Omaha Master Plans

Generic Statements

For example, here are a few quotes from the Concept Element:

• "Omahan’s should continue to work to make their city a safe place to live, work, and visit." (page 8)
• "Throughout the city and its jurisdiction, Omaha will continue to require adequate streets which promote transportation efficiency, reduce congestion and limit access points." (page 42)
• "Future development should provide for bikes, pedestrians, and mass transit" (page 43)
• "Overall transportation planning for the city should include planning for an improved mass transit system and alternative modes of transportation." (page 43)

Who can argue against such statements? And who can argue that these statements have an impact on the City's decisions? Most of them state what Omaha should do (rather than what it will or must do), or include words that are up to interpretation (such as "adequate streets" or "transportation efficiency").

A Framework, not a Strategic Plan

At best, the Master Plan sets a framework for decision making with zoning, land use, urban design, and many other tools. But it is not a strategic plan. For example, these statements are not found in the master plans:

• East-West cycling and pedestrian corridors will be established from downtown to midtown (on Harney street) and from mid town to Aksarben (on Leavenworth). Zoning will be used to promote dense areas of shopping and restaurants along those corridors.
• East-West transportation will be eased by designating additional motorist corridors and adding additional lanes for commuter traffic.

Both of these could be considered a strategic plans or visions, both in opposition to each other, and both too specific for the master plan. It's up to the Mayor or other City leaders to state and implement those kinds of visions or strategic plans using the framework of the Master Plan.

The vision in the City Master Plans are a collection of recommendations and must be supplemented by a strategic plan from the Mayor or other City leaders.

Ignored Recommendations

A few of the recommendations in the Concept Element are actionable, but ignored:

• As the city grows, it will continue to create and expand an interconnected park system linked by recreational trails that utilize the city’s creek and boulevard networks...
• The City will promote street systems, such as “dense street networks” ...
• To provide transportation (bikes and pedestrian movement) and recreation alternatives, Omaha’s major activity centers will be interconnected by the linear trail system...

Unlike the statements quoted above, the wording is that the city will take these steps. It would be easy enough to follow through and develop metrics to rank CIP projects (miles of trails that connect the city park system, miles of streets serving dense networks, miles of trails connecting major activity centers, etc).

The fact that the ranking is not happening tells us that the City is not following the Master Plans.

Action

• The City should gather the obvious enforceable Master Plan statements and turn them into metrics for ranking CIP projects.
• The City should re-frame the Master Plan's role as a framework and tools to a better City.
• Each administration should formulate a strategic transportation plan to guide the CIP project selection, rather than hide behind the Master Plans and pretend that the transportation projects follow a vision.
• The City should condense and simplify the Master Plans to avoid contradictions, overlaps and and make them part of the decision process rather than vague, lofty goals.