in this Transportation Element.

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Recommendations

DRAFT133 6.5 Funding Options

One of the greatest challenges Omaha will face in ingly been looking to local option sales taxes to fund implementation of the Transportation Element of its transportation projects. Th ese often garner political master plan is securing funds to pay for recommended support as a clear and simple solution to immediate projects and programs. As recent trends in municipal problems and are expressed in terms of a relatively small funding throughout the United States suggest, Omaha increment of additional cost that is not entirely borne will face challenges in committing to a greater level of out by residents, as visitors often pay this tax as well. transportation funding than it currently commits. Th e following guidelines on the use of sales taxes should Road Pricing and Tolls be kept in mind if the City of Omaha and its region Tolls have long been a means of fi nancing transporta- elect to pursue the creation of such a tax: tion infrastructure, although in the United States they are conventionally levied on high-capacity, limited- • All tax proposals should identify a list of associated access freeways and the revenue from toll collections projects to be funded, at least in part, with the tax. is used to service public debt and fi nance improve- Sales taxes should not be used as an open-ended ments associated with the roadways themselves (and revenue source to be applied to transportation not for a larger transportation system). Typically, toll projects, as it is diffi cult to ensure accountabil- levies are authorized by state legislation and often ity and establish a linkage between the tax and become the responsibility of a stand-alone tollway or its concrete outcomes, especially over periods of turnpike authority. Th e revenues from tolls are used to change in political leadership. supplement the conventional motor fuel tax revenue • Many referendum-based sales tax proposals do used to fund many transportation projects. not pass on the fi rst attempt. In these cases, it is necessary to adjust the proposed set of projects If Omaha pursues development of the region’s Beltway or programs that the tax would fund to increase expressway project, toll programs may be the most the chances of success for future eff orts. It may feasible option to assist in its fi nancing. Th ese would also be necessary to combine the transportation allow not only revenue collection, but would also benefi ts with another type public infrastructure, manage the growth of traffi c volume by distinguish- such as parks and open space. Th ere are often ing this as a premium roadway facility. Th e City and project candidates representing natural intersec- region, in partnership with the Nebraska Department tions between transportation and other planning of Roads and the Iowa Department of Transportation, concerns that can make such a strategy easier to should also consider the use of tolling for strategic present to an electorate. infrastructure such as bridge crossings over the Missouri • Th e tax needs to have a fi nite lifespan, and the River to fi nance future repairs or replacement of these receipts collected during this lifespan must be facilities. able to make signifi cant progress on advancing the projects associated with the tax. Th us it is Sales Taxes for Transportation important for the projects list to remain focused on projects that can feasibly be delivered in a In the wake of recent declines in the conventional ‘user time frame proportional to the sales tax lifespan, fee’ revenues for transportation facilities (especially assuming that the sales tax will not be renewed and motor fuel taxes), metropolitan regions and local that committed projects must be seen through to governments across the United States have increas- completion with one form of funding or another.

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Recommendations

DRAFT134 Use of Parking Districts and Business Project Right-Sizing Improvement Districts Another means of reserving funds for extended use Revenue from metered or priced parking is generally on projects is the ‘right-sizing’ of projects, or the applied more broadly to transportation improvements adaptation of a project’s scope and overall cost to meet in the United States, especially at the municipal level the true transportation need. Transportation projects where it is collected. Th e San Francisco Municipal that result in roadway widening or other capacity Transportation Authority, created in 1999 as an addition sometimes come about from responding to a amalgamation of the City’s erstwhile transit agency need to resurface a road, repair crumbling shoulders or and parking authority, uses a combined revenue system to add intersection-specifi c capacity in the form of turn from transit fares, parking and other sources in a more lanes. equitable distribution of transportation funding. Its example is not universally applicable, especially to Omaha will take a more systematic approach to smaller cities with fewer physical constraints and less defi ne and develop projects based on their response scarcity of parking facilities, yet it is a worthwhile to true need, thus conserving resources to be used on model to consider due to its integration of revenue other projects. Projects defi ned in the City’s Capital from parking. Improvements Program as ‘upgrading’ streets to a greater level of vehicle-carrying capacity need to provide Th e City of Baltimore has recently begun funding justifi cation of a need for that capacity. transit operations to supplement those off ered by its larger transit service provider, the Maryland Transit Administration, through an added tax on parking. Th e City-funded Charm City Circulator off ers service to major destinations in and around the city’s central business district. Service is fare-free and runs at frequencies superior to those on MTA routes.

Demand-Responsive Parking Pricing Although a part of a larger move to better utilize parking revenue, the actual pricing of parking can result in a more eff ective revenue collection outcome by tailoring price to time-specifi c demand. Th is usually results in a series of price levels across diff erent parts of a city and throughout diff erent times of the day, but it uses price as a mechanism of better equating supply with demand (and in so doing off ers increased potential for revenue collection, especially in places where parking is priced below a feasible market level).

To a large degree Omaha is already practicing this type of pricing: metered street parking carries a higher cost in the entertainment and retail districts of the Old Market and Midtown Crossing than it does in other parts of Central Omaha.

Omaha Master Plan - Transportation Element Recommendations

DRAFT135